6201, her new lease of life.

Once again an organisation launched an appeal to address an unforeseen problem (probably releasing some more information would help their cause though!) and the first response seems to be to criticise or spend ages saying who they should give their engine to.

Nat Pres is a funny old place?

 

Woulden't it be good to know why a boiler is seemingly knackered so soon after overhaul so that people can try and avoid it happening again in future ?, Clearly something is amiss and I'd hate it to happen again or indeed to any other loco.

At this stage it could be anything, financial constraints, questionable quality of components, maintenence, your guess is as good as mine.

 

Well to be fair, people have already given substantial amounts for the recent overhaul which I seem to recall was very protracted. I don't think asking for an explanation of why the work is required is criticising.


Keith

 

As I understand, the requirement is to be able to conduct a full inspection of the boiler all the way down to the foundation ring level. For a narrow firebox loco, that invariably means a boiler lift; however, for a loco with a wide firebox, it may be possible to conduct a satisfactory examination without lifting the boiler. Obviously once the inspection is complete, a scheme of repair or further inspection would be agreed with the boiler inspector which may require a boiler lift in order to carry out; however, there is no absolute mandate on a boiler lift per se.

Tom

 

The last place Lizzie belongs is NRM. I'm going to be giving and am glad that Clive came forward. I wish there was more appreciation for Princess Royal class.

 

That's what I would have thought too.

 

Funnily enough, that idea had crossed my mind.

Whether you agree with the popularity of BR liveries or not, seeing locomotives gain post 1948 liveries certainly increases popularity on the heritage railway network but also among photographers ( D49 No. 62712 and Prairie No. 4566 are two fine examples). With the owning group clearly struggling for finance for remidial work so shortly after an overhaul, perhaps now would be the best time to lay pride aside and give in to the calls of BR Green should it be accompanied by larger and more numerous donations?

 

As has been mentioned before they would have to change their articles of association to change the livery, not impossible though.

Dave

 

I think it's in the constitution of the Society that it will always be in LMS red but presumably that can be changed.

 

Let's be fair John. With accepted failures by the NRM in the planning and examination stages, there is far more to criticise of previous private owners of Flying Scotsman for the issues of the last overhaul than them. The project has run over budget and over the agreed timescales: absolutely accepted.

However once put back on track, we appear to have a locomotive in excellent fettle which has produced some astonishing PR work for the museum over the last year, bringing in funds beyond that originally envisaged.

So fiasco? Unfair perhaps. It became successful when people took a step back, took stock, made a plan, and stuck to it.

 

The A1 trust could have built a new one for them for the sort of money they shelled out, so yes fiasco

 

You do like your straw man arguments John.

There is absolutely no evidence that money would have been forthcoming for building a new Gresley A3 when one already exists.

Tornado was built over 18 years and a lot of determination - the A1 Trust have proved (and are proving again with the P2) that missing links can be built because there is the support there for them.

The NRM's restoration of Scotsman, ably finished by Riley & Sons, is so much more than a rebuild. They've made the locomotive good for at least another twenty years if looked after (the front frame replacement part of that overall brief). The whole locomotive has been restored to a form suitable for locomotive and tender and extremely authentic. Don't forget the curatorial aspects of the NRM's ownership.

Fact is, the general public were willing to support Scotsman as were millionaires, the Science Museum group and the Heritage Lottery fund. With Scotsman already in existence, you simply would not have had that support for a new build A3.

Now, could we dispense with the unproven, baseless straw man arguments and perhaps focus on the rather exquisite Stanier machine that finds itself in a bit of a pickle?

Has anyone a link to donate? I'd happily chuck a few quid in for Gresley's old mate Stanier...

 

There is no legal requirement to remove the boiler tubes. It is a matter for the owner and the Competent Person to decide upon. However, if the locomotive is to be used on Network Rail, there will be a need to comply with MT276. Section 5.09 of this states:

From this, it seems clear that, if you want to operate over NR, all the tubes have to come out.

Edited to correct several typos!

 

Hear hear. It's not always just about the money.

It's in the OP. Despite being a dyed in the wool LNER man, I might well be putting my hand in my pocket too for this admirable machine

 

Just donated £30.

Dave

 

Therefore we can deduce that such was carried out at Tyseley or else it would not have been recertified by the VAB. A point of wider interest emerges as to why the present situation has arrived so prematurely. As others have said, if there is a materials issue others may need to know.

 

Setting aside the tired old arguments about 60103 (!), the fact is I doubt the NRM would want 6201 if it were offered to them. The NRM already has a large collection, and a finite amount of space, so they have to be very selective about what they take on. Personally, I would argue that 6229 is sufficient to represent the LMS Pacific classes.

Similarly, even if the PRCLT wanted to take her on, would they actually have the resources to overhaul her? Bearing in mind that there are no clear plans to overhaul 46203!

Personally I do not think a change of ownership - even if all sides wanted that to happen - would necessarily solve anything. However, I agree that it is right to ask questions about how this situation has arisen.

 

All speculation as to whether the NRM would ever be 'gifted' 6201 but I'd argue it deserves a home in the collection at least as much as 4472. Given the collection has multiple representatives of the express motive power of the others of the big 4 the LMS is rather under represented.

 

Suppose it is possible that the boiler work at Tyseley was completed early on in the overhaul which could now be 4 years plus ago now? In which case half way towards the point when the tubes might need to be removed anyway.