6100 Royal Scot

It's been a while since a forum squabble, but sadly weve been asked to clean it up..

all non-relevent posts (i.e. nothing to do with anything) have been removed.

Can we keep to 6100

ta ! very much.

 

what effect would the out of alignment wheelsets have had on the bearing surfaces, i would expect that most of the motion would need to be looked at, wouldnt it throw out the bearing centres? which means remetaling the bearings of almost every part of the motion as well as the axle boxes, or would the boxes have been un damaged
i for one get more astonished as more and more come out about this engine , you hear stories in mess rooms about the state of engines, and sometimes you get to see some things on visiting engines that you might not like, but never anything like this, i wonder when main line steam used to be inspected by mechanical inspectors at stages of overhaul, at least you new that standards were being kept, of a kind, is it time to bring back outside inspections of engines during overhauls of engines that are expected to be put forward for a mainline ticket , after all if someone who is not connected to a centre or railway inspected, and was licenced by the VAB'S to do such work, it would make sence

 

Unless someone with real detail posts on here, it is difficult to answer your questions. We are told that the axleboxes were out of line but out of line in which way? If the driving axle is at right angles to the frames but not on the theoretical centreline and the coupled axles are parallel to it and the correct distance apart it probably wouldn't pose any problem as far as the boxes were concerned. The problems would be in the valve settings and the possibility of the piston hitting the end of the cylinder. If one side of the loco has the boxes in front of the other side then the misalignment, even if only slight, is going to be far worse in terms of bearings.
The fact that 6100 has run at both the WSR and Llangollen shows just how tolerant steam locos are and highlights their ability to run when either badly worn or badly assembled. As regards the latter, I'd suggest that 6100 is by no means the only loco to fall into his category. Most people seem to think that, if it has a good paint job, it has been well overhauled/restored/maintained.

 

So does this mean it's bad but will work
or
that it's actually just an issue that's not critical, thats been found and should be cleaned up ?

 

all the more reason why an outside examiner who s job it is to ensure that any loco that is going to be considered for mainline work is going to be fit for it to sign off stages of restoration, after all, it could be the engineering head of another railway, who is known to have the very top standard of workmanship, such as tysley, or ian riley, or someone from wcrc

 

I think you've just illustrated that staged inspections, such as was the case before BR was privatised, have to be independant. Or at the very least have responsibilities directly to the network. Only one of those mentioned comes anything like into that category.

Unless I'm seriously mistaken, the regime that has been responsible for the overhaul of 6100 could have been held to be "known" to have a high standard of workmanship. Even when it's been revealed clearly that is not the case, there seem to have been very vocal apologists who seem determined to cover it up. It's quite shocking, and it's only when I read this thread that it became clear to me how bad it is and that people had been aware of it for a long time. If you read the mainstream magazines it's almost business as usual, and you wouldn't really know at a glance that there's anything really seriously wrong.

 

Aye, you can't beat a good old heavy general repaint!

Lordy

 

I probably answered that in the first part of my post, which you didn't quote. We, well probably most of us on here, don't know what the problem is so we can't answer. All we know is that there is a problem.

 

The problem with all those that you have named (and others) is that they could be said to have a vested interest in finding fault as they are in the overhaul business and inevitably looking for work. Any over-inspection has to be by someone sufficiently knowledgeable and sufficiently far removed to have no vested interest in the outcome, whatever it is. There aren't too many people that fall into both those categories in this game.

 

So are you saying that people such as Ian Riley, Bob Meanley and Brian Caldwell from WCR are incapable of giving an unbiased opinion on such issues as this?

 

I can't speak for Steve, but I would say not. it's a basic principle that you can't allow such a situation to occur. Inspections and auditing has to be carried out by someone whose prime responsibility is balanced reporting. Which means absolutely no vested interests. Since BR was privatised there has been too much of people inspecting their own work, or people they are associated with, which is ludicrous. If you need an example, just consider that the person who seems to be in the thick of all these problems has himself been in a position of responsibility, with a perceived reputation at least equal to any of those you have named.

 

Pretty sure Doncaster didn't have some-one pop across from Crewe or up from Swindon to check they'd done the job right or visa-versa!

A pretty major reason for getting it right is the cost of getting wrong, both financial (damage, delays etc.) and reputational. Surely the last thing we need is more bureaucratic systems checling work which generally undertaken to the highest standards because it is in the engineer's interest to ensure it is right. There are systems that engineers involved with mainline locomotives to show work to underatken to a standard. Something appears to have gone wrong here but I doubt if anyone on here could say how the systems in place appear not to have worked.

It should perhaps be remembered that 6100 has not yet been presented for engineering acceptance by either mainline TOC. This process, whilst I believe largely a review of paperwork, is an independent review by a party with a definite financial interest in avoiding problems.

Steven

 

According to 'The Beano' yesterday was a meeting of the HLF, Bressingham and the Trust to sanction the transfer of ownership to the Trust led by Jeremy Hosking. I wonder if this went ahead or not.

 

I have not said that they are incapable but, when you are in the business of repairing/overhauling/supplying, you have a vested interest in finding fault, even if you are excluded from rectifying it. If Fred Smith finds fault with Joe Bloggs workmanship, then one conclusion of this is to use Fred Smith next time you need work doing and that is to Fred Smith's advantage. The only way for such an over-inspection by an interested party to work would be if it is objective and not subjective and, unless you strip the thing down and measure every item against a standard, then you are asking for a subjective opinion. That opinion must be completely impartial and, yes, I would say those persons that you have mentioned, and others similarly placed, cannot be wholly impartial for the reason that I have given. For their opinion to be impartial, they would have to give up their present employment and become completely independent.

 

I wonder -------. Has the NRM seen something similar to this over the past three years or so? If so it could explain a few things.

 

Perhaps the builders' tape measure & pencil method of axlebox alignment isn't all its cracked up to be?

 

the fact that the so called engineer in question has earn a reputation which on the face of things is not valid, shows up the fact that in certain quarters, its not what you know, its who you know, hense if a high profile person bigs you up, because he has a interest finacially in doing so , it means that things that other engineers ,who do know what they are doing, i hasen to add might raise get ignored , its more to do with the identies behind this farce that should be investigated, other well known engineers would have not, spent 7 years and 1 million pounds of someone elses money and produced a engine that had to be taken away and put right at great expence , i dont think that anyone of the standing of say bob or ian , would allow their own interests to rule the standard of work,if it matched what they would themselves expect

 

i feel that calling engineers reputations in such a way is very wrong so is there any chance we can stop this its unfair and potentially damaging