Flying Scotsman

In the last annual report the NRM had a income of 14 million 7.3 million was from legacies, donations and other grants hardly the same.

 

On the basis that we don't have a lot of option but to fund the MoD and its budget is IRO £37bn, fair enough. Cancelling the Nimrod project cost £200m and over 1,700 jobs (over and above the costs racked up on the way) delivering less than nothing. Network Rail's Northern Hub project is expected to cost £530m and to deliver regional benefits of £4bn.

When Dr Tony Marchington purchased FS for £1.5m in 1996, he commented, as I remember, that if it had been a racehorse, it would have been shot. His response was to put another £1m or so into overhauling it. Having already reached its probable design life expectancy when purchased by Alan Pegler in 1963, it has accumulated around 2.5 million miles according to the NRM, not too far off double that of Bittern's 1,260,000. It's hardly any wonder that an inordinate number of snakes have crawled out of the pit? Whatever the ins, outs and politics over the cost and time overrun, once FS finally up and running, it will have been sorted comprehensively; far better than a spectacular failure in service, or the acquisition of a reputation for unreliability. What does the apportioning of blame or calling for heads to roll actually achieve? I just want to see 4472 in action again, taking me back to my first encounter in 1966 when I watched it haul a special through my local station, en route for Blackpool.

I am surprised that the NRM achieves so much on a £14m income, maybe the MoD could do without just a couple more Tornado (aircraft!) at about £9.4m each, then a few dreams would come true, but then, this is the real world....

David

 

It would be really interesting to compare the overhaul done on FS, in terms of actions taken etc with another large scale rebuild done somewhere else.

I'm no engineer, but essentially it boils down to, take it all apart, test components for wear and strength, rectify and renew where repair is not in viable. Would be interesting to see how other people have done it for less..

Just be interesting to see - I think everyone would agree the FS overhaul has been a mess, but hopefully they will have it back up anD running soon..

Look at it this way, if they spend another 500k they could have built a brand new one, if tornado's costs are anything to go by!!

 

Like 6100 perhaps ?

 

Maybe 34027 might be a closer contender. Nowhere near as close to the public domain as FS but a hell of alot of work has gone into the what will become a new loco bar a few parts.

 

HI
do you mean not discovered at the NRM overhaul. FISH7373 81C
.

 

HI
yes frames horn guides stretchers all crack-tested at southall, dont forget that was about 7 years before NRM had it. FISH7373 81C

 

If that is the case then the report should still be about, shouldn't it?

 

It should, but it's from 7 years ago, and I don't think that it's totally relevant to the cracking recently found; failures can occur without warning - just look at Ollie's cylinder cover crack, just a couple of weeks ago. Now, others have questioned certain coincidences with 4472 & a couple of other locomotives, but on this matter, my own feeling is that it's probably just age catching up with 4472. Of course, there's the possibility that, for example, movements on/off low-loaders may not have helped matters, by placing unusual stresses on already tired components. Some owning groups try to avoid low-loader movements for this very reason, of course.

Mark

 

It's hard to believe that all the cracking found recently appeared since the Southall rebuild. All main frame stretchers, bogie stretcher, motion bracket, horn blocks...

 

HI
hard to believe that ???? that the NRM did not find the cracks but had to be ELR how long between the two overhauls FISH7373 81C

 

One thing that I have always wondered about - when built, FS had an 180psi boiler and fairly constricted steam passages meaning it couldn't even use what steam it had very effectively. Yet by its last overhaul, it had a 250psi boiler, streamlined steam passages (the straight steam pipes were put on at Southall so I believe specifically to improve the steam flow) and I suspect was also heavier than when originally built (due to a A4 type heavier boiler). So when worked hard in its most recent incarnation, presumably the frames would be subject to much greater forces than they had originally been designed to bear.

So could it be argued that some of the frame problems may be due to the fact that in power / TE terms, FS was considerably more powerful than when originally designed, yet the frames hadn't had an equivalent amount of strengthening to cope? That looks like a recipe for trouble to me, unless it could be argued that when originally designed, the frames were massively over-engineered and could cope with all that extra TE. Or were the cylinders lined down to compensate the extra boiler pressure?

Tom

 

A4 boilers were fitted to some A3s during the 1950s. Please note that the working pressure of said boilers was reduced to 220 psi.

 

Was the boiler pressure also reduced at the most recent overhaul? (genuine question: I honestly don't know. I didn't know that the boilers were "downrated" in the 1950s when fitted to A3s).

What are the comparative TEs and loco - only weights / axle loadings of A1/A3s:

- As originally built with 180psi boiler?
- As running in the 1950s with downrated A4 boiler?
- As running after its most recent overhaul?

Tom

 

Can Anthony Coulls shed some light on your first question? What boiler pressure was Scotsman using when being run by the NRM?

A1 loco weight 92t-9cwt. Axle loadings from front 17t-1cwt 20t-0cwt 20t-0cwt 20t-0cwt 15t-8cwt
A3 loco weight 96t-5cwt. Axle loadings from front 15t-16cwt 22t-1cwt 22t-1cwt 22t-1cwt 14t-6wt
No diagram was issued for the A3s fitted with the A4 boilers, but the text states that the additional weight of 1 ton was shared equally between the bogie and the rear truck.
TE A1 with 20x26 cylinders 29,835lb.
TE A3 with 19x26 cylinders 32,909lb.

 

Thanks std tank.

So going from A1 to A3, the cylinders were lined down but the TE still went up by about 10% and the axle loading on the drivers also went up by 10%. Would be interesting to know whether those figures (especially the TE) went up again during the Marchington era when FS had an A4 boiler, or whether the boiler pressure was kept the same as an A3. Even if the pressure was kept at 220psi, it seems, with streamlined steam passages as well, that the loco was running in a considerably enhanced form in terms of TE, weight and steam distribution, but without necessarily any compensating frame modifications.

Tom

 

So are you now suggesting that 4472 has been running around for many years with cracked frame stretchers etc, thats a whole new accusation which brings people like the VAB etc into the process so obviosuly you have some evidence to make such a wide reaching statement.

 

The depressing thing is that reading the SR coverage its apparent that much of their ire against the NRM would seem to link back to the NRM having the nerve to prevent an SR photographer taking some photo's, whilst questions need to be asked sadly I think the ego's of those at SR and their need to be the story means that this is never going to end well.