Flying Scotsman

Good point about the UK press being ignored, sensationalism from them makes them look idiots.

If the new NRM head is going to speak on his terms, good on him, its about time Wilclot and chums ate a bit of humble pie, and helped the situation, instead of getting easy column inches and "brownie points", there attitude quite frankly stinks....

 

Have you ever known an official press release to kill *any* rumours stone dead? Isn't it usually rather the opposite: when the official statement comes out the rumour mill really gets going with its own version of events?

 

Thanks Foxy, that's what I was looking for.

 

I agree with S.A.C. Martin, also the money for the gathering the A4s came from (as yet unnamed) external sponsor(s). If they have donated money for that specific purpose, the NRM would have no right to reallocate those funds to another purpose such as steaming Mallard.

 

As I understand it, to steam Mallard again would require a very large amount of renewal work on the boiler/firebox. Yes, she was steamed in the 1980s, but was only given a set number of steamings, and was treated with great care, as she was regarded as 'fragile'. Realistically, what would we get by steaming her again when we already have 3 main-line registered A4s, one of which (Bittern) now has the valances back in place?

I do believe that the 6 A4 gathering is a much better idea for celebrating the 75th anniversary of Mallard's journey into history than having to perform major surgery on the old girl.

However, back to 1472/4472/502/103/60103

Mark

 

It's typical tabloid journalism i.e. it is not content to report a story but wishes to be part of it and shape it.

There's an easy answer; don't buy the rag.

P.H.

 

This. Seriously, this.

Has been like this for a good number of years with one of the magazines, the other two main ones are starting to follow suit a tad.

I don't make any apologies for the NRM: they've had problems, they've not handled 4472 well, and though well meaning, haven't helped the overall situation.

But when you have one magazine in particular going at you hammer and tongs, month, after month, after month with HEADLINE this and EDITORIAL that, and ASKING BIG OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS and generally being rather nasty and manipulative on a daily basis, would you - as the successor to the man run out of your job who had to deal with all of that - think "okay, let's talk to them" or "no, really can't be bothered to deal with that?"

I know what I'd be thinking if I was in Paul Kirkman's shoes!

I honestly believe that if the railway magazines had approached the whole 4472 overhaul in a more constructive manner, rather than the "when/if/when/what form/livery/when" circular debate column inches month on month, together with the almost demonizing of the entire staff of the NRM and Steve Davies, important questions could have been asked years ago, facts checked, the state of the overhaul looked at and things could have been very different.

So whilst there's no doubt the NRM have had the biggest hand in the overall debacle, as borne out by Bob Meanley's excellent report, I don't think the railway magazines have helped the situation at all - in fact I'd level the accusation that they've made it worse, and shame on them for doing so.

Also, this.

 

Good posts there. Now, I wonder if anyone from the magazines is prepared to respond to them?

Mark

 

I dont paul, think it was on the slide 5 years ago, never mind the poor attempt that gets published now.

And to think at one stage it was a good informative publication, now it is derided as a comic.....

 

Tick ... Tock Tick ... Tock........

 

So, we've arumour that the cylinder is 1/2" out, although no substantive fact as to what and where this 1/2" is. If it is 1/2" in a vertical plane then it is probably no problem whatsoever. If it is 1/2" in a horizontal plain, that can probably be accommodated with a bit of knowhow. If it is at some weird angle it might be a bit more of a challenge but we don't know where this mythical 1/2" occurs so no-one can come to a conclusion on what needs doing.

 

Lets say that york decided that due to all this adverse publicity it would abandon the restoration of 4472 and just assemble it for display, and then not restore any further engines to steam in house, whose fault would it be? the blame would lay at the door of the steam press, they have hounded steve davis out, and now they have smelt blood are out to destroy the NRM, and for what reason, what can they gain out of it?
4472 has been a problem, no one is denying that, but can you blame the NRM for the modifications made at Southall, or the state the engine was found to be in, no you cant, i dont see anyone calling for heads to roll over 6100, and thats had the same issues, so lay off the problems are now known, so allow york to deal with it in what ever way they can, .personally if the work is too complex for York i would send it to somewhere else who has the facilities to finish it, such as carnforth and maybe allow them to benifit by allowing them to operate it .as long as it returns to york when not running

 

I read that artical and though that its 1/2 " oversized where it was bored out when the A4 boiler was fitted,and that the bore is now out of line and that it needs to be sleeved and that the frames need to be split to get it out, how much of that is true and factual, no one is saying ,

 

The whole article reads as someone without great engineering knowledge hearing a rumour and trying to make a story out of it! Also where has the figure £500-600k for the remedial work come from?

The magazine continually shoots itself in the foot with half researched rubbish which also tries to make SR part of the story. Wilcocks latest NRM 'expose' about the A4 returns may have some interest and relevance if it wasn't for the pathetic self-congratulatory tone - you used the FoI legislation to get some info its hardly innovative journalism.

OT but the highlight of this month was the assertion that the Bowes Railway works were completed at the generosity of SR readers when of the £11400 money raised £10k came from an anonymous benefactor so perhaps £1400 could be attributed to SR?

 

Thank you Steve. So why doesn't everyone just let it lie until we do have some actual facts to debate? All this huffing and puffing and speculation is just a regurgitation of the last outpouring when the cracks/misalignment/mismanagement (insert scandal here) were revealed by the monkeys at SR, and where did that get us?

 

Well, I always knew that Gresley locos were pretty poor. But, to have to take the frames apart in order to carry out a fairly routine cylinder liner job, really takes the biscuit!

 

I would have thought that the only "safe thing to assume" is that any assumption would be off the mark so don't do it.
This loco and it's restoration is gauranteed to do only one thing at the moment, frustrate those involved and confound those looking on.

 

Just to say for the record: my apologies for the huffing and puffing. My original question on the engineering was answered, although I could have worded my hypothetical better.

 

Utter drivel.