Flying Scotsman

Why? It doesn't sound like it has been the boiler that has been the primary cause of all the problems, but rather the bottom end.

Tom (another one...)

 

One thing that would be interesting to see broken down is exactly where the money has actually gone, with over £2m spent (and assuming that much of the NRM labour is volunteer) a hell of a lot of money has gone to contractors/suppliers somewhere?

Something useful that SR could investigate rather than the normal posturing.

 

"In particular, as of January 2008, the believed cost of £800,000 for Tornado's brand new boiler from Germany was less than the latest NRM budget of £850,000 for restoring Flying Scotsman's A3 boiler" is something I read on Wikipedia. I know you can't trust Wikipedia but it is referenced. Surely there are benefits of a new boiler?

regards Tom

 

Assuming that is true, you are still only looking at a £50k saving - a trifling amount in the scale of things. Obvious advantage in the fact that you have effectively "reset the clock" back to zero in terms of boiler life, but against that has to be weighed the remit of a museum to try to preserve as much as possible of the fabric of its items, rather than replace: the priorities of a museum owner would be subtly different to those of a pure commercial owner.

And, assuming the £2m figure is right, the boiler still represents a minority of the money spent. If Steam Railway really wanted to earn their journalistic stripes, they might care to investigate whether rebuilds and modifications to the engine in the late 1990s / early noughties that upped the weight by a few tons and significantly increased the TE by perhaps 25% (from about 32,000lbs to nearly 40,000lbs as I believe), and then operation of the loco on duties that fully utilised that extra oomph, were perhaps not in the best interests of an 80 year old machine that had frames that were never designed to absorb such forces.

Tom

 

I doubt much of Scotsman is original anyway (although i know notging on the subject). Well it could lower the cost of future overhauls I was thinking, maybe we should all be looking more to the future. My point is of what benefit is keeping an original boiler if it costs the same... It's not something you can physically see? And any future savings can be put into restoring other locomotives or keeping Scotsman in steam?

 

didnt A3 have A4 boilers in BR days james thats late 60. FISH7373 81C

 

But not, as I believe, with 250psi pressure - the boilers were downrated to 220psi. And not with bored-out cylinders. Flying Scotsman as running in the 90s / noughties was effectively a souped up "turbo A3" - which might have been great for those aficionados of locomotive performance, but perhaps not so great for the integrity of the locomotive.

A locomotive designer has to do three things:

- Provide a boiler to generate steam sufficient for the duties envisaged
- Design a front end that can efficiently use that steam
- Design the locomotive mechanically to be able to absorb the forces thus generated

Get any one of those things out of kilter with the others and you are looking for trouble. We all know that, when first built, the front end of the A1 wasn't up to the capabilities of the boiler, with the result that the locomotive was sluggish and uneconomic. Locomotive trials with Pendennis Castle, and subsequent redesign of the valves and steam passages saw to that problem and resulted in an efficient design with boiler, cylinder and frames all in equilibrium. But my contention is that what happened in the 1990s saw the capabilities of the boiler to generate steam, and the cylinders to use it, got out of kilter with the capabilities of the frames to absorb the resultant forces. In other words, the loco became too powerful for its chassis. The subsequent problems with the frames stem from that time, or at least were exacerbated by that makeover.

Tom

 

Probably one of the best posts of the 1844 in this thread, Tom. Hit the nail on the head, methinks.

 

Nail Head On The Hit........................................................................................

 

Sounds like it. Which does raise questions about those who undertook the "Turbo A3" conversion!

For me, I'll be delighted to see it back as an A3, and presumably, loaded as a "Class 7 & a bit". And when it's all worked through and up and running, NatPres and the comics can get back to the really important arguments about the livery and tender....

Tobbes

 

Thanks book worms for the info on this; probably we did nock the ars out of it if you say so, again thanks, FISH7373 81C

 

Well, that's quite statement. Would certainly be interesting if one of our major magazines (are you reading this, editors?) chose to look into that period of Scotsman's history, and in particular who was responsible for the decision to make such fundamental design changes to the locomotive, and what sort of engineering assessment they undertook before doing so.

