Flying Scotsman

But it didn't look like that pre nationalisation. Until 1947 it was a RH drive A1 by then numbered 103, from then until 1954 it was a RH drive A3. At no time during that period did it have a corridor tender but that's not apparent from a front three quarter view.

 

1) I See myself as the current generation and i disagree
2) Any interested party of the more recent generations will have been exposed to/sought out the numerous TV documentaries about this loco. Only the most recent have much footage FS in her current guise, in the last few minutes, some will even mention that changing the livery led Mr waterman to be threatened with death and damnation by vicars...

So forget about wrong drive wrong tender wrong boiler etc the consensus of the apple green single chimney brigade ( hands up) is that Mr Peglars 1963 facsimile of a pre nationalised Scotsman was quite acceptable ;
Back in 1963 when most motive power was black and filthy or dull green and possibly filthy that apple green shone like a ray of hope and i think that is one point that is being missed...

 

Point of order: Also a fair number were red ..... and filthy!

 

Agree - I believe that is what I am saying too

 

You obviously weren't around in 63, Top Shed kept their Pacifics looking good to the end.

 

Possibly allows for the fact that not every shed is Top shed, but no i wasnt
Maybe we could put a Nat Pres Choir together....

 

FS's current condition may correspond most closely to its last period of service with BR, but does it correspond exactly? Even if it does, that period is arguably the least significant in its history, certainly less significant than when it was new and its first years in preservation. If it's not exactly in BR condition, why should the NRM care about consistency between the number, the colour of the paint and the type of chimney?

 

Visually from normal viewing angles it is exactly in BR condition, in other words the final development stage of a very successful class of locomotive.

 

Why bother, it worked perfectly well in preservation when it had a single chimney and had that bright livery loved and recognised by the general public. Or to put it another way why revert to drab green, elephant ears and a double chimney just to please the ageing enthusiasts harking back to just the bitter end of steam on BR.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk

 

That’s not the reason it was fitted with a double chimney, it was for the same reason that it was done from the late 50s, to improve performance. Peter Townend campaigned for it and if it means it can take a couple of extra coaches over Ais Gill or operate more efficiently on less than ideal coal it was a wise decision.

 

Some of us are equally unkeen on the shade used by the LNER.

No answer will ever satisfy everyone, but where this particular thoroughbred mongrel is concerned, the focus on precise historical accuracy seems to miss the wider history of the locomotive.

Quite

 

The main point to be asked is "How do you celebrate its centenary" ?

If you want it in working condition and seen by the multitude running on the network then it needs to be in current condition with the application of LNER Apple Green (Doncaster or Darlington ?) to provide some historical link to the original.

If you want it in original condition then accept its unsuitability for main line running and be prepared to visit a museum to see it on display.

Noting the sad death of Harry Billinge earlier today be aware that his fame today reveals a man totally unable to repeat his experience of being among the first to step on French beaches during the D-Day landings hence if you want to see Flying Scotsman celebrate its centenary it needs to be in the guise that it operates under today - not 100 years ago !

 

It frequently took 13 over the S & C. The likes of Knowles and Butler had no problems with it and its ability to get away from a start was the subject of favourable comment by Traction Inspector Gordon. There were photographs taken of it on an empty stock working back to Carnforth; the empty train, some extra coaches and a breakdown crane, Roger Siviter might have captured the move back from York. Given the design requirements of the type and subsequent testing we shouldn't be surprised that it could handle heavy loads since the class proved itself capable of dealing with 750 tons which was in excess of twenty coaches at the time and this was not as an A3 either but rather an A1. You would not want to do this as a regular event, ideally you would modify the frames to take the later A4 pattern hornblocks and keeps but they could and did carry out such work.

So what could they not do in single chimney condition? The quality of the fuel is a matter for consideration and if the truth were being told the ashpan is perhaps more of an issue. At the sides of the grate the pan is rather shallow. It was observed in LNER days that the fire became choked dead at the sides after a long working spell. Anyone inspect the engine after it came back from Australia? There were holes at the edge of the ashpan where it is at its most shallow. Though the rear part of the frames gave little trouble I would have been tempted to rework the outer section to give more volume for the ashpan. The LNER did experiment with the height of the grate but little or nothing came about as a result of this work. I wonder if the restricted ashpan reared its head again when the engine ran into steaming difficulties?

 

Just picking this bit out: with a really heavy load, it would likely have been running quite slowly - at which point the inferior short travel valve gear is much less of an issue. The point of the improved understanding of valve gear coming from Churchward is to improve performance at speed: you don't need long valve travel for slow speed slogging, you just need a good steam-raising boiler.

As a case study, one of the "Ashfordisations" between Urie and Maunsell S15s was improved valve gear arrangement. It was generally considered that the Maunsell locos were preferred on semi-fast passenger and van train services, but the Urie ones had the edge on really heavy low speed goods trains.

Apologies, back to the livery debate.

Tom

 

Lots of good views each entitled to their own. For me it's BR green, double chimney and smoke deflectors, this is how I remember them. Never over keen on apple green. As has been extensively discussed, almost nothing of the original beast from 1923 exists, lots of rebuilds, modifications. I'm just glad it exists, in steam, on the main line and how I like it, I never in my wildest dreams back in the 1960's thought I would be still following these wonderful machines 60 years on.

 

2557 received long travel valves in the May of 1931 it was one of the last of the A1s to be converted, so by the time that the need to work the war time passenger trains came about the short travel gear was long gone. The maximum speed in the war years was supposed to be 60 mph but these engines ran up to 70 mph and more with these loads. Hardly low speed slogging. Whatever made you think we were talking about moving slowly? As for the engines fitted with the short travel gear, 1471 demonstrated during early testing (Sept 1922) the ability to haul 610 tons at 70 mph on what was virtually level track. With improved valve heads, improved valve gear, higher superheat it is no surprise that the engines became capable of delivering so much more. The years of crew experience would also have made its contribution.

 

Originally classified as 7P6F by BR what changes have taken place since withdrawal to have it classified as 8P - given that its TOPS number is 98872 ?

 

Here is the stock move from York to Carnforth that you refer to. The date is 3/12/77 and 4472 is returning to Canforth after the "Agatha" filming in York station a few days earlier. The interesting consist includes the second tender, 30850 (dead) some Pullman Cars and a couple of McAlpine saloons as well as the crane. Sorry for the poor quality of the images but the light was almost non existant.




Just a snapshot in the varied career of this facinating and controversial locomotive. Anyway, back to the arguem... - I mean discussion.

Peter

 

Like i said the general public could not give a flying if it is in single double, or triple chimney form, its all a vanity project for those who want to take a period correct picture, and probably don't contribute to its upkeep. And its the general public the NRM report to, not a minority group, the performance issue is discussed, and the drifting smoke problem, has not been talked about, so on a modern railway, it is in its optimal form.