Flying Scotsman

Any chance of a good word / reference if you are retiring and I can have your job then?

 

Gents, I believe the word required here is "DOH"

Can't believe I forgot Thundersley or the Adams Radial. I stand happily corrected on that point.

 

Whether that particular place in time and space has always been known as "4472 Flying Scotsman", in no way different to us humans occupying the same space we always do, but outgrowing and replacing parts continuously.

I sincerely doubt there's anything original from the Hong Kong works of 1987 left in me, except the stamp saying "made in Hong Kong" perhaps on my posterior...!

Identity is not defined by the originality parts.

 

Actually, I keep making the point for the opposite reason you suppose. Periodically people come on and complain that it has the 'wrong' tender, chimney, whatever. My point is that it is not original, can never be original, and should not pretend to be original. That doesn't stop it being the Flying Scotsman. But it can and does affect the freedom with which the NRM, being a museum, can change parts. On Gladstone it would be a betrayal, on FS its running repairs.

I don't envy those who have to make a judgement in difficult cases like ,say, Mallard, but with FS it's not so difficult, at least from what one might call an 'artefact' angle - it is still of course difficult to decide between its various conditions even since 1960. The recent report seems to miss the point - I'd say work it as hard as you like as long as you budget for the repairs and do them properly - that's been the problem in the past, not any design changes, or how hard it has been worked.

We also ought to remember the only reason it has survived in the first place is because people wanted it as a working steam engine. There was no 'museum piece' A3 on the list for preservation. Papyrus should have been there but it wasn't. (First engine to unequivocally maintain a speed over 100 in the UK) And don't read into the last comment that I think City of Truro should be scrapped!

 

In complete agreement with you on that point. I think we largely agree on the broader aspect of originality versus identity.

 

Whilst I am basically in agreement with you both, my personal preference is that an engine maintains a visual appearance that fits into a given period in its pre-preservation life. That doesn't preclude detail differences, such as obligatory TPWS, OTMR etc., ground-level tender feed, air braking etc.

Of course, each change is different and each engine is different and this is a very subjective area. So, to me, 70000's fairly prominent Westinghouse pump is acceptable, but FS in LNER livery with double chimney and smoke deflectors is not - this is not a criticism, it isn't my decision to make, just being honest.

 

I think pete2hogs, S.A.C. and Guard_Jamie are all saying mostly the same thing, and I agree, very largely. In particular with Pete's assertion that "it has survived ... because people wanted it as a working steam engine".

Flying Scotsman is special because she has had such an important and varied career since preservation: the special agreement that she could run almost anywhere on BR up to '68, the trips to the USA and Australia, the various attempts to "improve" her over the years (even though some were detremental in the long run), even the current long and difficult overhaul. Perhaps more than any other loco, she deserves to be presented in a "contemporary" identity. I don't mean that she should be painted in Stagecoach or West Coast Railways livery (heaven forefend!), only that we should recognise that her history isn't over yet, and that, in her case, the NRM is correct to take a pragmatic approach and do what is necessary to keep her running reliably and regularly on NR and on preserved lines. Provided that they "tell her story" clearly, it's OK to mix LNER livery with a double chimney, or BR livery with a corridor tender, or whatever. There has to be a compromise, and I think we can trust the NRM to do what's "appropriate". "Authentic" isn't really meaningful, in this case.

 

For the legal position, see here:

The Case of the Bentley Old Number One

It concerns a Bentley where the buyer tried to back out of a sale following the bursting of a bubble in the early 90's. It makes excellent reading in itself but the judgement means that in English jurisprudence, my Grandfather's axe is indeed my Grandfather's axe.

Best regards

 

I agree in principle on the livery issue, but it's isn't practical. The NRM don't have a single chimney or blastpipe suitable. They do have a double chimney and blastpipe, perfectly useable and from the steaming point of view, desirable for mainline tours in many respects (bar the necessary deflectors, accepted).

Flying Scotsman is, to the vast majority of the general public and indeed enthusiasts, apple green and numbered 4472 (myself excluded, I have always thought of her as 60103 as this was the condition she was in when I first met her!), therefore she needs to be apple green and numbered 4472.

Previous owners - Waterman/McAlpine and Marchington made compromises in the livery application and it is they who set the precedent for her current condition.

Let's not forget that Pegler made the biggest livery compromises in different ways, including the double tender, change in the placing of the numbering, and the cylinders being lined out.

Now, the NRM have promised a variety of liveries and have stuck to that with the current wartime black scheme. Apple green will follow afterwards for the mainline steam tours and BR green will follow afterwards. I don't see a problem with a continuous rotation of liveries. Tornado has provided that and it has worked very effectively as a marketing tool.

At the next overhaul, I think most people are in agreement that a single chimney and and appropriate blast pipe should be fitted to regain the "elegant" look of 4472 and make her closer to a specific spec. However even that will prove difficult to pin down as I seem to recall 4472 started out as right hand drive and is now left hand drive...amongst many other detail problems.

I think it's clear a reasonable debate on a "standard" spec for 4472 should happen, with an agreed rotation of liveries to please everyone.

...better known as how to turn watching paint dry into a bureaucratic art form...

 

S.A.C. Martin - I like your last paragraph, and in it you've highlighted my point about detail differences - LHD, RHD, etc. - not very visible, does not largely alter appearance - acceptable (to me). Double chimney and smoke deflectors - very visible - not acceptable (to me).

Don't get me wrong, I'm expressing my own personal opinion but I am not railing against my own preferences not being followed - I've no right to that.

