Flying Scotsman

Is the "OOG" issue not so much the physical size but the area of the theoretical kinematic envelope? That would explain why she is permitted to pass 'tight' locations at slow speed, when side movement would be expected to be much less.

 

I'm not sure where you get your information from that the NRM want it in apple green, they are a museum with a remit to inform and educate. There may be a plan to go back to single chimney and LNER green but I haven't heard about it.

 

I have already been "taken to task" about this post last night by one of your mod colleagues.
Have already also had a PM battle with said person as well.
I have also explained the reason behind the post as well, I do not intend repeating myself.
What's this anyway? Mod attack buseng day(s)?
One last night, you earlier today & again now.
Getting a bit tiresome now.

 

Didn't know there was a college for training mods!......................

 

Reading Big Al's post I can't see where he is attacking you - perhaps you could point this out for me?

Seemed like a genuine offer to explain the situation in response to your question.


Keith

 

That's something I wondered.

At least one NRM (or ex-NRM?) bod posts from time to time, and it occurred to me that he might be able to put paid to some of the theories

 

No-one seems to have considered Bob Meanley's report on the state of Flying Scotsman which many may find has some relevance to the current discussion - especially his considered thoughts on how to operate the loco once it returned to main line action.

 

Where might I find a copy of this report please Fred?

 

Thanks for that insight, which I guess is not really a suprise, but it does eliminate one possibility for the disparity in performance.

Fire risk is my current favourite.

 

Report available at : http://group.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/flying_scotsman_report_october_2012.pdf

 

Hi Fred, thanks for making the link to this report available. It makes fascinating if sobering reading. I didn't find much in it about operating the engine once it was back on the mainline other than by inference that it had been pushed hard - possibly too hard, and the boiler overstressed to deliver the high power outputs demanded before the NRM bought it. Whether this contributed to more and worse cracks appearing in the frames is also a matter of conjecture. Although the "super A3" that was around in the early 2000's was an exciting engine to travel behind, the combination of the higher pressure A4 boiler and big cylinders produced a demand for steam that went beyond anything that perhaps Sir Nigel ever envisaged.

If the result of the rebuilt engine is that it is used on duties where it is not "over stressed" then hopefully this means it remains reliable and reasonable to maintain for as long as possible. If that means a diesel on the back to provide protection and assistance at keeping out of the way of the increasingly fast and busy railway, so be it.

This a large and complex subject - thanks again for the pointer to the report.

Mike

 

Try this,

http://www.nrm.org.uk/~/media/files/nrm/pdf/commercial/nrm flying scotsman final report.pdf?la=en

 

Thanks Keith - perhaps even more interesting despite the lengthy redactions. It more or less confirms my previous conclusions but makes a lot of sense about how the operations of FS should be managed into the future. Often I found myself reflecting on Clan Line and how that team already seem to have adopted most of the recommendations with the results that are generally acknowledged. I am sure there are a number of other preserved engines and their support groups who have a similar approach and ethic. Above all we need to remember these are, with the exception of Tornado, at least 60 years old and mostly much older pieces of engineering that were deemed to be life expired a long time ago - we are so lucky they are still with us but we need to start treating them like the slightly elderly ladies they are - otherwise they will be gone as no-one else has the deep pockets of the NRM.
Thanks again,

Mike

 

Hi all

I'm looking at viewing the Scotsman working hard up a bank or incline on tomorrow's trip, anyone got any ideas please?

 

Thanks Keith - that was the link I had been thinking of hence apologies for advising the wrong link - although the Meanley report did have interesting (and relevant) comments to make

 

As far as I know metal does not get weaker with age unlike old ladies, it only suffers from wear and tear. If these parts are replaced with the same standard of metal as it was built with, it surely must be as good as new. New machines will last longer if treated with care the same as one repaired /rebuilt .

 

Which brings me back to an area of concern that I have with today's situation. With the rundown of the British Steel industry and the increasing use of foreign steel I wonder how much of the material is to the same standards as the previous BS approved standards used when steam locomotives were first built. I understand that the steel is reported to be of "equivalent" quality but, given that the railway environment is a harsh one and quickly identifies any weaknesses in material quality, I wonder if same and equivalent are sufficiently different that different operating methods need to be applied to main line steam running.

 

I would think that large users of steel in the UK would have a quality control department who would check all the standards .Also the same I hope would apply to the groups in the process of building" new build" locos with the quality of steel for the frames. Yes there is some low quality made tools in DIY stores but that seems to be a lot better than 10 years ago.
A few nights ago on the local news, it was reported that a Milton Keynes area company had won a contract to replace all of the British Army tank turrets on a certain type .Contract should last 5 to 8 years. All material's would be sourced in the UK ,was quoted by the manager.I think the quality of steel for this would be better than first class.