I can't think of another standard gauge locomotive that has had such profound changes in preservation that effect its performance beyond what it was designed to achieve: maybe 71000, but the changes made to that engine really had the effect of getting the performance up to what it had been designed to produce, not going well beyond what its design capability was.

Tom

 

Tom, your last 3 posts are top draw and as already mentioned, more than likely "Nail Head On The Hit............................................... ......................................... "

Fish7373 will obviously stand and fight his cornor and nothing wrong with that being associated to that part of Southall but in their defence, I wonder if they realised that the changes made to 4472 at the time would have such a major effect a short amount of years later?

 

"In particular, as of January 2008, the believed cost of £800,000 for Tornado's brand new boiler from Germany was less than the latest NRM budget of £850,000 for restoring Flying Scotsman's A3 boiler" is something I read on Wikipedia. I know you can't trust Wikipedia but it is referenced. Surely there are benefits of a new boiler?

Tornado's boiler and firebox are all-steel whereas 4472's is steel with a copper firebox. There's a fair bit of experience to show that a steel firebox will last one, perhaps two ten year tickets before needing repalcement whereas a copper one might last three or four tickets. As I understand it, 4472 now has an all-new copper firebox that should last a long time before needing serious work or replacement. It will only be at that point that it will be possible to say which was the best way to go. In my view, for what it is worth, it was right to retain 4472's Doncaster built boiler and re-life it with a new firebox. It is more in keeping with the history of the loc and has helped to keep the skills of building copper fireboxes alive, for the benefit of most heritage locos in this country.

 

Tom rightly alludes to a point which was hardly a secret of history for those (allegedly) responsible for producing a "super-A3". Townend in his book "Top Shed" mentions that whilst A4 frames rarely gave trouble, many A3's going through works had to be fitted with new three-quarter frames, the feeling being that the frames flexed slightly in service. Indeed Townend mentions that for some years Doncaster kept available a spare Pacific chassis made up with cylinders for the next loco that came in requiring extensive frame repair.
One can imagine that increasing the tractive effort on an A3 would not be condusive to maintaining frame integrity.

 

So for the record, Fish7373 - do you believe that the team who maintained and operated Flying Scotsman during that period did "nock the ars out of it" or not? Because that is the interpretation I got from your post.

If you believe that that team didn't "nock the ars out of it" then fine, though in that case, I'd also be interested to know on what engineering advice it was felt that the frames could cope with the extra stresses from a 25% higher TE than it was designed for, especially given the known limitations of A3 frames, as mentioned by 46118.

Tom

 

NO i am not saying we nocked the ars out of it, people on the web are saying we over mod it to turbo A3 and nocking the ars out of it, plus how many times did the loco fail in southall hands and how many miles the loco did, on the vsoe . FISH7373 81C

 

Could someone point me to where Flying Scotsman had a significant amount of running time between her 1999 overhaul at Southall, and being sold to the NRM in mid to late 2004?

I'd also be interested to learn how David Ward can justify his figures of 28,000 miles with only two casualties on the mainline between 2000 and 2004, in issue 170 of Heritage Railway.

Tornado has since her main line debut in 2009, done over 61,000 miles. That's roughly double Flying Scotsman's purported figure for four years work on the mainline against Tornado's four (2009/10/11/12).

It would also be an interesting exercise to see what mileages were done for other mainline steam locomotives in the period 2000-2004, against the cost of their overhauls.

The more I look at the known facts of the Southall overhaul, the more I want to know why the railway magazines were not lining up to ask why they were putting the locomotive's A4 boiler back to 250lb, and why they were not asking if this, and boring out the cylinders, weren't going to cause more damage along the way.

I've said enough on the cost of the overhaul to last me a lifetime, so I'll simply ask: what exactly, other than the boiler being pressed to 250lb and the cylinders rebored, was done by Southall in that 1999 overhaul, in light of the depth of problems found in the hornblocks, frame alignment, driving wheels, axles, brakes on tender and locomotive, mudhole doors on the boiler being welded up, and many other problems reported by the railway magazines in the course of the current overhaul?

A sincere question for information, may I add, rather than wishing to fuel or fan any flames.

 

I wonder if they were more enamoured with the prospect of a "Super A3" than wondering about the consequences of the modifications.