6100 Royal Scot

I don't think that the overhaul was difficult. It was and still is certainly expensive and 'why' is the main unanswered question. Bear in mind that it was a complete locomotive and not a Barry hulk. These questions are obviously embarrassing to some people but they need answering and not sweeping under the carpet, as some people seem to want to do.

And someone once said that the difference between a professional and an amateur is that a professional knows how to rectify his mistakes.
As for getting my hands dirty, my wife tells me that the only time my hands get clean is when I go on holiday.

 

Thanks Martin. 69621's remark actually made me chuckle. I find it so infra dig to list one's "battle honours" but for the benefit of the questioner I've been involved at the sharp end with 34081 for 34 years now and prior to that I did a couple of seasons at Leighton Buzzard, albeit in the shop and ticket office.
I'm sure that a number of people here are or have been involved in the preservation movement but some of the posts do make me wonder about the experience of some in this field.

 

Questions do need answering but I don't think we'll find the answer here. Most important thing is to get the loco into tip top order. The post mortem can be carried out afterwards.

I get quite grubby on holidays too as they usually involve playing around with steam

 

I don't agree with you there Salty. Some of it, yes. Almost a year ago one poster stated that the bottom end had problems way beyond valve timings and predicted she'd have to come off her wheels. Time has proved that to be correct. The annoying thing is that the supposed 'truth' over this sorry affair has leaked out in dribs and drabs over a prolonged period. I said a long time ago that those regarded as ' responsible' would retain some form of credibility if they were up front about any mistakes made and the problems they were facing. That still stands and much of these 84 pages would never have been an issue if lack of information hadn't spawned all the speculation.

Sure, a large number of people who post here havn't , don't and never will work behind the scenes in loco restoration (I am not one of them), but they are still entitled to an opinion. Each posting is judged on its own merit in my eyes and even those who make a lot of 'noise' can sometimes (only sometimes), offer something worthwhile to read

 

I dont think people on this thread are picking on people. If the allegations are true (some are clearly fact) you cannot over play the serious ramifications they are likely to have on the steam movements credibility and in particular it's ablity to gain HLF funding:-

As I read it People are angry that:-

- The restoration has cost a great deal more than comparable projects have and perhaps a great deal more than this project itself should have.
- The quality of the work appears not to have been to the required standards.
- The people choosing who to award work to and some parties who work was awarded to and the motives behind the award of work have been called into question.

This has ramifications as follows:-

- People are angry that public money could have been better spent- the enthusiast movement is quite correct to ask questions about this.....not only because HLF money is public money in itself but also because it potentially affects the credibility of the movement in gaining future funding applications.........The situation of Royal Scot was (prior to intervention) extremely serious, effectively requiring a "bail out" loan to get it finished (before further serious defects were identified which could then only be funded on the "tick" because there was no money left) and the Bank taking security over the engine. It is a fact that there was a massive overspend and it is also a fact that without the intervention of the Bank, the goodwill of Crewe in doing work in advance of steaming fees and perhaps also a millionaire benefactor that the project would not have been completed. This seriously calls into question future HLF applications for steam locos . Those considering HLF applications will look at cost control, risk and most importantly transparency and credibility those requesting funds............... all have been called into question in this case. The term "all can be tarnished with the same brush" springs to mind and to the extent that one bad outcome may linger with the HLF the reasons for that must be looked into so that future projects do not become blocked because this project has gone so badly.

- People; having seen the quality of the work done are rightly questioning the quality of the workmanship.......You can't deny the paintwoirk was symptomatic of this but that is an issue in itself.......Anyone who knows what a 3 cylinder exhaust should sound like will know that the valve timings were massively out at the engines abortive launch and........it is very serious that the axle boxes were mis-aligned when the engine was originally supposed to be main line ready.........I don't buy the engine being looked over by a 2nd engineer and faults being found because engineers having different ways of doing things has exaggerated poor workmanship..........An organisation that has run out of money is no way going to do work for works sake (hence Bob Meanley acting as an Independent Consultant)..............One has to say that this quality of output particularly when the cost of work is considered is unacceptable in the eyes of the public interest and also should be unacceptable in the eyes of the movement relying on public money for much of its investment and therefore relying on public trust that it can do work to the standard it says it will.

