Flying Scotsman

Some more recent comments by Roland Kennington are here:
http://www.nrmfriends-south.org.uk/Talks_Reports/sp0913.html

 

Not happy reading - a long sequence of hasty repairs done against pressure from the owner(s) to keep the loco in revenue service. Having read all the above, I wonder on what basis Roland Kennington makes his assertion that the last overhaul was done to a high standard?

Tom

 

It would appear not............................. could explain a lot as to why Mr K was 'let go' by Mr H..............

 

perhaps, she was a tired old girl when Mr K got her apart in the 90's, personally i think what he did to her was awful!

 

i think that sub standard work leading to something falling off might have been a lot to do with it, it(4472) cost the owner a rolls royce sum, but delivered a ford model T the wheels were dropped, in fact one was dropped into the wheel drop pit but no chassis alignment was done, or done wrongly, and now the full extent of past mistakes, or cutting corners has come home to roost. i dont think that the full 1million, or what it cost Dr Marchington, found its way to the engine, as seems to happen at the time, i'm sure that there are still un told stories to come out yet.

 

I have to say I cautiously agree with that, but will say this, sometimes "its best to let sleeping dogs lie"........................ and there's one person. who took over from Mr M who's kept his council through all of this.

Does that say something or nothing? I for one don't know.

 

Are you referring to another owner after Marchington?

 

What do you think?

Surname begins with W. ( co owner wasn't he?)

 

He was a co-owner, but before Marchington....and he regarded it as a poisoned chalice too...

 

Before M, yes, but there was another W with Flying Scotsman plc.

 

A very hands-off part-owner. I seem to recall that Mr Waterman did it as a favour.

 

4472 was not in the best of shape when RK first took it on. I don't believe that the Carnforth/ Vickers period did the locomotive any favours in the long term either.

Ideally the locomotive should have been dealt with properly on return from the States. Maybe Bill Harvey and Peter Townend could have been involved. It should have been thoroughly addressed by people who knew LNE engines and should not have reappeared until they were completely satisfied. Solid foundations and all that.

I do not believe the engine was properly maintained and overhauled since before the end of BR service. Why should it have been? Who expected it to work for so long? Think about it. The machine you are working on is due to go for scrap in a year or so. So why bother overmuch?

Does anyone know someone who was involved with the Hunslet overhaul? Just how thorough was this? Questions, questions, so few satisfactory answers.

 

As I said, he's kept his counsel.

And given the froth & furore, quite right.

But we digress. I for one look forward to seeing her up and running again.

 

Would this surname begining with W not liking a darker shade of a certain colour? If so I think he has a lot to Answer for too.

 

Considering that she made it right across North America with no major failures - and no major work was undertaken during her time in the States - the Hunslet overhaul can't have been too bad. Then again, apparently she had a "heavy repair" (according to Peter Nicholson's book) at Darlington in 1964, only five years previously, so (compared to our modern ten-year overhaul cycles) she must surely have been in fairly good condition when she went in?

 

As far as I can find out the Hunslet overhaul involved removing the boiler and stripping the engine down to wheels and frames but nothing so thorough as Ian has been getting up to. The engine worked very well on the tour by all accounts but by the time it arrived back at Derby it had been craned four times and bounced around on the ocean for good measure. It spent three months at Derby. It was repainted and the vestiges of the American adventure were removed. But what else was done? Not much given the time scale I suspect.

It would be interesting to hear from someone involved in the Hunslet overhaul for clarity's sake and get a personal opinion concerning the condition of the machine at this time. If Darlington had carried out the 1964 work well then then 4472 should have been in good shape.

When did fatigue first begin to lurk unseen and unlooked for? I'll never know but cannot help but wonder.

The recent history of the engine appears to be a tale of how not to look after a locomotive. With the passage of time and a funeral or two who knows what will come to light. Fingers have been pointed, hints have been dropped but until there is some collaboration, well, let us say that I have an itch that I am unable to scratch.

 

Concerning the W's I do not know whether David Ward has made any comments since the close of the 'Flying Scotsman plc' era but I'm sure I recall Pete Waterman saying in 2004 (at the time the plc put it up for sale) that he believed the loco was 'knackered'.

 

Crikey! Who wrote all that up? Jamie Hoskins bought Bittern? Is he one of Bob Hoskins relatives?