Flying Scotsman

Better to find the fault now than when she's out & about on the mainline. a lot less egg on face & ridicule from certain quarters, and as the cracks dont appear to be that serious - then as the statement says she'll be fit for decades to come.

I for one am looking forward to seeing her in steam at Barrow Hill (fingers crossed)

 

I'm on about the bad news from NRM that a problem has cropped up. A lot of people have put a lot of graft into that locomotive and I feel gutted for them and everybody connected with it.

 

Here's the NRM's own announcement:

http://www.nrm.org.uk/AboutUs/PressOffice/PressReleases/2011/July/scotsmanannouncement

 

Oh! That is such bad luck.... so near and yet so far. I wonder where exactly on the frames these cracks are?

Foxy

 

Posted elsewhere- problem is cracked hornblocks, loco to be lifted next week to remove driving wheels.

 

I wonder if this latest development is anything to do with hauling the loco off and on lorries for transport and is therefore a recent problem?

Otherwise, someone is bound to ask why these cracked hornblocks were not spotted earlier?

 

what ever the cause, at least the NRM are being open about it so the facts are known to all and sundry rather than have people guess and it is reassuring that they are going to ensure she is 100 per cent right before she moves a wheel

 

My thoughts exactly

 

Also, could it not be related to the previous custodians decisions to run the locomotive, out of spec, as a super A3. I heard engineers at the time express reservations about the extra stress the frames were put under by upping the boiler pressure ect.

 

I assume you mean the use of an A4 boiler that presumably was set to 250 lbs during the engine's preservation life, rather than 220 lbs? I would have thought that was only a possible factor if the engine had then been used extensively at high power outputs, which I think would be unlikely.

More likely is the long-term state of the frames under "Scotsman", and how long they had been in BR service since they recieved attention. Reading Townend in "Top Shed" it does appear that when shopped, A3 frames tended to need more extensive repairs than did A4 frames, and a particular problem tended to be the right-hand driving axlebox. He comments that sometimes you could see frames bent slightly inwards at the bottom corner of the hornes. It was thought that the A3 frames flexed slightly in service. With all three cylinders driving the one axle it was difficult to brace the frames adequately immediately in front of the crank axle.

Anyway, easy to speculate from the arm-chair. I am sure Ian Riley and his team will diagnose the problem and sort it quickly.

 

When I first read "frame cracks" I thought it was a little strange. I admit to asking the question at the NRM about the condition of the frames some time ago and apart from the well documented need for some straightening there were, I was informed, only some rolling imperfections that had been there since the frames were assembled. So to have withstood the high power outputs it delivered during the last ticket it must have been put together pretty well. The frames could have been made more rigid from the start but some flexibility was desired as part of the original design but the real difference between the A3 and the A4 is the hornstay design. On the A4 the stay not only closes the horn but it also locks into the frame whereas the original pacifics did not have this feature. I wonder if 4472 has been modified in this regard?

No matter how you choose to look at it, the problem has been found and can be dealt with but I hope the bocks can be repaired (how many are involved?) and that new castings are not required. If they are it is not the end of the world and the engine is in a good place for the work to be done by the parties involved.

 

plus the boring of the cylinders to 19 1/2 inches, increased diameter main steam pipe, smoothed and polished passages...

 

The A3's suffered from cracked frames in their working lives and at major overhauls a spare frame was usually fitted. The Thompson A2's were even more prone to frame cracking being withdrawn earlier. Can't help but agree with the "road transport" theory though, it can't have helped....

 

Was'nt the rolling chassis built up at the NRM? so it could have gone unnoticed by Bury. I am not apportioning any blame....still think the road transport is a pointer.

 

removed

 

I think osprey is correct, the frames were done at the NRM and Rileys built the new firebox and barrel.

Sorry, "extensively overhauled the spare A3 boiler/firebox" ! There must be some of the original still there....

 

Yeah, but while working as a volunteer at Baron street (ELR), i noticed the frames spent a lot of time at Rileys. And although the chassis was rewheeled at the NRM, it was sent to Rileys for the rest of the loco to be put back on it.

Tis a mystery how all this was not spotted sooner

 

The damage was apparently found in June - see NRM site: http://www.nrm.org.uk/AboutUs/PressOffice/PressReleases/2011/July/scotsmanannouncement.
.

 

if it is the loading/unloading on trailers, could anything be done to prevent.
apart from say craning the loco on and off, would measures like removing the coupling rods help?