- The last allegations, those that vested interests were in play when those awarded the work were appointed and implicity that this extended to misappropriation of funds are perhaps the most serious. I make no accusations here but would observe that on the "contract" side it seems strange that the merits of the engine going to Bury or Tyseley appear to have been overlooked. I mean no harm to any other depot but these 2 outfits have the best reputations for outfitting other peoples engines........perhaps you can add Crewe, the team that worked on Oliver Cromwell and also Carnforth to that bracket. The Southall outfit had no track record (at least relative to those above) of doing this work.
It is true that in any project or contract a mate/strong contract can be awarded the work.....and that any contract carries a degree of profit for carrying out the work......however, how allocation of work is fairly controlled (whether through tendering/fixing prices where possible and also (ironically) considering the quality of work/expertise required) need to be carefully articulated to those investing (i.e. the HLF) so they know who has been chosen and why and why that represents best value for money. In other industries (construction for one) an investor may appoint a "Monitoring agent" to assses the quality of work, cost against plan and similar......clearly Bressingham have only done this very late in the day.


When you consider that steam engines are competing against many other very strong causes (most of which will have far higher priority in the eyes of the public) the issues in play here are very serious. For the sake of the movement (And it is stated that at least one of the Bressingham trustees is a prominent figure in it), what has gone wrong here needs a full diagnosis and recommendations around how to avoid such a mismanaged project in the future should be shared with those who could benefit. You get the sense that those behind the fiasco have gone into hiding. I hope the more serious allegations are not true and that this is just a case of a project that has just gone very wrong.

The HLF should allocate money to projects that are good causes but to people who can be trusted to do the job on time and with sensible cost and quality control. Unfortunately 1 badly mismanaged project could mean the abilities and integrity of the heirtage railway movement are questioned and funds are therefore directed to other good causes that are considered more reliable with public money.

As I said I do hope the more serious allegations are unfounded but it is hard not to sympathise with enthusiasts who are (rigthly in my view) angered by what has happened. Either way I do hope the movement has the sense to do a full diagnosis and if neccessary summarise its findings so that good causes are not permanantly jeapordised by what has gone wrong with this engine.

 

I suspect that overall the heritage railway movement has a good record in delivering Lottery funded projects on time and on budget, so I doubt if one project not turning out too well will put the Lottery people off funding further railway projects.
Without researching the question, I am sure there have been Lottery funded projects that have run aground in other spheres. I recall one near Docaster, an Eco jobbie that eventually closed down, and I think a "museum of music" or whatever it was called, in Sheffield similarly failed. There must be others.

46118

 

Conisborough eco park, £11 MILLION down the drain

 

well i am activly involved with overhaul /restoration presently at selinge but previously i was with the loco dept at Ropley, and have worked on more engines than i can remember, 34016, 34105, 35005, 31625, 31784, 30506 73096,76017, wd 701 ,wd 601, 41312 and used to be on the footplate as well as working on repair and maintainance i also worked on 60019 but only in the early stages so i can safely say i have and still get my hands dirty the last steam engine i worked on was norman and will be heavily involved with Antwerp , I agree that locos can bite and i accept that teething problems happen , but the problems are not teething type issues

 

Many thanks for the replies to my earlier post, but what I was trying to imply is that many people on here post with the best of intentions but as 'Steam Traction' is open to anyone who cares to read it, and I'm sure that some people in high places come on here purely to gauge the opinion of those 'in the know' maybe it would be best to keep some of our more incendiary remarks to ourselves.
After all there are enough people who think that there are more deserving causes for HLF funding than steam loco's or other heritage railway projects. So all I ask is that you keep your more scathing comments to a minimum, otherwise you are doing the heritage railway industry as a whole a disservice.

