Flying Scotsman

Marchington was only the figuerhead, the real blame is with who decided to fit the A4 boiler and bore out the cylinders without beefing up the rest of the loco or getting expert advice as to what the problems were likily to be , then you have to ask who signed the engine off as fit to take such loads, my view is that s some people in the organisation, most likily at the very top were interested in flying scotsman only as a money making tool

 

You have obviously never had the pleasure of the toilets on the WCRC side of Southall!

 

This is why I made the earlier comment that the report was a depressing read. It seems that due to the terrible way she was treated during her last ticket they are a little frightened about taking her "out of the box and playing with her" on the next one. Whilst this is understandable, as you say David she is owned by the Nation and she should be able to be seen by the Nation. Not every family can afford to visit York from different parts of the country. They shouldn't be expected to either. The report suggests that she won't be going anywhere near locations with challenging gradients, tight curves and won't be operated with short stop-start schedules. Most Heritage lines have challenging gradients and tight curves (they were branch lines) and short distances between stations which rules most of them out. Her Main Line trips look like they will be very expensive as she will work with reduced loads, 10/11 carriages with one being the support vehicle (less seats = higher ticket prices) and there will be only a few pick-up points (or just one perhaps?) if they don't want to keep stopping and starting.

 

Middle cylinder alignment? Anyone else see the irony of the V2's mono-bloc casting now? :whistle:

 

Maybe this is a wake up call though for the fact that operating steam locomotives is an expensive business, and I suspect many enthusiasts are still in denial about that. It's no good setting ticket prices that cover your coal, oil and water if you are slowly sapping the life out of components that will eventually need expensive renewal. And if, further, the way you operate the locomotive has in itself significantly worsened the situation, then what is the real profit of that extra coach or two you have added to the consist? In the case of FS, it looks like the decision to make a "super A3" that could pull bigger loads ended up costing far more in damage to the loco than the extra profit on those seats.

The report can't be clearer on that point. Take paragraph 4.14:

The key word is "unsustainable". In other words, by trying to run on challenging schedules, loads and routes, you would be directly contributing the increased wear and tear on the locomotive, to the extent that future operation might become simply impossible. By sticking to a more moderate level of performance, there is the likelihood that FS can run indefinitely into the future. On the other hand, if it gets thrashed this time, there may not be another period of running...

I also don't buy the argument that, because she is part of the national collection, she therefore has to travel all over the country. Nearly all our national museums have a permanent base and generally, if you want to see what they hold, you have to go there. The NRM does a good job of dispersing its collection, both the running fleet and the static fleet, so I don't see that it inherently means every loco has to travel to every corner of the country over time. Maybe we in the south won't see FS very much, but we get to see quite a lot of the T9. That just seems the inevitable result of making a compromise in the long term interest of the object between accessibility and long-term preservation.

Tom

 

There's a lot of noise being made about the increased cylinder size, but is this in any way unusual? Certainly in his book "Swindon Steam" Cook mentions the case of a Saint where the original 18" cylinders had been bored out beyond 19" before they were eventually replaced.

 

I'm all for carry on, stiff upper lip and getting on with the job and finishing her, but the more reports on 4472 I read, the more damning it is on the immediate previous owners and their engineering ethos. Not only does the report cite the modifications which improved performance at the cost of putting greater strain on components, but it also makes abundantly clear that there was inadequate maintenance throughout Scotsman's last ticket.

How on earth do the railway magazines live with themselves, day in day out? These are people who were very willing to blow whistles and stop traffic wherever the NRM overhaul was concerned, but have as far as I can see never reported on the clear inadequacies of 4472's previous overhaul and management at the time these problems were first manifesting themselves.

Marchington was the figurehead, without any real knowledge of railway locomotive engineering (by his own admission in the documentaries made during his time), so he can hardly be blamed for the outcomes we have now. Yet at no point has any of the railway magazines asked the question: why were these modifications made, how were they passed for mainline running, and why is it that no retrospective look at 4472's time under Marchington has been done to ask the hard questions about where the money was spent? Who exactly are they afraid of?

We all get that the NRM's handling of 4472 has been less than satisfactory (but done with the best intentions), yet there's been nothing but silence the more we find out how utterly tired the locomotive was when sold. It doesn't really surprise then, does it, that she continuously failed the Scarborough Spa Expresses for two years, Green Arrow and or the NRM diesel fleet stepping in where required?

Someone, somewhere, has got to be investigating this further as there looks on the face of the reports, something going on in her previous seven figure overhaul prior to this one.

 

Didn't also increase the working pressure by more than ten percent at the same time, though...

Tom

 

The cylinder diameters on many of the A3s and A4s were experimented with at various times under Gresley, Thompson and I think Peppercorn before retiring. In the case of the A4s, their original cylinder diameters were restored. The issue isn't so much the cylinder diameter change, it's that change with none of the other necessary engineering modifications, as far the report can see, that were made to prevent the sort of heightened wear and tear that has been prevalent on 4472 throughout the NRM overhaul.

