Flying Scotsman

From the NRM's Flying Scotsman pages:


22 February 2011
We're pleased to announce that Flying Scotsman’s boiler has successfully passed both its hydraulic test and out-of-frames steam test following restoration work at Riley & Son Ltd.

Nearly 13 months later............

 

I see your point, but the loco has had so many bits changed already, if the mod could be made and it saves the frames, it's worth it. Don't forget it now has the later type of main frame stretcher fabricated and fitted. I'm all for any internal/hidden mod that improves either the performance or the longevity. I tend to take the view that the mods made up to withdrawal are all valid A3 details, including A4 boilers, and any reasonably hidden mods that could have been made if the A3s had remained in service for say another 5 to 10 years would be valid for Scotsman.

 

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. I just don't get what all the froth and fuss is about sometimes. Maybe they (NRM) should've stuffed and mounted it, and built a replica. I know it's not what people wan't but given the protracted overhaul, it probrably would have been cheaper. Could you imagine the controversy and crys of indignation then.....

 

I think it is reasonable to question the management of the project seeing that work that was done by the NRM team is now having to be re-done. It should have been put out to private tender in the first place.

The other point is that the NRM have done themselves no favours with their secrecy, this is a publicly funded project on on publicly owned item and if there have been mistakes made by public servants then they must answer for it, with their jobs if necessary.

I am sick and tired of waste and incompetence in the public sector which then gets swept under the carpet.

 

Is the problem with work done by the NRM team, or problems missed by the NRM team?

If the problem is work done by NRM, It's fairly clear cut, but if it is problems not spotted by the NRM, it is essential to know what the brief given to the workshop and why - ie, was it " assume nothing is acceptable" or " assume the previous rebuilds were thorough".

It seems as if most of the problems are the result of botched or careless work in the past.

 

I quote the statement: Although many of these setbacks could not have been foreseen and are part of the nature of a project of this kind, the Director of the National Railway Museum has launched an internal investigation that is currently underway to examine all engineering aspects of the project and to identify any lessons that can be learnt for future projects.

I venture to suggest it is only fair to await the outcome.

 

Anthony, your willingness to come on, and inform us at any stage is to be commended.

As you say, the answers to why the project has been beset by problems could probably make a good book!!!

However im sure when finished the loco will be a credit to all concerned. Better to get it right first time on the mainline, than continual snagging.
In that respect IRE have a great reputation for delivering a piece of kit out of the works, ready to go.

Best of wishes for 2012, and lets see 4472 when she is ready, better to wait for the right job to be done.

 

As the investigation is internal, I do wonder just how much of the resulting report will be made public.

 

Talking about boilers I hear the ex A4 boiler that was on Scotsman and sold to JH has now been overhauled and is ready to be put on to 60019 Bittern when required. I been told this should happen some time next year.

 

The joy of FOI, not to mention Ministerial and Parliamentary oversight, is that it's a damned site harder to sweep anything under the carpet in the public sector, unlike the private sector. There's waste and incompetence in all walks of life - after all, it was the private sector banks that are largely responsible for the current worldwide economic mess - the public sector just has to be more open and accountable (rightly), so makes itself an easy target.

Back to Flying Scotsman, she's been with Ian Riley for most of the last 18 months now, from memory, and even they're still identifying problems despite spending so long with the loco. If the Rileys can miss things, over such a long period, surely anyone can….

The one downside of the Internet age is that things like this would have gone largely unnoticed in days gone by, but now the appetite for information, and analysis of every minor announcement and milestone, is constant. I suspect that many earlier restorations had delays and problems, but no one ever knew about them.

Simon

 

When York first bought 4472, they thought they were getting an engine only 5 years into its ticket, and even when they started to overhaul it, i would bet they were not expecting it to be as bad as it turned out to be, Riley&Co dont tend to miss things, so i would have expected that they have gone through it with a fine tooth comb, and thank goodness they have, otherwise what would it have done to the reputation of the NRM had it returned to traffic with the faults still there? and probally been failed early into its new ticket

 

What nobody knows is "How long have the frame faults existed and how many years it has actually run with them?"

 

Another problem to beset 4472. I think it's far too early to be asking questions and apportioning blame let alone making FOI requests. She's an 89 year old locomotive with engineering faults that even the LNER knew about. I am sure when her frames were cut back in 1923 that nobody at Doncaster would have thought that she would still be active on the mainline at this age. Metal is metal, it corrodes, it stresses and eventually it cracks. Wiggle a piece of steel one way then the other for long enough and see what happens. Now up-scale that to frequent 100mph running with 3 cylinders pulling those frames about, it was a given that eventually something would go wrong.

Let's also not kid ourselves, as these great machines get older we will see more and more problems occurring of this nature. The old Rodney / Del Boy sketch about a broom that was 30 years old which had, in its life, gone through 17 heads and 13 handles (or something like that) springs to mind.

4472 has had a busy life with a number of owners who ploughed vast sums of money to save the engine and then constantly repaired and overhauled her. Some overhauls / repairs will have been more thorough than others after all Tony Marchington reportedly spent £1.2m on the overhaul under his stewardship.

For now all we can do is praise the NRM and Riley & Son for their hard work. Anthony is keeping us informed of progress although some more technical info would be nice if only to lay the foundation of knowledge for future work on 4472 or other locomotives. Let us not forget, without the two organisations involved there would be no national collection and far fewer locos overhauled to Riley's standards out on the mainline today (let alone maintaining the skills required to repair and maintain locos and stock).

*runs for cover*

Dave

 

Probally since it was brought back from Austrailia there are reports that it was rather rough riding then and i would expected that the frame defects were deemed ok to live with if the engineering team even knew about them , after all if your prepared to weld up mud hole doors, what else are you prepared to ignore, or not bother to investigate properly

 

Easy to say with hindsight. As I've said before in this thread, I don't think anybody anticipated just how much work 4472 would need, or how much it would cost. If they'd put it out to tender at the start of the process, the response would have been "why did the NRM waste a lot of money building their own workshop?", or "why is the NRM allowing private companies to profit from work they could do themselves?"

I feel a great deal of sympathy for the NRM team - if I were in charge of Scotsman's overhaul I'd probably be in despair by now. But they've gone much too far to turn back now. However long it takes, however much it costs, whatever nasty surprises might yet be uncovered, they have to see it through.

Yes, it's right and proper that questions should be asked once she's finished. But let's try to keep faith with Riley and his team for a while longer. If anyone can fix Scotsman, he can.

And besides, an A3 on the main line again...that'll be worth it...right?

 

Nor does anyone know how many years it could run still whilst having them.
But it doesn't really look good if a problem is found, publicised and ignored and left to fester for the future... especially to those who sign off the paperwork, nor do problems get cheaper in the long run.

Given the amount of work gone into perfecting this engine.. it would be interesting to compare in A3 in A1 condition to a new A1 once it's up and running.
It Scotsman comes up trumps.. it just shows what time, quality, cost and risk can do !

 

From today's Yorkshire Post.


Flying Scotsman

 

Now there's a surprise............

Strange that 46115 is the replacement, doesn't really have the same significance.

 

Very, id of thought one of the A4's or Tornado would of been a better bet.

 

I wonder, In the fullness of time would you say that the purchase of 4472 was a good move by the NRM or one that should have never been made.

At the time just how serious was the chance that it was going to be taken out of the country , is it more likily that JH would have ended up purchasing it, But then its highly likily that the engine would have ended up still being under the "care" of two certain gentlemen, and that JH would have probally joined the long list of bancrupt former owners .