Flying Scotsman

In response to jamessq, i recall from a video clip with Mr kennington ( under marchington) that the cylinders had been bored out somewhat and the pressure was 250 psi, that would make TE somewhere about the 37-38,000 lb mark ....

 

I remember reading that Dr. Marchington was after a TE in excess of 40,000 lbs. Whether this was true or false I know not.

 

When calculating TE, the nature of the steam passages does not come in to the equation.

 

I realise that and I know TE is a purely theoretical number. But streamlining the steam passages would enable a loco to work close to its theoretical TE for much more sustained periods assuming you also have a free steaming boiler.

If the close to 40,000lb figure is right, it seems to me under the Marchington era, you had an engine with a third more TE than it was designed for and 10% more weight on the drivers, and the capability of generating all that extra force in a more sustained way, yet with its original frame design. I find that, well, interesting...

After all, you wouldn't put a Griffon engine in a Spit Mk 1 that was stressed for an early Merlin, would you?

Tom

 

I'm saying that it is possible - and I don't need hard evidence to support an opinion.

Consider the options.

A- no cracks had formed before the Southall rebuild (or at least any that had were previously repaired and had not reopened) and thus all the latest found cracking occured during the 7 years running afterwards.

B- Cracking had occurred and all was found and repaired at the Southall rebuild, thus all the latest found cracking occurred during the 7 years running afterwards.

C- Cracking had occurred and some was found and repaired at the Southall rebuild, thus some of the latest discovered cracking had occurred before.

D- Cracking had occurred and none was found and repaired at Southall, thus a higher proportion of the latest discovered cracking had occurred before.

Given how hard it seems to have been to see the cracking, which would you suggest is the likeliest scenario?

As to VAB etc, how hard are they required to look? it seems only full stripdown and stringent testing shows this sort of fault.

@Jamessquared - I believe the boiler was run at 250psi and the TE was 39,000 lb. I have an article by Andy Flowers from Railway World Sept 2001 stating that TE and I recall a description of a run with FS where the guage pressure was 250psi. The Sept 2001 article detailes a run to Plymouth and back with edhps of 2150 and 2100 being achieved on Hemerdon and Whiteball banks respectively. These figures are close to A4 maximum performance and certainly won't have helped the state of the frames, but as the article says, "it's a good job the loco doesn't have to work quite so hard on every excursion she hauls."

I'd say that sort of power output was the exception rather than the norm.

 

I take your point regarding TE and steam passages but I would wager that the nature of a locomotive's work has a greater bearing on things such as cracked frames. The reported "souping up" of 4472 is another matter entirely though IMO.

 

I know that the latest standard on locomotive examination is GM/RT 2004 Issue 5. I have not read this document but I assume that this is an updated version of MT 276. Could I just point out that on the six monthly examination (MT 276), the following is quoted: -
Examine engine and tender frames for fractures.
Examine all horn cheek blocks for fractures.
Examine frame brackets, cross stays and/or stiffeners for fractures.
Examine motion castings carrying slidebars for fractures.

Presumably this examination would be carried out after the inside of the frames had been steam cleaned thoroughly.
So was this examination process carried out at both Southall and the NRM, whilst Scotsman was in service?
Also was the pre-purchase examination, carried out on behalf of the NRM, done to this standard? This is mentioned in the Steam Railway interview with Steve Davies.
As for the redesign of the main steam pipes at Southall, as this is a safety critical area of the loco, I hope the proposals were presented to the technical people at Derby and OK'd by them prior to the job being done.

 

Possible option E.
The cracks were spotted by a painter following reassembley, according to steam railway.

If this is to be be believed and they are hardly microscopic ones and with so many found at stress points is it possible the frames were accidentally damaged at some point in the current overhaul perhaps ?

 

It is quite likely that these examinations were simply visual and, even after steam cleaning, cracks can be quite hard to find. That is why we use such things as MPI and dye-penetrant. If they were easy to see, such techniques would be largely redundant. Cracks in castings can occur on original cooling and exist for the life of the casting without detriment; it does depend on the geometry of the component, where the cracks are and the various imposed loadings. A coat of paint will cover a multitude of sins and getting back to bare metal can take a lot of doing. Shotblasting can actually make visual inspection harder as the peening action can hide them from the naked eye. Many cracks only become visible to the naked eye when there is relative movement between the two sides.
I don't know what the cracks were or where they were so cannot comment in other than general terms but it is quite possible that they were old and perhaps of little consequence in terms of structural integrity. Once you know of them, though, it is a brave person who ignores them.

