Flying Scotsman

Look gents, I can’t accept that a single chimney jubilee can be okay for 13 on the back but a single chimney A3 with a bigger grate, cylinders and boiler isn’t.

Everything I am being told this evening regarding the Gresley A3 is at odds with the ample primary and secondary, and video evidence we have of the class.

I am more than happy to go along with the - absolutely correct - view that a double
Kylchap setup makes things easier - I will not accept that a single chimney setup on Scotsman makes things utterly impossible.

If that was really the case, there would be a clamour to fit double chimneys and lempors and giesels to everything, but there isn’t.

Steve has a a lifetimes worth of experience and I respect him for that. I take his views seriously. But I’ve asked questions above that I think deserve an answer.

And at the end of the day, the evidence we have shows that single chimney machines are doing work on the mainline today - Scotsman will not be so handicapped as to be unusable in single chimney form. Claiming otherwise I think is at odds with the evidence we have.

If the actual argument here is retain the double kylchap and deflectors to prevent LNER apple green from ever being put on the loco again, that I think would be a heinous tactic - and I’m sure none of us are seriously suggesting that.

I think losing the centenary of the LNER was a misstep for Scotsman’s history, she should have been in apple green last year. It’s a disappointment but we can’t do anything about it now.

If a single chimney and a campaign is what it will take to get it back into that livery, so be it.

May the odds be ever in your favour…

 

Simon, I’ve long since given up on taking Ralph seriously and I think you should too. Stop responding to him and hopefully he will get the message. If the Gaza thread is any indication, probably not but I live in hope on a number of levels.

 

Great response to me Matt. Let me mull over my response. I think a few emails are in order.

 

Simon, I’m not trying to shut anyone down, we all have a right to disagree with each other and I’m more than happy to edit my post if it comes across that way.
I appreciate I’m not everyone’s cup of tea, but there’s no way I want someone shutting down just because their opinion is a tad different to mine.

 

Simon, I have a hell of a lot of time for you, and I don’t like disagreeing with you because most of the time you speak a lot of sense! I’ll apologise if I’ve upset and offended you, let’s draw a line under things and have a chat in the future.

 

No worries at all here. I think we’re all a bit fed up in January! Please feel free to reach out via PM whenever.

 

Likewise my friend

 

Simon,

I'm not disputing the suggestion that a single chimney A3 can't do sufficient to be let loose on the big railway. What I am disputing is your argument that, because a single chimney A3 could drag 600 tons around back in the day, it should be perfectly capable of dragging much smaller loads around on todays railway. The A3's were regarded as 7P locos in BR days whereas the majority of the other LNER pacifics were classified as 8P. There were good reasons for this, including their ability to boil water. The fitting of the Kylchap effectively upped their capabilities to 8P because it did improve their ability to boil water at earlier cut-off, albeit too late in the day to warrant a reclassification other than in the eyes of those responsible for rostering them. That unofficial upping of the classification was entirely down to the improved ability to boil water at a given cut off and speed and the reduced back pressure in the cylinders.
I'm not involved with the loading and timing of locos on the big railway but, if I was, one of my prime considerations would be acceleration and hill climbing at speed. It certainly wouldn't be ability to start and haul heavy trains at relatively low speed. Gresley came to the conclusion that what the LNER needed was a loco that could haul trains at a constant high speed and not slog up gradients with heavy trains at a relatively low speed and that was the reasoning behind the A4's. On todays railway it is more important than ever, except on lightly used routes.
If you want to put it another way, look at a Britannia (7P) and a Merchant Navy (8P). Both are eminently capable of hauling trains on the big railway but I'm sure you'll be the first to agree that a Merchant Navy will outperform a Britannia any day. If I suggested to you that we drop the boiler pressure on Clan Line to 200psi and derate it to 7P as an economy measure you'd be up in arms and asking why. You're not suggesting reducing Scotsman's power rating for economic reasons but for aesthetic ones, not to mention personal preference.
FWIW, I'll say that I think the A3's look best with the German smoke deflectors fitted and always have done since I first saw Galtee More back in 1959. I'm not particularly bothered about a double or single chimney.
Gresley's locos generally had their cut off fixed at 65% because Gresley thought that a longer cut off was unnecessary with three cylinders and it would stop drivers from flogging the locos as much. It was an ill founded theory and I think that his pacifics and V2's were altered to 75% in BR days (if not earlier) but only in fore gear. Happy to be corrected on this, though.

