Flying Scotsman

Is this a result of all the money spent on 4472? : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22766162

 

Look, the report says that FS wasn't upto the work to which it was put. You can't extrapolate from that that every or any other locomotive is not up to the work to which it is being put.

Badly set up machinery in general will quickly reduce itself to ruins doing less work than well set up equipment.

 

The A1s and A3s worked trains in excess of 700 tons (the maximum I have found referred to is 750 tons) when the need arose. It might not have done too much for their general condition if already in a run down state but it represents an overload in excess of 100 tons with respect to the load they were designed to haul. With due reference to the original design specification of these engines 600 tons is not an overload, 700+ most certainly can be seen that way.

For a locomotive of this type in preservation a general maximum of 500 tons, depending on route and timetable would appear a good compromise.

There seems little point in putting the locomotive back to work if it is to be restricted to loads that are less than those hauled by a small mogul. On the other hand you could go the whole hog with respect to nursing the engine along and restrict the load to less than a handful of coaches and aim for the ultra prestige market. There are always people prepared to pay for the exclusive particularly if they can consort solely with their own kind and escape the great unwashed.

The report is interesting in that it states that the engine was not up to the work it was put to. How much of this was down to the run down state of the engine and how much was a thinly veiled critisism of the locomotive design? Further, was it in effect a blanket condemnation of the modifications that had been carried out? Probably a mixture. But the balance of that mixture, that is a question.

 

Assuming a path could be found for a 60mph/600 ton train in the main line, do you think that running such a train 12 times a year would place more strain on the loco than a 75mph/300 ton train day in/day out for a year? I don't think many preserved locos get the wear and tear these days as they did in the days of yore. Would be interesting to see some comparative figures.

 

It's Irelevent, my guess is once Brand Scotsman is relaunched and marketed, 4472 will be an all premium affair with prices to match. It's not what we think but what the public will pay...
£150 for a 30 minute trip in a tunnel under London...what will they do for a ride behind "The Famous"one.

 

It depends what you mean by overloading. A locomotive will produce a finite force (tractive effort) and will have been designed to transmit that force) so, up to that limiting force it cannot be overloaded. (4472 excluded, though as it was not designed to transmit the forces it could when acquired by the NRM!!) To me, a loco is only overloaded when it is required to transmit more T.E than it can do or more horsepower than the boiler can provide, in which case it will slow down and stall, not fall apart. We certainly tend to hang a lot more behind locos than happened in BR days but they aren't overloaded unless they fail to do the job. The NYMR certainly expects more from its locos than they ever did in BR days simply because, on BR, locos were generally limited to 75% of the loads that they could take at whatever speed was required simply to allow for the ups and downs of operating a steam loco. We certainly hang 7 coaches on out class 5's (LMS & LNER versions) as a routine whereas anything over 5 coaches would have required assistance on BR. They aren't overloaded because they do it day in and day out with no problem but they are being pushed to their limits, the more so if they have eight on because the margin for error is being narrowed even further.
The one disadvantage of pushing locos to such limits is that they will inevitably wear out a bit faster but rate of wear is largely a function of load, time and speed.

 

That's apples and oranges though. I'd have thought that for those people going on the steam trips underground, most, if not all, considered that those trips would be their last chance of doing that. Whether that subsequently turns out to be true or not is irrelevant: for most people booking the trips, if they perceived the rarity value, they would pay accordingly for a chance to be one in perhaps no more than a few thousand tickets. All you needed was a market of perhaps a few thousand tickets at that price.

Whereas if FS is restored, even if it only runs say once per month for ten years (probably a marked underestimate), that's a hundred and twenty trips; even with a restricted seating capacity of maybe 300 seats, that is many tens of thousands of chances to ride behind her, and always the possibility that if you miss this month, you can try again next month, or next year. So there is no real scarcity value, so no incentive to pay top dollar just for scarcity. I'm sure FS will attract a bit of a premium just because she is FS, but there aren't enough people going to pay the equivalent of £150 for a thirty minute trip when they can be fairly confident that the same trip will run next month, and the next month, and the next month...

