6100 Royal Scot

I think it's clear that the project had been going wrong before it was moved to Southall, indeed the move to Southall was prompted by this. But, having arrived at Southall, it just got worse.

I wish the current keepers of the engine the best, they are going to need it; this is going to be a long, hard and expensive restoration.

Regards

 

I wonder if this is a curse for Scots ? 6115 had it's own issues in the 1970s and it's 1990's overhaul took forever.. maybe Scot's are just mainline shy ?

--> Edit: this is meant to be a bit light hearted.[smilie=mylove.gif] apologies to those who follow odd folk in Derby who couldnt count and stuck an odd number of cylinders in their design of engine.

 

WCRC would argue otherwise...

 

The money Bressingham received was to restore both Royal Scot and the Terrier. Martello was completed on time and within budget by Bressingham themselves. 6100 was shipped out and is over budget and yet to be completed. From what Impala said previously it was not moved because the project was going off track, but because someone had a vested interest elsewhere.

So how that shows it was clearly going wrong in the early stages I don't know.

 

david1984 makes a good point. The "1990's" overhaul floundered because of lack of funds, and once the engine was sold to David Smith at Carnforth was dealt with quickly and thoroughly.
In the 1970's 46115 was put back on the mainline by the Dinting people, but I doubt if the boiler certification requirements were as strict then as they are now. The loco failed with a burst flue tube, fortunately whilst in steam at the Dinting Railway Centre rather than on the mainline, so there is a presumption that a full boiler overhaul had not been undertaken.

Having been given a comprehensive overhaul at Carnforth the engine is a reliable mainline performer, so ADB968008's comments are not really valid, thankfully so!

46118

 

Oh dear...

Ive edited the post to hopefully put the line in the context of the correct conversationalist tone that was intended...


off now to find a hotel bar so I can have a drink in this dry location I am currently occupying.

 

ADB968008:

No worries! You take care out there in all that heat and sand!

I guess the only saving grace with 46100 is that the "issues" are being resolved before it hits the mainline, rather than finding out when it is out there.....

46118

 

There is/was something very dodgey going on when it was at Southall...

 

once again hear we go,can you prove it. fish7373 81c

 

Quite. A fair few people weren't too keen on what could be deemed the whistleblowing aspect of some of his posts, but sometimes the truth hurts.

Having been involved with an loco to which he referred (in a complimentary manner; well, at least complimentary about the loco) a while ago, he was usually pretty close to being correct. Such a shame that it has had to be problems of such magnitude that may lead to some people (not yourselves I hasten to add) realising this.

 

well it looks like impala was on the money, doesnt it, so when are those who rubbished his reported problems going to say sorry, imagine if this engine had not gone to crewe and had somehow gotten on the mainline faults and all , it could have been the nail in the coffin for mainline steam , the anti steam brigade would have had a field day the reported problems with number 19 even though restored at ropley can be clearly put down to the same person or persons involved , and this is a person who is a so called expert in LNER pacifics, it does make you wonder , if you look back at the engines concerned , its all been hi profile locos and organisations with finacial backing and yet the end product never seems to be the quality you would expect for the money spent, with some questionable engineering practices

 

premiture wear on the valve liners, when the cylinder was put back on, the liners were bored out of true and the consulting engineer advising the best practice with 60019 was the same person who oversaw 4472 and 6100 i was not involved with the later stages of 60019's restoration, but there was a lot of questions being asked with the engineering advice that was being given about some parts of the restoration, after all we were not exactly beginners in loco restoration but if my memory serves me right we were advised that some parts were not fit to be used ,but when we had our own engineering team look at it we found that it was repairable ,

 

Yet the owner of 60019 is happy for this overseer to still be involved in the maintainence of the loco. As for Impala's remarks about wrong materials etc. involved in the valve chest liners, I have it in very good authority that Ropley was far from impressed by his utterances.

 

but at the same time there was dis quite about some advice , for instance, we were adviced that she need a new wheel set, because of cracks when they were tested in some spokes, we sorted advice from a senior vab inspector who adviced that a welding repair would be accetable to him and that there was no need to replace the wheel set, the cylinder problem was down to the way the cylinder was aligned when it was put back on, probally incorrect datum marks could have been used ,but i was not there when they were being set up so i cant comment on the real cause

as for your comment about the owner, i would expect that a very close check is being kept on the maintanance this engine gets , ropley was upset about the remarks, yes because they took the advice in good faith , after all if the owner says, i want you to take direction from "x" you have to

 

We're getting off topic here but regarding Impala's accusation that the wrong material was used on 19's valve liners, Ropley poo-pooed this completely. Just one example why those involved with the loco weren't too impressed by what was being said.

 

Maybe they weren't impressed because he was probably correct. Seems a logical reason for the valves wearing out so quickly. I haven't seen the posting you refer to (where is it?), but I find myself wondering if you're bashing another poster for reasons other than accuracy.

 

Well you wonder wrong. When someone comes on here and makes allegations about a locomotive and the owners and operators refute it absolutely and give a full explanation as to why the refute them, then I believe them. Before you say that they haven't said anything on this forum, they simply have no interest in being involved in an internet flame war. Just one example for your digestion :
A quote from Ropley regarding the accusation of incorrect material was that they used the same material on 60019 as they have always used and as they had many thousands of miles of main line and heritage railway experience under their belts without similar trouble, they considered that their choice of material was the right one.