Flying Scotsman

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bittern will be Bittern again, and although it's been semi confirmed that the valances are staying on, nothing has been said about what colour it'll be. I know Bittern as a BR Green loco & apparently it's been that way since the 50's apart from when disguised - I guess we'll wait & see. They've also said that they're hopefully going to confirm another addition - with SNG's repairs going so well, maybe they're hoping to add that - 3 A4's, that will easily make up for the lack of 4472.

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen a picture somewhere of 4468 in LNER blue with red wheels. and it was definitely post 1960's seeing as the stock behind was blue and grey. :tongue1:
Not a fan of some of the negative comments on here about Scotsman not making it to June... Highly unfair to the work that Ian and the NRM have put in over the last year... Yes its ashame that 4472 wont make it to barrow hill, but that doesn't mean that the may steaming deadline wont be met. Try and keep an open mind instead of being negative...

 

Mallard was preserved on withdrawal in the early 1960s and restored to LNER livery with valances. The NRM restored her to running order in the 1980s worked railtours for about three years. That's when she would have been seen on the blue and grey stock.

 

I apologise, I mean 4464 :target:
I think I saw it in SR/HR magazine...
Matt

 

Funnily enough during the 1986-88 period of operation she usually worked with the ex GW150 choc/cream set, raspberry ripple Mk1 set, the ex SLOA Pullmans or the BN91 set of maroon coaches belonging then to Pullman rail/Flying Scotsman services. I had the pleasure of working on the overwhelming majority of her trips.

 

Like it or not the comments are realistic not negative. I am sure that it is the NRM that are responsible for the delays not Ian Riley. Poor project management and assessment of the locomotive in the first place.

 

IIRC she ran a very few tours in LNER blue with her post 1946 number of 19 but without valances. I honestly don't think she's run in preservation as 4464 but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

 

We can all but hope that it'll make it - it has to sooner or later. I think that most people are just extremely fed up with the lack of official regular updates from people in the know - a lot of unnecessary need to know only. At least by not going to Barrow Hill it probably gives them a couple of weeks extra to get it ready for the important steaming deadline, rather than having to piece it together & transport it to BH etc etc & off course run the risk of further damage (if it was the transportation that caused the extra problems as rumoured here, which I'm not re-fuelling).

 

Personally the thought of (theoretically) seeing two garter blue A4s with valances side by side for the first time since the 1930/40s is far more interesting than an A1, A2, A3 & A4 in a multitude of liveries.

I think we should also bear in mind that A3 or no A3, Barrow Hill still have a very impressive line up and contrary to the reports in the latest SR the event should not rely entirely on the A3's attendance. When was the last time so many LNER locos were in one place?

 

I totally agree, in fact with Scotsman being in black it would not have fitted in too well.

 

I agree with you on that!

Richard

 

I don't! I WAS looking forward to seeing her in black - just to add something unique to the line up, but hey ho, as it isn't going to happen now I'm STILL going to enjoy the event regardless!

 

Do you have any evidence to support this statement, otherwise its just further speculation which fuels the madness? Does anyone know outside the project team?

 

I wasn't just pointing the finger at Scotsman. A valanced A4 would probably look equally, if not more, out of place amongst a line up of BR liveried locos.

We should, however, be very grateful for what is on offer and show our continued support by attending, or volunteering at, the Barrow Hill event.

Regardless of the troubles with its overhaul we should also support the NRM when Scotsman is finally released.

 

Getting back to 4472, Looking at the ammount of work to the chassis that has been done at Bury, it would almost be everything that has been done at york that has needed to be re worked, If this is so then that does raise serious questions ? first of which has to be why ?

I dont think its all down to being moved by road, other locos move by road and dont need this ammount of repair, the odd broken spring maybe but no way can this be explained just by blaming putting the loco on a low loader fora couple of trips .

Something somewhere either has not been spotted when the loco was stripped or most likily York has been badly advised on what needed doing in the early stages who was their advisor? i do hope it wasnt anyone who was involved with the loco previously, There are a lot of frame issues that cant be explained except that there might have been some weakness in there, that once the boiler went back on came to light once the engine was reassembled because everything was now carrying weight , but i cant imagine that anyone would knowingly leave cracked or weak engine parts unless it was hoped that they could leave it for later if they were under presure to get it done and carry out repairs later? at least under Ian Riley it will be 100 % right before it turns a wheel

 

As all the work that has had to be done for a second time was done at the NRM we can only conclude that a proper engineering assessment was not completed as the locomotive was stripped down at York.

Something I cannot imagine happening when the late John Belwood was Chief Engineer for the NRM but about what you expect when career civil servants (some of whom started in the typing pool ) are put in charge of a project.


witness the overrun and overspend on every item of defence equipment procured, Government computer systems that don't work etc.etc.. IMHO civil servants are useless at anything requiring practical ability.

 

Don't you mean "I can only conclude..." Please allow other members of this forum to have their own ideas.

Richard

 

No it would be grammatically incorrect as it MAY include more than one person!

 

I seem to be missing something here. Other than the wheels, axle journals and obviously axlebox remetalling, what work has had to be done twice?