Flying Scotsman to visit GCR this Autumn?

An interesting snippet, possibly of the cat out of the bag variety, on page 29 of the Summer 2012 issue of the GCR's house magazine, Main Line -

"BGP 4050
Work on refurbishing this vehicle is almost complete. By the time you read this the first layer of adhesive and the canvas will be on the roof of this coach and it will be complete for the arrival of No. 4472 Flying Scotsman from the NRM later this year. We plan to run both the LNER RB 24278 and the BGP with Flying Scotsman and we will be working with the GCR to promote the railway and RVP during the visit."

I shall certainly be looking forward to this, if true...

Cheers,
Mick

 

IF, of course, 4472 is finished by then......................:flypig:

 

Perhaps the work on BGP 4050 has included installing a diesel power unit,
so they can propel 4472!!!

 

Just like a main line steam railtour then!

 

It is interesting that the NRM are prepared to put 4472 on a low loader at such an early stage, given some ealier suggestions that some of the rectification work now being carried out followed road transport! Perhaps the damage wasn't caused by loading/offloading after all.

 

Well, it's got to go from Bury to York and back by low loader for Railfest; so is there really an issue here?

 

More likely the £££ raised from such preserved line visits more than covers the cost of the wear and tear inflicted by them.

 

I'm at a loss to understand how using a low loader for a few road journeys could lead to fatigue cracking in so many places. I'd think the stresses of pounding steel rails for a few years would make being carried on a nice soft low loader feel like a feather bed. It sounds like someone was trying to find excuses for the damage.

 

Its easier to understand if you ever get the chance to watch a low loader loading or unloading a steam loco, the gradients used to get them on and off, out of necessity are short and steep and the and the changes in gradient are almost instant rather than gradual over many feet like on a normal lines, its at these points of changes of gradients that extra pressure can be put on certain axles and taken off others by their current position on the ramp and by extension, the frames near to where the most stressed axles are located.

Think of the overhanging Bus at the end of the Italian Job, the back wheels overhanging are taking no weight while the front wheels as a result are taking the entire weight, far more than intended in the design and causes slow but sure issues.

Bit of a daft path to go down to explain it, but hopefully it makes it easier for some to get their head round.

 

Thanks, I can see what you mean, and if the frames bent, or bolts/rivets/springs snapped due to the odd force distribution, I would agree, but frame cracking is generally the result of cyclic loading leading to fatigue.

If it was low loaders causing the problem, the locos should never have had cracked frames etc in BR service, as they were not transported by road.

Considering the number of locos transported by road nowadays - if road transport really did cause that much damage I reckon a lot more locos would be out of action.

 

Although the cracking was identified after transporting by road, I don't think the two were necessarily related. In fact, I think statements were made saying that there was no link between the cracks and the road transport, but I may be wrong on that.

Richard

 

To be honest, it usually takes going on and off low loaders many, many times before any real issues are caused, if you do it occasionally you might get away with it, but more frequent loading/unloadings make the issues more liable to happen, given 4472 has taken on pretty much all of the UK in Preservation this is perhaps not a suprise.

As for frame cracking in BR service, while low loaders can contribute to this, they are not the sole cause which explains why it happens in BR days, im not an engineer so can't explain fully why it happened in normal service, but I'd imagine things like bouncing around on dipped rail joints and poor track/pointwork and possible uneven springing in some cases over a number of years could of contributed.

To an extent it's the same with a Car - if you hit enough or a big enough pothole, you'll knacker your suspension.

 

You write as if frame cracking was the norm. It is/was not. The vast majority of frame cracking was down to poor design and weak points on the frames. Look at the difference between the A1/A3 and A4 classes. The former had problem frames, the latter had very few problems. The classic example of frame cracking problems is the Stanier Class 5. The first 450 or so were plagued with frame cracking. The thickness of the frame plates was then increased twice and some design alterations were made on the rest of the Class, virtually eliminating the frame cracking problem on the later 400 locos.

 

I knew I forgot something.....

I was thinking so hard about trying to make a reasonable explanation I forgot to add it wasn't common.

 

Well ain't they taking the bloody thing apart after railfest to finish it ?

 

You're not wrong.

 

A bit similar to when wheelsets are removed on a wheeldrop, isn't it? All that load then carried on a couple of axles. Are you saying that this is bad practice, as well?

 

whn

It is more than likely that they will. This will be the second time that the NRM have rushed to re assemble the loco for a publicity stunt rather than concentrating on trying to complete the loco properly.

Maybe if the NRM had spent a little bit more time overhauling the loco properly than pulling publicity stunts like the unveiling of Flying Scotsman when it was incomplete (what a joke!!) then they may have found the defects that Ian Riley has.

It makes you wonder whether the bosses at the NRM should be trusted with a Hornby 00 loco!

 

I agree totally. It is always interrupted jobs that give problems. The only thing in this case is that Riley, as probably the best contractor in the steam loco overhaul business will have kept proper record of the state of play of each job..

 

On the other hand, they've also had to take a lot of flack for not reassembling her for the Fab Four! There's no question that the NRM have, with hindsight, made mistakes in the management of Flying Scotsman's overhaul. But how many of us actually have the qualifications to even manage any locomotive overhaul, let alone one as extensive as 4472's?
I think the only person who has any right to criticise York is Ian Riley. Unlike the rest of us, he's actually proved that he really can do a better job himself!