6100 Royal Scot

However there is one for the Supermarine Spitfire, and Sex - all models, shapes, sizes and colours, so it can only be a matter of time before one for the Rebuilt Scot, although I've a feeling the Black 5 manual might come out first!

Lordy

 

yes the evidence may be there but Damaging someones reputation has a impact on buisness

 

Funnily enough, I said that in an earlier post, for different reasons.

 

They are two entirely different types of repair. A patch plate on top is a riveted repair (and you must cut out the plate behind it). A let in plate is a welded repair. You should never, ever weld a patch on top. That would be a horror story. If executed properly, both work. A welded repair is likely to be preferred, if possible, but circumstances may dictate otherwise.

Different standards prevail throughout life. Mr Royce would certainly have turned his nose up at many of Mr Fords standards. The important thing is firstly safety then fitness for intended purpose. BR and their predecessors had different standards for their front line passenger locos and their yard pilots.

I doubt that anyone will disagree with you on this. But you never know...

 

And adding to this further, the 3 that you have mentioned seem to have rather impeccable standards of mainline running so just because they "work for the other side" doesnt mean to say they will run down the engineering standards just because of this reason. I think due to their records I think they have a right to have a say on this, more so one third of this trio considering they actually work for the other side carrying out FTR's.

 

To suggest that any of the reputable heritage engineers would find fault with an engine just for the sake of creating work is scurrilous to say the least and damaging to the whole industry.
After all if an owner isn't satisfied with an engineers report he can always go to someone else for a second opinion. And remember most owners have an engineer on board who would soon let their owner know if they thought a company was taking them for a ride.
And by the way from what I've seen there is genuine competition between different engineering centres for the work that is available, so finding faults that don't exist is very unlikely to occur.

 

and this it would seem is the cruxt of the matter, i know that FTRs are carried out by each others enginers and that is what i meant by a known standard , i dont recall any of the afore mensioned failing any of the others work, unless there was very good reason to, on safety grounds ,and with the owners rep agreeing ,
but with 4472 and now with 6100 the faults are as clear as daylight once a loco has been restored , one at the end of its mainline ticket of 7 years, its shot to pieces in one case, and not fit for mainline in the other i can not think that any other owning group that has treated the maintaince of its charge in such a way, during its ownership, Scotsman was not given the funds to keep it in proper condition, where did the funds go after all they had a contract with VSOE, look at Clan line, they do as much ,if not more work, yet i dont see her being allowed out in less that perfect order in this case, i would think that a high profile person, in all probability has taken everyone, including the one who is getting the flak for a ride , if the engineer did the best he could have done, but was not allowed the facilities or funds who in the end should carry the can

 

Even the lottery can't get it right, they say the locomotive was built in 1827

http://www.lotterygoodcauses.org.uk/stories/
click Norfolk then try and find it.

 

Regarding Royal Scot its a shame its been beset with the problems that have occurred. Blame can be attributed but I've little knowledge to comment on this specific issue fairly.

Regarding a manual similar to a car version going from standards I have to learn from the civils side possible something similar to this would be suitable with a generic guidance to cover all locomotive types and annexes for specific locomotives. Not neccessary a step by step guide like a car manual but guidance to make sure the methods carried out during overhauls are correct.

Regards

Duncan

 

I have been watching the "progress" with 6100 since the work first started at bressingham. The quality of work carried out after it left BSM has been of a poor quality, and additional "faults" were found with the boiler which definitely weren't there, which meant further handouts were requested from the lottery. BSM have now sold a showmans road loco, 2 ploughing engines, and it would appear that beckton No1 is now being offered for sale also. the bloody engine should have been left in the shed and polished. Much less trouble....

we have photos of the poor workmanship which i did post on here, but which were removed for some reason. we have approached the lottery, who seem to have been misled all the way, and when the brown stuff started to hit the fan, they turned into ostrich's!

 

With regards to a Haynes style manual for overhauling steam loco's with separate sections for different classes of loco.
The person who came up with this idea obviously doesn't understand the differences between loco's built by the same company at the same works and in the same batch.
Take for instance Tyseleys three Halls, all built at Swindon within months of each other, but with totally different 'personalities' (for want of a better word.)
All three could be given a heavy general but you will no doubt find that there are differences in what the 'wear and tear' on each loco is.
And this despite Swindon's penchant for standardisation.
What people seem to be forgetting is that every steam loco is different to it's class mates and that is part of the reason we love the b*****s so much.
And anyway who wants a 'Haynes Manual' with so many appendices that it would need the worlds strongest man to lug it about?

 

can you send photos to me please as you say poor workmanship, fish7373

 

A Haynes manual already exists. Please use the following for all further steam loco overhauls/restoration......
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thomas-Engi...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262053738&sr=1-3

 

i got bought me the haynes thomas manual for christmas. should help with our locos restoration lol.

 

Very clever lol.

 

i cant believe how some continue to question the so called restoration, peter waterman all though he has not said it publically would not call it up to standard, nor i guess would anyone else who has the job of maintaining a mainline engine, i am lead to believe that if the axle problem was not put right the engine could derail at speed, if this is so, then questions should be asked as to what was going on? some very serious failing has gone on here and does the whole railway industry no good, what use are self inspection if its only a paper exersice and work is not done correctly, isnt it time to take inspections out of owners/ engineers hands and have a railtrack regulated system of inspections after all, what if this is only the tip of the iceberg , are there other engines out there that are in as bad a running condition?

 

From some of the comments on this thread no operational loco could be as bad as Royal Scot. (And I'm using the term 'operational' rather liberally to describe Royal Scot)