 

Piffle!

I think it is important for everyne to know exactly where their money is being wasted (sorry) spent. The case of 6100 is i am sure one of very many. The simple fact is that the engine was not completed under the original agreement eg that the volunteers and local labour would do the work.

Just to keep your appetites whet, i've attached another picture of a different pipe that was "repaired" on 6100.

Bring on the flood of comment!!!!!

 

Having looked at the pipe & rod drawing, this is part of the 4 3/4" O.D. exhaust injector steam supply steel pipe and the associated drip valve. This area of pipe is situated between the frames just to the rear of the main driving wheels.

 

69621
answer to your photos again, two photos your have put up are the same pipe, your take photos and do not now what they are, well answer = the exhaust injector pipe shown in photos, was done at Southall by two contractors who subsequently went to work on royal Scot at crewe- there instructions were to hydraulic test this pipe to 50psi ( working pressure 4 psi ) . they were found to be taking the test pressure up to 400psi - at which pressure the welds leaked, in photos you can see that they had ground out all the butt joint welds and doing this weakened the welds, were it leaked they patched welded - hence the mess shown in photo. you keep on about this pipe, but like I say some of things on loco were half finished, probley you will still slag work off what we have done,fish7373 81c fitter. dead men dont walk

 

Interesting, you still try to defend the work! Would you like to comment on the weld repair to the crack in the frames? What about the rusting etc behind the hornguides? I find it interesting also that you seem to think i don't know what the pipes are. What makes you think that you are the only one who knows their way around a loco? it seems to me from the points you make in the post about over pressurising the pipe that you are or have been involved with a bunch of spanner monkeys who obviously weren't being controlled, and your point only serves to prove my point that the "restoration team" that did 6100 were unprofessional. Would the same people apply EIGHT times working pressure to a boiler? I agree with others who have posted here that the pipe should have been replaced - given the amount of money the project has cost, i would expect them to at least be gold plated!

Your final sentence is also of great interest to me - "dead men dont walk" - would you care to quantify your statement please?

 

The question I'd like to put to our knowlegable locomotive engineers is: was this an appropriate method of repairing/jointing the pipe in the first place? Should it not have been a properly flanged joint?

 

fish, how much work was done by contracted staff and how much by voluenteers reading in between your posts i would guess that you were highly relient on paid contractors, would this be the reason for the vast expenditure involved, were the voluenteers given any work on this engine, if you needed to use expensive paid staff to do such jobs as exhaust injector pipe runs which in my humble opionoin is well with in the expertise of a capible volunteer to do and why have to patch a pipe when in my experience we used to replace the pipework and use new , i would guess that money was being spent on using contractors and because of that economies with parts were made with old parts being patched once again very poor management , see i dont critise you personally , but what was your thoughts about using expensive paid staff , did you object to it? i fully understand sending boilers out to tender if you dont have a full time boiler smith , but after all why pay ,if you have a trained person already on the pay roll , and i would question the people doing the testing, why did they test a pipe to 400 psi when told to test it to 50 psi would you have made a better job if it had been you doing it?

 

yes i would have expected the joint to have been flanged and gasketed but in my time at ropley we always made new pipe runs and used the correct soldered joint on small bore copper pipe and flanged joints on larger bore pipes even blueing in the faces to ensure a steam tight fitting , pipes were always properly ran and secured with clamps to ensure vibration didnt frature joints , at least on the engines i helped to restore or overhaul

 

69621
no iam not trying to defend the work, the two bunch of spanner monkeys went to crewe to finish it off, well what is up with the frames, ps the pipe was new, fish 7373 81c fitter

 

If that pipe was new, and any pipefitter/welder employed by me did that to it, then he wouldn't be working for me again, that's for sure.