Flying Scotsman

The NRM tried running it like that in August 2005 between York and Scarborough.
The problem of drifting exhaust from the double chimney (the reason they were fitted in the first place) meant they they had to be refitted.

 

Mr Townend had something to say about that at the time I recall.

 

But would returning to a single chimney obviate that, despite the technical issues?

 

And the NRM certainly wasted a lot of time and money on it, necessitating a report.

An ex-colleague of mine often opines "That's what happens when you let a load of arts graduates manage an engineering project."

 

Which I believe was aimed at me, and as I clarified, was never about taking it back to 1930s condition.

 

It would help but if the wind is strong enough and in the right direction, any loco can suffer from drifting exhaust and visibility issues unless it’s working quite hard.

 

Another question to raise, in the question of potential reduced efficiency etc...

Does anybody have figures for the amount of tours hauled by No. 60103 since returning in 2016, and then of those numbers, have had a diesel at the rear?

 

I don’t think that will prove anything, the diesel is more often there for shunting purposes, as the flexibility of the network has been reduced and the leaf fall season didn’t apply so much in the early years

 

I'm not saying it proves the ability to perform under current arrangements, but that there is the option that the regularity that it appears with a diesel on rear presents the oppurtunity for assistance if it were to be in a less efficient form? It seems to still sell out every train it runs, regardless of diesel on rear, afterall?

 

What technical issues? In preservation Flying Scotsman ran with a single chimney from ‘63 to ‘93 without the need for smoke deflectors. One of the main reasons for fitting the double at that time was the single-chim was worn out and Roland Kennington had a spare double casting which he’d found in someone’s back garden.

Many other single-chimney locos operate on the main line to this day.

 

But running it with a double chimney sans deflectors causes problems with visibility (which I’d say is a pretty important safety consideration, especially on the big railway) there was a reason they were fitted in the first place.

This is all getting rather repetitive, tedious and boring.
There’s only so many times I can read about ‘60103 should have it’s single chimney and apple green reinstated because I like it like that’

If really is that much of a big deal, come up with a funding plan, have a chat with the Science Museum, Riley’s, VAB’s etc and see if something can be done.
Sometimes if you want something to happen you have to make it yourself.

 

The main thing that strikes me is Flying Scotsman is an icon as 4472 in apple green, a single chimney and no smoke deflectors. As 60103 with double chimney and smoke deflectors, she looks the part as an A3 in the 1960's, but an icon? No, I'm afraid I don't see that, and I think the public agree. More times than not when in a crowd watching 60103 pass by, there is always a comment, why's it that colour and got those things on the side?

My gut instinct is she will stay in her current BR double chimney until her ticket is up, at which point she'll be retired to York and she'll return to her iconic Pegler form.

@Matt37401 says this is about how "you" want it, but I think that with 4472 it is more about what the "people" want, given it is "their" engine.

Change is also a good thing in this case I think. It's now, what 30 years since we've seen 4472 in single chimney form?

 

Couldn't agree more. Without Yeadon to hand, did it run in Express Passenger Blue? Now that would make a change if it did.

I far prefer it like it is now and I've seen it in both forms; the first time I saw FS it was as 60103 back in the early 80s. Later I saw it as 4472 and I have fond memories of my sister and mother waving at it as it passed "down the brickyards" one summer evening

 

This business of running without smoke deflectors seems to be taking on the appearence of something akin to an urban myth. The loco ran without "blinkers" on the NRM's Ride The Legend Excursion to Scarborough for one week in August 2005. This involved two return trips on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, so a total of six trips in high summer when the weather was not inclement so it was hardly a serious test of their effectiveness. I was on the loco as support crew on two of the evening runs and do not recall any undue visibility issues. They were put back on at the end of the week as there was no intention, as I recall, to run without them permanently. Of far greater concern at the time was the fragile state of the boiler and the late Gordon Reed, the NRM's boiler smith, worked long and hard to keep the loco in traffic until the end of the year. I suspect that they were probably removed in the first place to permit some boiler work and left off the no other reason that it might as well run a few trips without them.

And you have to ask just how big a problem is drifting exhaust these days when you have AWS/TPWS to give advance warning of signals etc often before they are sighted. Remember there is always a second competent person (the fireman) on the footplate and if the exhaust is drifting down the drivers side his duty is to keep a lookout on the other side.

As far as I can see there is really no reason why you cannot run the loco without them but equally they are part of the loco's current history. To me they are somewhat unsightly but do not look out of place in its current guise. What is far more important is that the loco is kept operational regardless of how the front end looks.

Peter

 

No, FLYING SCOTSMAN is an icon because it has two name plates on it that say FLYING SCOTSMAN. Take those plates off and it becomes a non-entity no matter what colour it is painted or what number it has.

 

It may be an urban myth but I heard somewhere that the three allocated to Carlisle Canal didn’t get deflectors as the nature of the Waverley route was such that most of the time they were worked on long cutoffs that kept the exhaust high. For the GN road I’m sure there was a problem as the LNER spent a lot of time experimenting with smoke deflection on 2751 Humorist

 

Unfortunately FS attracts people to the lineside who really have no idea how to behave by the lineside. I'd hate aesthetic purity to lead to someone getting injured.

 

I'm sure that there were good reasons for fitting deflectors in the past when signal were still oil lit and there was no AWS and the like. But in the modern context with fewer and brighter LED signals and TPWS being mandatory the difficulties caused by drifting steam is no where near as serious a problem as it was in the railway of old. That is not to say that I'm advocating their removal from the A3 but I believe they are not as essential as they once were.

Peter

 

She didn't revert to 60103 until the early 90s. In the early 80s she was still running as 4472 with single chimney. Did several runs behind her during that period.