 

Don't hold your breath if the recent hagiography of Roland Kennington in one of the mags is anything to go by. Four pages of forelock tugging by the journalist about what a wonderful job had been done keeping engines running on the mainline and even while FS was lying in bits on the floor of some workshop, not one question I recall about whether the mods carried out and the maintenance regime adopted had been in the best long term interest of the loco. Has any journalist, on either of the two main magazines, even asked a simple question about the revelations about cut through brake gear, welded up mudhole doors and other such delights?

Sadly, I think the magazines know which side their bread is buttered. Favourable comment guarantees future high levels of access. If a mag really got its teeth into a story that reflected badly on a particular loco or owner, they know their access would dry up. So instead it is "what a fabulous performance was put up by Loco X with 13 on over Shap" and glossy photo spread on "my day with the support crew of Loco Y" with cheesy shot of journalist throwing burning rag into firebox and then frying his egg and bacon, and meanwhile please don't scare the horses...

Edit, and a bit OT: One of my other interests is cycle racing. For ten years, it was widely suspected that Lance Armstrong doped. But no-one from the mainstream cycling magazines ever challenged him over it, because he was the goose laying the golden eggs, and cosy "Lance Armstrong discusses his training secrets" type features sold more magazines than "Armstrong: the story you don't want to read". And of course, bike manufacturers (specifically Trek) were big advertisers in the magazines, so there was a commercial imperative not to upset that relationship. Eventually the story broke, for a number of reasons, but a significant one from a journalism point of view: much of the running was made by publications that weren't cycling magazines and therefore had less to lose by chasing the story about doping - notably the Sunday Times in this country, and the Washington Post and New York Times in the USA.

Tom

 

Couldnt agree with you more, i think we know the reason why, scared of getting sued by certain hi profile person who,s name is linked with the 6100 story incidently wasnt there talk a while back of Bittern having the same middle cylinder issues?

 

Well I have read the read the report, and the subsequent posts and while I accept that most if not all of the work having to be done now is as a result of the mistakes of previous ownership, I still see nothing which explains why the problems were not identifed at the beginning of the overhaul, instead of when it was thought to be nearly complete.

 

On the original A1 design the middle cylinder always used to wear faster than the outside cylinders. It was decided that, with due regard to the frame problems being faced at the time, the outside cylinders should have the same bore size though some latitude could be permitted with respect to the inside cylinder. This is common knowledge amongst those interested in Gresley Pacifics, in fact it is obvious really - so who thought the old guidelines didn't apply anymore? Worse, who didn't check? The A1 and A3 classes came to have the same cylinder castings used but with different liners fitted as required by the design spec.

Some experimental variation was seen (Lemberg and Enterprise) and some of the A4s had their inside cylinder lined down which was no long term solution to the perceived problems. Setting the engines up accurately was very much the solution. Thanks here to K. J. Cook.

In spite of the Doncaster gear surviving in the care of the SVR it appears that no one thought of making use of it to assess the engine during the course of the overhaul. Why not? The engine has not been aligned up in accordance with best practise since B.R. days. There has been widely circulating suspicion going back many years about the true state of play with regard to the engine's condition - I rather like the comparison with the Lance Armstrong situation in the world of cycling. Lots of people had a hunch, that ability to reach an accurate conclusion whilst in receipt of limited information. Indifferent performace, high running costs ----------I cannot subscribe to the view that the problems being faced now can be laid solely at the door of the last overhaul. The modifications made during the last overhaul in part masked the impact of many years of failure to get to the bottom of the issues afflicting the core of the machine. Then they went on to make matters worse.

Good to see John Graham involved in this assessment he has had a few years working on Gresley Pacifics.

Remembering that the original A1 was designed to haul 600 ton trains and that the locomotive when completed will be a much improved design - a good A3 - given a satisfactory maintenance regime there should be no overconcern about loadings but the schedules would be another matter.

(During the Marchington era RK was very much against the locomotive being taken around on a low loader - looks like he had a point.)

 

I don't think anyone denies that the current and past problems of this overhaul are of the NRM's doing in not, as their own independent reports suggest, having the proper hierarchy structures, planning and relevant skills set in place to progress the overhaul. That they are looking to an external contractor in this latest report confirms that.

I do sincerely believe that if the full extent of 4472's problems had been known from the beginning, and dealt with accordingly, it would have shortened the length of time and money of the current overhaul. Hindsight's a wonderful thing, and perhaps it's better (!) that a full audit was seemingly not done of the locomotive prior to stripping down for overhaul, otherwise they might have canned her there and then. At least now we know sufficient work has been done to ensure she must be finished in order to prevent a backlash or similar. Small mercies for rail enthusiasts, and future rail enthusiasts, and the NRM in some respects, as 4472 in steam is more of an asset than 4472 as a static exhibit.