 

There’s some photos here. I’ve no doubt the Vickers team were justifiably proud of their work but putting these plates so prominently on both cabsides was naff - I remember thinking that when I saw it soon after at Carnforth. Thankfully, they were removed in ‘85 and given to a driver & fireman. At least one has subsequently been auctioned.

https://www.nwemail.co.uk/features/...-engineers-put-flying-scotsman-back-on-track/

 

Yes, and so am I. The loco looks good, works well (very well) it would be foolish and expensive to change it. The people clamouring for change.........get your hand in your pocket, offer to fund what you want.

 

But 7P locos are rostered on main line specials. Scots, Bulleid Light Pacifis, Castles and Brits so I’d argue that a single chimney A3 would still find work.

 

A3s - 7P6F
A4s - 8P6F
A1/1 - 8P6F
A1 - 8P6F
A2 - 8P7F
A2/2 - 8P7F
A2/1 - 7P6F
A2/3 - 8P7F

The A3 and A2/1 are the most similar for boiler size/pressure (the A2/1 has 5lb more than the A3 at 225lb). Note - single and double chimney versus double chimney only.

Today’s railway has better quality permanent way, better train planning systems, better signalling infrastructure and understanding of what is required to run trains. If we can run a single chimney Jubilee with 13 on the back, we can run a Gresley A3 with a bigger boiler and grate with 13 on the back.

You keep saying this Steve, but where is the physical evidence for this? I can see a lot of reference to economy with the double chimney and keeping the tubes clean (and the reduced back pressure you mentioned) but where is the proof that the change in blastpipe made the boiler significantly better at raising steam? The boiler was already an excellent steam raiser in its 220lb with streamlined dome form.

Forgive me Steve but I have to approach that claim with a great deal of scepticism. That is simply not true in my view. We have more than enough evidence to show that’s not the case. Aside from the tractive effort, adhesive ratio and video footage (of which we have plenty).

That’s true but the LNER and Gresley did a huge amount of work to develop that locomotive - and it wasn’t the A4 that was doing it for the majority of LNER days, it was the A3 Pacific.

Again, you’re asking me to ignore clear evidence as to the efficacy of a locomotive class that is not a slouch, whether in grouping, British railways or preservation days.

A Gresley A4 is a streamlined A3 Pacific with 30lb more boiler pressure and slightly better streamlining of the internal passages at the front end. The differences between the two are not that great and arguably the streamlined casing is more important than the Kylchap (which was proved by the trials between 4466 and 4470 post war, single chimney A4 versus double Kylchap A1/1).

I absolutely challenge the notion that a single chimney Gresley A3 could not start a rail tour load today or do a reasonable hill climb. I don’t think it’s true to say it could not.

Right, but my contention would be that you can’t argue the Britannia cannot haul railtours. Of course a bigger Pacific with a higher boiler pressure will outperform another one with a lower boiler pressure and one less cylinder. That’s not in dispute, has never been in dispute.

But where have I suggested dropping the boiler pressure on Scotsman? I haven’t. It would remain at 220lb, as it did when converted from single chimney to double chimney. No change except the fitting of the blastpipe/pipes.

If I had suggested that, you could use that as a legitimate criticism.

But I didn’t say that at any point.

And yes, I am obviously suggesting the single chimney for aesthetic reasons. The point of that is to give Scotsman the widest array of suitable liveries it can wear reasonably authentically (which does include BR Green as well as LNER apple green, wartime black and express passenger blue).

The contention being made by the “keep the double Kylchap” line currently seems to be that the single chimney and blastpipe produces a locomotive incapable of doing the work asked of it in a post steam rail tour world.

Your Britannia example is apt in one specific way: outside of physical failure of locomotive components, the Britannias have hardly been found lacking in performance on railtours. They have a single blastpipe, albeit I accept, probably better than an original Gresley fitting (but equally there is not one single version of the Gresley/LNER single blastpipe, there are multiple iterations across numerous classes).

Scotsman has one extra cylinder over a Britannia and a virtually identical size of grate. Are you saying the Brit can produce a better performance than the 3 cylinder locomotive? In preservation both classes have pulled similar loads entirely satisfactorily.

