Flying Scotsman

Absolutely.

I understand what you are saying, but Scotsman is potentially the most potent brand name the NRM has - wherever it will go, it will draw crowds, and it does this best by being in steam. It's a no brainer at this stage of the overhaul to finish it, because it's very likely to make a good amount of the money back from being hired in to other railways, accompanied by a sales team with appropriate merchandise, in a few years time.

I believe in this instance it will help, and it has helped to an extent.

I must quantify my view: I am not against private ownership at all, and I am sure (I know for definite!) there are many locomotive owners who competent, sound individuals, who get the job done and to a high standard. This does not look like it has always been the case with this particular locomotive, and that is why in my view, NRM ownership and the necessity of a degree of transparency regarding its overhaul by way of being a public body, is a positive thing.

The NRM have only clammed up in the last three years due to the sometimes bordering on harassment articles that have been printed in the railway press time and again, by one publication in particular.

I wouldn't disagree that there are occasions when 4472 appears abandoned, but as a semi-regular visitor to the NRM every few months, I've seen it with people swarming over it too. No doubt there are periods in every overhaul of a steam locomotive that have moments like that described.

I should also point out that I have nothing against the manner Carnforth get on with it, with a degree of secrecy, either. It is the situation regarding this specific example which I feel needs looking at. I think a lot of people would agree that the NRM did not get value for money with their purchase of 4472, and that certain decisions made by previous owners and overhaul teams have contributed directly to the situation we have now.

 

I well understand your views but you have to get inside the heads of the type of people who tend to float to the top these days. "Self-serving short termists" comes to mind a general description. They walk through many ares of life, most areas really - financial services, politics, all government departments; it hard to exclude anything when you care to think about it. Add in the contempt shown to enthusiasts - and not just railway ones - some would view not completing the overhaul as putting "the plebs in their place".
Agreed the NRM did not get the best value for their money but in reaching that view we are looking back and realizing the pressure was not so great as perhaps imagined and the museum should have talked to more insiders in the industry who had a fair idea about what was going wrong. Additionally I would say that the engine should have gone on display in the museum after purchase whilst a full and careful assessment was made of what they had acquired. Months going over the engine with the proverbial fine tooth comb would not have been wasted. Using the locomotive probably made matters worse. There are a few people around who have done quite alot of work on Gresley engines and some of these should have been approached for assistance in checking the locomotive over: so far as I know no one with this experince works at the NRM.
All in all the whole job smacks of being a horse designed by a committee and has therefore come out with the appearance of a camel and a near deceased one at that.

 

I know of one person who would immediately open his cheque book if either were available. Or any of the other LNER pacifics!

 

I work in and around the FSA on a daily basis, I know well those you speak of, and would agree with your views there. However I don't think that applies particularly to those inside the NRM, even the interim head of the department. Certainly I can cite Anthony Coulls who is an excellent point of contact on this forum, as one not in that mould at all, for the right reasons.

Would you mind pointing to where exactly the NRM as a public body did that? I speak only from my own experience but the NRM have always been wonderfully accommodating to railway enthusiasts.

I don't disagree with that prognosis at all: in fact I wholeheartedly support that view. However the horse has bolted, there is no sense anymore in going over the should have done/could have done. There is the here and now, and the future, and it makes sense to remember the work that has been completed overall, and is of a high standard.

The locomotive is closer to finishing than it is to being a Barry wreck, and whether it takes another year, or two, or more, it'll serve the NRM better as a flagship, in steam, than a static exhibit. Guaranteed. I only have to look at Sir Lamiel, Lord Nelson and Cheltenham, along with the T9 at the MHR this weekend to see that is the case.

 

I am commenting on the attitudes held by all too many of those who desire to climb their own choice of slippery pole regardless of the outcome of the actions they take in reaching the top and the price paid by others as they go about their ascent. Then there is the damage done by the actions they choose to take to justify their continued place at the top - they have to show that they are fit to continue as members of that particular club. If the decision were to be taken not to complete the overhaul I do not believe Anthony Coulls would have any say in the matter. And I do hold the man in high regard - the patience he has shown when dealing with this forum is to be admired. Sadly we are managed and governed in this country by people who have little more than contempt for those they see as below them. How do you prove that you are fit to walk in such exalted company? By showing such contempt. So, how in this instance do you prove yourself to be in charge? Answers do not have to be written on a postcard.
It is not as though I know the nature of the man currently in charge at York. But, given the lessons of so many experiences, I am concerned he may mirror our times. If he does not then you have a chance that the work will be completed. We might have to wait a while for the funding to be agreed. So far both he and the museum have kept their heads down. After what happened to Steve Davies I cannot blame them. We now have a fair idea concerning what went wrong behind the scenes and it is to be hoped that new systems are put into place that ensure nothing approaching this disaster ever happens in the future. But in a constructive manner please not the usual UK speciality, a most obstructive one.

