Flying Scotsman to visit GCR this Autumn?

And back on this particular thread have the gcr actually made an official approach and signed contracts with the nrm before advertising this ?

 

Does a casual mention in a limited circulation magazine actually constitute Advertising?

 

OO gauge models of 4472 are also more prone to frame cracking than any other model.

There are n x 1000 more models of 4472 out there, than any other tender steam locomotive
models of 4472 are n times more likely to be handled by smaller children than adults
Smaller children are n times more likely to drop, knock, kick, whack a 4472 model off the table and onto the floor more than any other model..
there are more 4472 models in bits, and in parts bins of model shops than most other models.

all because there's more 4472's out there than any other model.

Maybe this is just a case of reality mimicking art ?
:tape:
sorry couldn't resist.
:focus:

 

That's a good point, I don't think engineers would be daft enough to put undue stress on components where it can be avoided, but then there's a bit of difference between sitting in a smooth engineered wheeldrop and slowly being winched up a low loader ramp.

One thing is though, that if a loco was designed to sit on X number of axles, your immediatly thowing out the designed weight spread throughout the frames by removing one of them, im a wheeldrops case id imagine the frames are overengineered to an extent to account for this, no one could forsee low loaders when the loco's were designed.

 

Oh dear... So many experts on this forum! It was stated a few months ago that 4472 will be gracing GCR metals sometime in the next year or two, I am pretty sure no one is putting a date on that at the moment! It will happen when it happens and it will be given the best treatment when it does.

As for low loaders... When you have witnessed the stress an engine receives at 75 on the ML close at hand you would laugh at any claim they are bad for them under normal circumstances. I have no doubt that like everything else, if done badly it can cause damage, but that covers most operations, and personally I'd rather seem these machines doing what they were made rather than wrapped up in cotton wool.

 

I was merely trying to counter this idea that putting locos on/off low loaders is responsible for the notorious fatigue cracks found on 4472. Fatigue cracks are caused by cyclic loading and emanate from stress raisers. I'd concede an argument that putting locos on a low loader may lead to physical damage but not to fatigue cracks. Locos are subject to many instances of abnormal loading throughout their lives. Re-wheeling is just one example. Loco generally suspended by slings placed at the extremities of the frames and no hornstays, either, as these have to be removed of necessity.
Frames can be over-engineered, as well. Not exactly a steam loco but I have experience of plate frame coal screens (which were 24" deep by 20'-0" long 1" thick plate so a bit like a small steam loco) that regularly failed with fatigue cracks until it was realised that they were too stiff. Removing much of the frame stiffening solved the problem as it allowed the frame plates to flex and better distributed the stresses.

 

.....

 

In a word, no. Do give some credit to Ian's guys and Chris Beet and our chaps. Chris has proven himself with his own families' locos and has done so again with the A3. I'd trust him with a 00 model - though he doesn't have one.