Tom

 

I would be interested to find out how many of the main line registered Steam locos operate in a "Similar to BR fashion" - please excuse my ignorance if this has already been mentioned! if the report on 4472 suggests that it should be operated in this way, how many of the main line locos are in steam for say a 7-14 day work period and then stopped? Just my own guess work but I would suggest not many at all...The heating up/cooling down thing must be a factor in component wear particularly on the boiler...

 

The report doesn't recommend keeping it in steam for 7-14 day periods, but does advocate that both steam-raising and cooling should be carefully managed over a reasonable time period.

 

Is that not a tiny bit simplistic? Even if we ignore the ability of steam locomotives, unlike internal combustion, to produce considerably more power for a short period than they can for sustained periods, your theory presumes that the design of each locomotive was in all respects completely adequate for the maximum power available, and I'm not sure that's even possible today, let alone 70 years ago. Its well documented that various different locomotive designs had different weak spots, which would be exposed if run hard.
And then there's the question of whether locomotives were designed for maximum power output or typical power output. Strength is weight,and weight is coal consumption. If you design a locomotive for the work it will most often be required to do, and it has reserve power for emergencies, then that will be the most flexible and economical for the work. To change to another contemporary technology, a merlin engine on a Spitfire had an war emergency boost setting for the supercharger, which considerably increased power at the price of considerably reducing engine life.

 

and with talk of cut backs (closure ?) of the free museums in the North (only !!) - will she ever be seen working ?

 

Nothing unusual about that recommendation and the same holds true for all preserved steam locos not just 4472.

 

On a line with steep gradients, perhaps; but the outer suburban services to/from Euston normally had seven coaches with an LMS or Standard Class 4 tank on the front, occasionally a Class 5.

 

I agree, the Engineers who wrote the report clearly think this is a point worth stressing.

 

While it is entirely their prerogative to do so, owners that allow their engines to be used frequently at the upper end of their limitations are effectively mortgaging income in the present against repair costs of the future. Some are no doubt shrewder than others.

 

Is it really that simple? There appears to be a lack of concensus over the maximum capacity of locomotives before preservation was even thought of, let alone what should constitute a maximum loading now that they are preserved.

Then you have to look at the nature of the excursion business. Some operators can do everything in house, others less so. Others source everything externally.

Some locomotives of a power classification haul loads of say 7 or 8 coaches at an agreed maximum speed of 60mph. Other locomotives with the same power classification are seen working 12 coaches at the same maximum speed. Different owners having different views of what constitutes a fair load for their preserved charges. Some owners allow their engines to work regular trains over difficult routes that offer an increased tyre wear issue, other owners of engines of a similar type are more reluctant to take on the work.

Speed is as much of an issue as load. Some small wheeled locomotives have a maximum speed limit of 50mph whereas other engines with the same size of driving wheel have a 60mph agreement.

It depends on the mind of the owner. Shrewdness does not come into it over much. Some owners bought their engines to run them as they experienced them on BR or earlier. Others have a different approach. They run less frequently, more towards the lower end of their limitations as it were. Then there is the group that never goes mainline.

It is a complicated issue. But if you cannot haul enough, fast enough, you are not going to be seen very often out on the mainline.

If you were going to be shrewd you would never buy a steam locomotive to preserve in working order. You know the costs are going to be enormous. It's a heart thing not a head thing.

And, to Spamcan81, I would rather run 500 tons once or twice a month at 60mph as opposed to 300 tons on a daily basis. It would allow for the locomotive to be regularly seen in the museum, permit a good amount of time for the engine to be looked after and in addition help to keep the fares reasonably affordable.

 

Deadline date was the 10th of this month for those wishing to tender for completing the cylinders and frames issues. I wonder when there might be an inkling regarding who might have won the contract.