 

I believe you, but the NRM itself wouldn't be able to - even if the owners could be persuaded to go back on their words and sell.

 

I think those who are advocating or merely countenancing stuffing and mounting 4472 ae barking up the wrong tree. Most of the money that has been raised and spent on 4472 to date has been done so on the basis that it would be restored to running order; to do otherwise would be a monumental break of faith that would most likely have a devastating effect on future campaigns. The NRM has to see thi one through to maintain any semblance of credibility.

I also take issue with those who say the NRM should have brought in outside experts with Gresley loco experience - whilst that that might have been desirable the NRM staff have many years of experience of running 4771 - Gresley locos are not unfamiliar to them!

 

Who is still there that was involved with 4771? Ray Towell has retired, for one.

 

I don't believe that he had retired at the time the overhaul had started, and I'm sure that some of the workshop staff will have been familiar with 4771 - happy to be corrected though.

 

You seem to be forgetting one thing. 4472's chassis had been completely built up, all motion on etc, prior to the "problems" being found. The job has been done once at the NRM, but there is no Ray Towell now and the chief engineer has also gone.

 

I for one hope to see her back soon! Just been watching on BBC2 'The Flying Scotsman: A Rail Romance' - Some dribble on there, but also some sensible take by take of the many years to the NRM. Bought by a couple of Millionaires and then they realised what it entailed when the bills started to arrive. Personally I would stick with a Bulleid anyday if I won a few million on the lottery. But, putting that aside; she does look and sound good, so maybe time to get her updated with quality materials so she doesn't cost the earth every overhaul and that those materials last? Just a thought! I'll grab my coat now......
Cheers
Andy

 

I guess it's the age old 'what constitutes preservation' question, I wouldn't have a problem with modern constructed parts ala tornado to extend the life and reduce overhaul time but many would say that isn't true to form etc..

i'm sure when BR owned her, if it cost more to fix something than to replace, they would have just either nabbed a part from spares or got a new bit..

If she was mine I would have bought a brand new steel boiler for starters and spent the 10 year ticket raising money and fixing the a3 one so when the time came to overhaul again it would be almost a straight swap...but I don't own it, nor have I won £200million on the lottery which I would probably need a fair bit of to run 4472 long term!

the documentary was good this evening - I loved the way they skirted around saying how knack erred fit was when the nrm got her!!

 

The one thing I got from the BBC2 programme was how much better she looks and sounds with a single chimney

 

With three A4s very unlikely to steam again and therefore representing the Gresley pacifics in preservation, and considering 4472's history of GIGANTIC overhauls since BR days, I think Scotsman definitely falls into the "keep her steaming" operation category - there's going to be very little left on her from '63 now, let alone '23.

 

A lot of people will agree with you there. Nothing quite like the sound of a single chimney A3 working hard. I dream of the day when 4472 reverts to single chimney form.

 

There are a few locos nowrunning with home-made Kylchap single chimneys or variations thereof - 6619 is one that springs to mind - so might it not be possible to have a compromise with 4472 and have a single chimney Kylchap arrangement? Should improve the steaming without the visual impairment. I can't see that casting a new chimney would be that much of a problem.

 

Ah, but to some of us it's not just the look but the sound.

 

Agree here,in an ideal world where timings etc and steam capabilities could be ignored I think most/all of us would go for the single chimney version,there's little (IMO) that comes close to 4472 (or any other A3) in single chimney guise storming up the long drag....

Cheers,
Mark

 

a truly beautiful machine in that form.

 

I have to admit that I love 4472 anyway but with a single chimney and without smoke deflectors is a much prettier sight but all the video footage I've seen she sounds fantastic. Sadly not had the pleasure of seeing her with the single chimney.