I think it's rather telling Tom (Jamessquared) that certain "facts" of that interview in HR do not match up with that reported at the time of the 1999 overhaul. Mysteriously the £2.25 million overhaul is suddenly being reported as a £1 million pound overhaul...

 

Don't hold your breath if the recent hagiography of Roland Kennington in one of the mags is anything to go by. Four pages of forelock tugging by the journalist about what a wonderful job had been done keeping engines running on the mainline and even while FS was lying in bits on the floor of some workshop, not one question I recall about whether the mods carried out and the maintenance regime adopted had been in the best long term interest of the loco. Has any journalist, on either of the two main magazines, even asked a simple question about the revelations about cut through brake gear, welded up mudhole doors and other such delights?

Sadly, I think the magazines know which side their bread is buttered. Favourable comment guarantees future high levels of access. If a mag really got its teeth into a story that reflected badly on a particular loco or owner, they know their access would dry up. So instead it is "what a fabulous performance was put up by Loco X with 13 on over Shap" and glossy photo spread on "my day with the support crew of Loco Y" with cheesy shot of journalist throwing burning rag into firebox and then frying his egg and bacon, and meanwhile please don't scare the horses...

I think you'll find that this article was written by someone who was the press officer of the Flying Scotsman Organisation in the Marchington era and who has been very critical of the NRM at all times since the loco was purchased - and completely in denial about the deficiences of that era! But if you add the subsequent debacle with 6100to the picture then I don't think any rational observer would fail to come to the conclusion that the blame for all the engineering problems with these two locos lies with the engineer in charge at the time.

 

It isn't really clear from the report precisely how the middle cylinder is misaligned. The statement that the error is minimal at the cylinder but just under 0.25 in at the crank suggest a rotational error rather than a displacement error. It isn't clear, however, if the rotation is about a vertical axis or a horizontal axis.

Rotation about a vertical axis through the cylinder would mean the centre line of the cylinder is no longer parallel to the side frame and thus when extended to the driving axle no longer passes through the centre of the crank pin. This would lead to the bearings wearing slightly out of square and would lead to the big end wearing against one of the crank webs. Not good.

Rotation about a horizontal axis would mean the centre line of the cylinder being parallel to the frames and when extended passing through the centre of the crankpin, but passing above or below the centre of the driving axle. An error of 0.25" at the crank in in this direction would have no effect on the big or little end bearings, but would bring the piston to the ends of its stroke slightly earlier or later than the valve events (which are dictated by the outside cylinders). Calculation shows that the big end would be aproximately 15 thou in advance or retard of the correct position on the crankpin radius - not exactly significant.

Perhaps someone in the NRM could state which of the above two is the case?

Having the centre engine at an angle of 1 in 8 leads to the situation where vertical movement of the driving axle moves the piston in or out of the bore. I don't know what the design vertical movement tolerances are, but 1" vertical movement of the axlebox translates to approximately 0.125" piston movement, so it would seem likely that the centre cylinder is longer than the outer cylinders to provide extra clearance. Whether it is the centre cylinder which is actually longer in this case I do not know, because yet again the report isn't clear on this point.


It does seem as if FCP have indeed measured FS up to within a thou of it's life and are proposing a Rolls Royce repair job to bring everything back to theoretical dimensions. This is just fine if the money is available, though the extra wait is a shame.

Regarding the restrictions on use - hopefully reason will prevail.

 

Maybe at the time the folks felt they had limited choices. Run the locomotive on their limited budget and accept that it was going to deteriorate and eventually have to be stuffed and mounted or else just stuff and mount it straight away. After all in commercial service any steam locomotive had a limited lifespan, and presumably the A3s were coming towards the end of their economical lifespan by the 60s anyway.
It does sometimes occur to me that we probably have more pre 1939 locomotives left now than we would have done had steam not been so hastily abandoned...

 

Limited budget?! The documentaries on 4472 in the Marchington era states that £2.25 million was spent! Hardly "limited budget" is it? What was it spent on? Other locomotives have been overhauled previous, at the same time, and after that overhaul for around £500,000 and below that even, for better returns.

 

Well, two obvious possibilities occur to me. Either they spent it on a seriously sick locomotive that was beyond economical repair and should have been stuffed and mounted, or else the restoration team took advantage of a poor naive financially innocent millionaire and spent it all on call girls, swiss bank accounts and night clubs... My limited experience suggests that naive financially innocent millionaires are rare outside the music industry. We know the thing was at an age where the industry would have considered scrapping it and building a new one to be the financially sensible option.

 

Do we know that for certain? The reports of welded up mudhole doors, tender handbrake cut, and other incredible things which have come to light throughout the course of the NRM's ownership indicate some cutting of corners, dare I say...