 

Although I totally get the arguments about originality, identity etc, there is undeniably a certain frisson with some locomotives connected with originality of components that simply isn't there with those that have had a long life of gradual replacement. For example, when looking at the original "Rocket" in the Science Museum, even though it no longer conforms to the "classical" image of the loco (yellow boiler and wheels, white chimney with serated top etc), there is a tremendous thrill in knowing that in substantial parts (boiler, frame, cylinders etc) it has a direct tangible connection with Stephenson and the events of the Rainhill trials, in a way that FS (in my mind) doesn't have the same tangible sense of connection to Gresley. FS is clearly in a meaningful sense "the original Flying Scotsman" (it is not a replica). It is clearly substantially as conceived by Gresley (in some ways more so than Rocket now exists as conceieved by Stephenson). But the frisson of knowing that you could be looking at a piece of metal that previously took part in great events isn't there in the same way it is with Rocket.

Of course, with a loco that has had a long hard working life, beyond the events for which it is famed, there is no way back to recover that "frisson", and so I see no problem with a potentially indefinite programme of gradual replacement of worn parts so as to keep the loco running into the indefinite future; in doing so, another intangible can be preserved (the sense of a loco as a living entity, rather than an object in a display case). But it is important that where substantial originality of fabric (rather than just originality of identity) can be demonstrated, that sense of original fabric is itself a precious thing. As always, horses for courses: to take an example from another field, I hope that the BBMF Lancaster keeps flying into the future - but I also hope S-Sugar in the Hendon Museum is as carefully conserved as humanly possible, because it has a tangible connection with the events of the Second World War that no other Lanc can come close to matching.

Tom

 

Great post.

 

I read all the way through that. It's quite fascinating. It would seem FS is in a very similar position to Old Number 1, except of course without spectacular crashes. So it would seem that legally we would be correct in calling her the Authentic Flying Scotsman , but not the Original Flying Scotsman. I can go with that!

(Edit) - it also means that 'Authentic' does not mean what I used to think it meant!

 

I know it's a hang up of railway preservation, liveries in general, but Tornado - in theory - was inauthentic for both the number and the position of the smokebox numberplate whilst in apple green. Did anyone genuinely care?

I find it difficult to rationalise some of the livery arguments.

4472's inauthentic with the deflectors, most certainly, and the double blastpipe whilst in LNER livery, but that surely is a great deal more authentic than 6100 being painted a rather pinkish version of the LMS express livery (and with a whole boiler type, valve gear and other bits it never had whilst in LMS livery) - yet there are those who will defend it because it's an interpretation of its condition whilst at Butlins.

 

This is the bit where it all starts getting subjective, isn't it. To me personally, I would have liked to have seen Tornado's numberplate in the correct place, but wasn't massively bothered with it being on the hinge. I don't much care for 6100's pink, and I care even less for 4472 with dc and deflectors (as opposed to 60103 with dc and deflectors). But it's all subjective.

 

All,

as the discussion on locomotives identities has grown beyond Scotsman into a subject of its own I have spun out those threads to its own topic to keep this one for scotsman

for posts on loco identities and parts please see..

http://railways.national-preservation.com/steam-traction/40252-whos-loco-anyway.html

 

Had a letter from the NRM confirming many details of its report today. It's a blanket letter to supporters and donators to the cause over the years I suspect. It states that "we anticipate that Flying Scotsman will not operate on the mainline before 2015" and that a boiler lift will be required to fix the three cylinders (which will also need new liners) and that the section of the main frames behind the cylinders need to be assessed after they have been removed to ascertain the full viability of completing the restoration.

In all, positive in so much that they have put their cards on the table, but quite ominous in its tone I feel.

I'm behind the NRM all the way still and if there is a call for funds I will no doubt get the pennies together to send in what little I can at this point.

Obviously throwing money at it won't fix it, but from this point, tendering outside and getting the job done is the right course of action.

Fingers crossed that all we get is good news from now on with 4472.

 

Whilst the focus has been all around the bottom end of Scotsman, what is the longevity of it's boiler ?

If the extra money is ponied up to make the bottom end tip top condition, is it not a mute point, if in 7 years time the boiler is "discovered to be" too old/knackered/expensive to continue and needs another £3mn, only this time the issue is replacing an integral part of the locomotives history (afterall the V2 was retired for much less) ?

TBH I'd prefer they just addressed the whole job at once and have a working scotsman for the next 20 years, of course if this is the plan and the boiler is in A1 condition already, in every measure and it's only the cylinders/frames left to do ?

Even then if it's restricted to not being much more than a show pony and a couple of small loss making trots about town, wouldnt it be better to pack it up on display and wait for a financially more sunny day ?

Is spending more money now just delaying the inevitable or is Scotsman a sure thing after the cylinders/frames ?

 

The bulk of the expenditure of the overhaul was on the boiler at one point, which has been completely refreshed and has had virtually no use since being test steamed a year or so ago.

If the cylinders are done, and the section of frame in question is minimal or done too, then the locomotive will definitely steam, and it'll be good for further use for a good twenty years I would hope. The work done by Bury is of the highest standard and no doubt the locomotive when finished will be in its best condition since withdrawal from BR.

So in short: touching wood, I would say Scotsman has to be a sure thing given the length and breadth of the overhaul thus far, and has much has been renewed and to high standards too.

 

Hi everyone,

TV alert. Tonight on BBC 2 at 7pm. BBC two are transmitting a program about Scotsman.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008m6wb