 

Streamlining of passages and ports only becomes significant at high steam flows. Maximum tractive effort is generally at starting where steam flow is minimal. Streamlined passageways help towards reducing the rate of fall off of power as speed increases but only if the boiler will supply the demand.
The trouble with virtually all steam locomotives is that they are designed to hammer themselves to pieces. They say that James Nasmyth invented the steam hammer in 1839 but it was really George Stephenson! Until his Rocket, most early steam locomotives were sensibly designed to contain the forces produced. Trying to contain the piston thrust in bearings that can move up and down and then having the joint between the two halves essentially parallel to the line of thrust is about as far removed from sensible engineering design as you can get! Imagine how long an internal combustion engine would last if the crankshaft was free to move relative to the cylinders and you turned the bearing shells through 90°?

 

I've just watched the DVD that came with the RM recently - it seems that cracking has been an ongoing thing for a long time...

Mark

 

From @philatrail on Twitter

 

He appears to have left, for "new venture in the private sector". Paul Kirkman is the temporary director of the NRM. Source is @Sharonheal (Sharon Heal, who is the editor for Museums Journal).

Personally I'm disappointed as I always found him a very passionate, patient individual who had the best interests of the museum and its collection at heart, despite an increasingly difficult position he was placed in by members of the media.

Good luck Steve Davies in your new role.

 

Sent: 19 September 2012 14:17
Subject: National Railway Museum Director steps down

For immediate release

National Railway Museum Director steps down

Steve Davies is to step down as Director of the National Railway Museum to pursue a new venture in the private sector. He will be leaving his post as of the end of October 2012.

Steve has been the Director of the National Railway Museum since February 2010. He has presided over some high-profile projects which include the ongoing restoration of Britain’s best known steam locomotive, Flying Scotsman, the launch of a purpose built art gallery and Railfest - the biggest ever gathering of rail record holders.

Steve said: “The National Railway Museum is a very special place in the hearts of many people in this country, with an enviable reputation internationally. I have been proud and privileged to lead a highly motivated team over the last three years, and hope that I have played my part in further promoting the Museum’s fortunes. I have, however, decided to accept a firm offer of employment in the private sector as Managing Director of a company in the leisure and tourism industry. The job I am moving to will provide me with an exciting and enjoyable set of new challenges, which I look forward to immensely. I am sure the National Railway Museum will move from strength to strength in the years ahead.

His position will be taken by an acting Director, Paul Kirkman, from 5th November 2012. Paul joins on secondment from the Department for Culture, Media & Sport.

Ian Blatchford, Director of the Science Museum Group said: “Steve’s passion for trains and the railway industry has been evident in everything that he has done at the National Railway Museum over the past two years. We thank him for his contribution and look forward to working with his successor to ensure that the National Railway Museum maintains its position as the leading railway museum in the world”.

Paul Kirkman says: “I am delighted to have been invited by Ian Blatchford to take up this position as acting Director of the National Railway Museum. I am sure that my wide-ranging experience working with the cultural sector at DCMS and elsewhere will help in the continued success of one of Britain’s greatest museums.”

Ends

Pushed or fallen on his sword? A real pity and a career civil servant put in his place can hardly be seen as good news. Be careful what you wish for Mr Wilcock ...

 

Good luck to Steve in the future.
He brought the best out of the NRM.

 

A victim of the scotsman sarga perhaps ??

 

Indeed, I couldn't agree more.

 

Or had a better offer and decided to trade lots of hassle for more money and a quieter life? Who knows... Whatever the truth, I wish him well. I'll watch for the appointment of permenant replacement with interest.

 

Perhaps. as you say, who knows. I for one think it will be a step backwards as far as the movement is concerned. With Steve (& Anthony) at the helm the direction was truly positive. I can't help thinking that a lot of the exciting plans they had will now go onto the back burner.

As others have said, good luck and all the best for the future, Steve.