Point of order: those smoke deflectors were only fitted with the double Kylchap so - with respect Steve - it has to be a double to have them for authenticity. Why you would fit them with a single chimney is beyond me.

I need to check this but I don’t off the top of my head believe this was applied to all of his Pacifics or all of his V2s, though certainly some were modified. I will go and check this though, when I am back home for you.

 

We have been flogging this rather a lot, but I don't think any of us disagree much on the essential facts.

FS in its present form must be able to deliver more maximum DBHP than it would be able to in single chimney form. How much significance the additional power would have when hauling railtours on the modern railway is unclear, but probably not much, considering what some much smaller locos achieve. And anyway one thing we certainly don't want to flog is FS itself, so maximum DBHP may be irrelevant.

More significant is that the double Kylchap version would have more in hand for coping with poor coal, and that benefit may become more important as coal supplies become more unreliable.

On the other hand FS is the most famous locomotive in the world, even if it is is partly famous for being famous and even if it incorporates little or no material from when it first emerged from the works. And it is famous in apple green livery without smoke deflectors, regardless of less visible differences such as the washout plugs on an A4 boiler or left-hand versus right-hand drive.

Thus there are reasons for retaining its present form and there are reasons for returning it to a different form. We can and do disagree among ourselves as to which reasons are stronger, but as has been said the decision isn't up to us anyway.
Edit: corrected a typo.

 

Hang on! As I read Steve's comment, he wasn't questioning FS's ability to haul heavy trains at relatively low speed. He was saying that that ability is not relevant to timing railtours on today's railway.

 

I'd only add that the people who are able to make the decision have better access to contemporary data about Scotsman than anyone commenting in this thread (recognising that some of those people are, or have been, members of the forum).

Those people also have responsibility and accountability for ensuring both the short-term health of the loco and its long-term value as a historical artefact of national importance.

This debate has been mostly focused on the 'could' of change, much less on the 'should'…

Simon

 

A lot of the arguments above are centreing on science and theory, which is fine to a point. So id like to make some points of order.

1. The idea that a 'Jube' is a match for an A3...really? One has a vastly larger grate. Can a Black 5 GTI really be compared with an A3? (Note, I am biased.)

2. Coal quality. It aint what it was. Big impact on DBHP. If you get lumped with trash coal, the A3 would still put out reasonable power, but a jube would be dead, wouldnt it?

3. Driver capability and operating restrictions are very different to what they were 40 years ago.

4. The network is far busier that it was even 20 years ago, and this alone kills the idea of an effective de-rate. If you had a bad day with coal, and then you are down on power because of draw, its a cumulative effect on DBHP, we cant really afford to have failing railtours nowadays. Its not nearly as tolerable anymore.

5. Single chimney would be a de-rate, like it or not. The A3's became notoriously better steamers and much more free running post Kylchap & Deflector. There is nothing to stop it being painted apple green with the double, like it or not, historical accuacy has its place, but falls behind drawing punters and earning her keep. We need to accept this is an evolving machine, and in fact, has always been a bit of a shape shifter.
We can deal with accuracy when performance isnt important and the upkeep bill drops to "to be stored indoors, ideally in a heated room, no coal/water/staff/insurance/maintainence required."

6. I cant be alone in thinking FS is not flogged much anymore. Every vid or showing of it iv seen in recent years, has a diesel on the back doing some work and a very light exhaust. Id imagine this has more than a bit to do with the 7 figure overhaul.

 

I've not got any particularly strong opinions beyond 'variety is good', but it seems to me point 6 above rather cancels out point 4. If the loco is largely being pushed around with a diesel on the back anyway (and I cast no judgement on that!) then a bit of a de-rate doesn't feel like it'd be an issue.

 

What have you started?!?

I think it highlights what a delicate balance between a lot of competing factors these choices are. Ain't no path that will keep everyone happy I suspect.

Simon

 

That would reconcile two of the considerations (more power in reserve for poor coal while being the most recognisable colour for Joe Schmoe). But it would seriously upset the historical accuracy contingent.

Ain't that the truth?

 

The ultimate NatPres wibble, combining a livery/authenticity debate with boxes on the back!!!