6100 Royal Scot

You make some excellent points, especially about the effects on HLF funding for other projects ( I hadn't thought that wide). =D>

 

Thanks. I was expecting to get shot down in flames and no doubt somebody will attempt to do so.

Ineffective governanace of projects in the heritage railway sector is more damaging to the overall long term future of the movement than any recession or downturn could ever be. By pouring cash and resources into high profile projects that in effect fail publicly will discourage funding and future volunteers for years to come. Unfortunately due to the nature of the movement and the fragmented labour and funds (i.e I want to restore my favourite engine / wagon/ start a railway only) this will continue to happen and hence we have people ripping things to pieces and then leaving a pile of bits with weeds growing through them when they realise engineering is not just scraping rust and painting. Small lengths of railway line which offer nothing more to the day visitor than a 10 minute ride in a rusty Mk2 hauled by an 08 in rust and primer continue to pop up on spurious reasons such as the 'peak oil' arguement. Once again this detracts from the quality established attractions.

The debacle of 6100 is only symptomatic of this attitude only this time a seven figure sum has been P***** up the wall. Ultimately complex engineering projects must have firm and competent project management, output specs, labour management and quality control should actively controlled. Artisan staff however good need directing and managing and not be allowed to work without apparent direction. The result of not managing a project is vast amounts of wasted time and cash - and guess what has happened? There is no excuse for finding 'significant issues' after outshopping a locomotive that has had this amount of cash thrown at it.

How much is the rework going to cost and who is going to be stupid enough to pay for it? One suspects 6100 will get pushed back into the big shed in Norfolk for the foreseeable future (and without the smoke deflectors) and gather dust.

 

Wasn't 70013 overhauled at Crewe in 1966 or 67? When was 46100's last heavy general prior to withdrawal?

 

Errm, Crewe painted her - and admitted the colour was wrong - but that has naff all to do with her mechanical condition. I would contend that WSR and SSS2 visits did prove something, if only to confirm that she wasn't up to scratch. You can only tell so much by looking at a dead loco.

 

70013 emerged from Crewe in February 1967 as the last BR steam loco to receive a full heavy overhaul. 6100 only received cosmetic treatment there after withdrawal so it's last heavy would have been pre 1962. I suspect the locos arrived at Bressingham in somewhat different mechanical condition.

 

Don't forget that 70013 had been running for about 3 months on the GCR prior to going mainline.

 

Crewe only used the paint that was supplied. The fact it was the wrong shade had nothing to do with them, and the argument I've seen that is their fault for not using enough coats of varnish is just laughable.

The WSR and LR visits did actually prove an awful lot. Before she ran the guys from Crewe only had an idea of what was wrong, but by the end they knew exactly what areas needed looking at before she can turn a wheel in anger again.

 

Thanks for the correction re the paint job. I should of course made it clear that Crewe only applied the paint as supplied to them. Didn't the supplier admit to getting the shade wrong?

 

Oh Dear, here we go again.

No point in anyone putting their hand up when they are correct.

The Crewe people were well aware that the engine wasn't fit for purpose before it even left Southall. The reason it was taken to the WSR was that the lottery people had set a deadline for a staged payment. In effect that if it was not demonstrated to be operable by that time, then funds would be withheld. That is the principal reason why the agreement was cast between Bressingham and Crewe, and why Crewe put themselves out massively to make sure it ran. There was in fact expectation that it might not be able to haul passenger trains, but in the event it was able to. As is very clear today, the engine is far from being sorted out.

 

The Bressingham volunteers were cast off at the time the 6100 project was contracted out to Southall.

In fact 6100 was originally to have been overhauled at Loughborough. At least that was the original proposal, which was scuppered by the same quarters that prevented it being completed at Bressingham. That was before the 70013 overhaul was even discussed. The lottery funding application was based on the Loughborough proposal, but of course in the end it cost something like four times as much, and the job is still far from finished. I did hear a story some time ago (which I believe to be correct) that the same elements that interfered with the 6100 project, and in effect sent it off the rails, also tried very hard to interfere with the 70013 overhaul. Thank goodness they were strong enough to resist.

 

So what predictions precisely are you referring to?

Quotes and references please.

 

So do I.

But it doesn't help their cause if people go around pretending that nothing was wrong.

 

70013 had only a minimal overhaul in 66/67. It included a boiler change, but it was evident during the stripdown at Loughborough that it was extensively bodged to just about last 18 months.

 

Probably not. It was obtained by Southall as I understand it. The opening of the first tin at Crewe apparently brought forth cries of disbelief, and then laughter.

 

A more relevant question might be: "How much running did it do between being overhauled and withdrawn". That might be a better guide to how run-down it was. Don't know the answer, but I'm sure someone will!

 

Which was the point i was making. While it may have nothing to do with 6100 mechanically, getting the paint so wrong doesnt fill you with confidence about the attention to detail of the rest of the project given the time and money spent, especially by the HLF.

Chris

 

Impala,

My comment about 'predictions' was a general response to the previous post and not aimed at anything I have read in this thread. I have a dislike for the few on our forum that delight in pointing the finger without any substance behind their supposed knowledge. Rest assured - if you had witten something I had a problem with, I would say so directly.

 

what does this whole sorry saga tell us, if you want to spend lottery money to restore your engine,
pick a railway who has a prooven track record and whos work is well known to be of a known standard,
what i cant understand is this, why was the restoration not put out to tender and a short list made up, louthboro should have been given the chance to take it on after all they had done a first class job on 70013
failing that any of the main big railways could have done a better job, that what it has appeared to be,it was probally thanks to crewes hard work that 6100 even ran to have worn out valve gear on a newly restored engine is not right, i am now wondering would crewe now have to in fact strip her back down and do the job correctly if she is going to be concidered for main line work?
everyone in preserved railways has heard the whisperings about southall for several years, and the fact that 4472 still isnt out must proove that there must have been some truth behind what was being said in mess rooms up and down the country