Flying Scotsman

what you should be asking is of the 2.25 million, how much filtered down to the locomotive? how much went on advisors etc, and on paying the likes of David Ward? that FSS bancrupted its self in less than 5 years and had to sell its only assett should tell you something

 

Comparing GWR cylinders to those on 4472 is like chalk and cheese though, the report in one of the mags on 75014's overhaul at Churston mention's standard 4 cylinders are quite weak in comparison to the GWR loco's they have which are built like brick outhouses, and then goes the mention that the frames of each type are probably the reverse.

 

If Marchington got her restored for £2.25m looks almost good value compared with the £2.7m spent so far.... As this is in theory public money I would be more concerned who that's gone too.

 

The discussion at the top of p.19 of risk to the big end if the problem is not corrected suggests the former.

 

Possibly, though it would have been helpful if the report was more precise. As I say, perhaps the NRM could make a precise statement so we can all see exactly what was found.

 

Possibly? Without the slightest shadow of doubt I would say. The report makes it clear that there's a significant 3 dimensional misalignment and the cylinder needs to come out and the whole thing sorted out properly.
To me your comment just sounds like a determination to find fault with the NRM.

 

I wonder how they checked the alignment of the cylinder to the theoretical axle centreline with a rather large crank axle in the way.
An unusual thing on Gresley locos is that the axle centre is 1/2" above the horizontal datum line, from which all vertical dimensions are taken.

 

That is a question that a lot of people would like answering. I've heard many rumours from different sources but that is all they are; rumours. They say that there's no smoke without fire, though.

 

Wikipedia says FSS were £1.5m overdrawn when the loco was sold. Was the overdraft used to pay for the overhaul, or for the running costs? Either way, a vast sum of money to lose (and have to pay back).

 

As I've said before, the trouble with the Marchington era was that there wasn't just the loco's maintenance to pay or, there were quite a few salaries. I suspect that's where the money went!

 

Couldnt agree with you more, i think we know the reason why, scared of getting sued by certain hi profile person who,s name is linked with the 6100 story incidently wasnt there talk a while back of Bittern having the same middle cylinder issues? mid hants martin butler. the last report on flying scotsman very interesting good reading, think i go to the bank and have a fast car again mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm FISH7373 81C BRING IT ON

 

THINK I GO BACK TO THE GENTLEMENS CLUB THE WORKS IAM GETTING BORED HERE FISH7373 81C

 

I Wondered how long it would take , FISH7373, take the blinkers off you seem to think everything at Southall was above board and scotsman was not a wreck , as you are/ were at southall please explain
how did the engine get go from overhauled to not fit to run in 4 years, who allowed it to run with known defects, ie no tender handbrake, welded up mudhole doors, non compient air brake fittings i have nothing against you personally , but the evidence is there for all to see, if things are ok, why did JH remove his engines from your care 6100 to crewe 35027/22 to Bury ?

 

Think you are getting warm, keep on asking the questions, somebody, somewhere made a load of dough, for inferior work.

How it passed a FTR exam is beyond me, or was that in house as well????

 

As far as i know the FTR was done in house the same as most owners did at the time , i know that the MHR used Wayne most of the time when we used to run our own railtours or had mainline approoved engines, but i believe our senior fitters were passed to conduct FTR'S on our engines, it was a system of trust. railtrack trusted us to do the job properly and not to pass things that should not pass, but we were fortunate in that we had engines that could be substituted, ie if CP failed, we had the 5 or WC, or the 33 so financially failing an engine was not as big an issue, in 4472's case they had VSOE breathing down their necks and no other options . so presure from above could result in corners being cut or things being passed that might not have been. The problem is that at the time RK had the reputation of being a very good engineer and had been involved with 4472 for a long time , but was this reputation a smokescreen ? i dont think that RK is the person at fault, i think that he was starved of funds and that the bulk of the suppossed 2.25m was spent on other persons saleries and on other things, for instance, was the depot owned by FSS or hired, was the running costs for 81c taken out of the overhaul funds?

 

You seem to forget that JH still has a presence at Southall. 4464 and 70000 operate out of there. There isn't enough room to work on everything at once so that may well explain why some locos have been moved elsewhere.

 

J H was not involved with 6100 when it was moved to LNWR Crewe.
Also the money, supposedly, spent on 4472 at Southall was private money and, quite frankly, how it was spent is nothing to do with us.

 

Indeed there seems an undercurrent on here to blame all the ills on Southall and the previous owners, it was a PLC and unless you were a shareholder what they spent cash on is none of any our business.

NRM bought the loco as seen and they and/or their contractors have spent/received £2.7m getting a boiler refurbished and some frames part restored, this is the real area of concern but for whatever reason there is no interest to discuss this on here? The redaction of the report seems to involve a lot of this but sure we will never know?

 

But all those things are part of the "cost of ownership".

It seems that FS was not a predominantly run by volunteers (other the poor folks who were the "owners" and spent a bloody fortune of their own money). It seems to me that steam of any kind is only really viable if it is heavily subsidised by many people doing it as a hobby, be it the vital folks who get their hands dirty in their spare time for free, or those who put their hands in their wallet*. But if you're a wealthy man and you rely heavily on volunteer labour then you are very vulnerable to accusations of exploiting people for your own benefit - and I've seen this accusations made on this forum and recently.

And I reckon if you were to take the NRMs repair bill so far and add to it a share of all the expenses like salaries and so on that are subsumed into their regular budget, facilities and so on, well, I reckon it would be a sight bigger...


*for example I have a few shares in a locomotive. Is that a businesss proposition? Don't be silly, of course not, its hobby spending with a different framework around it.

 

Sorry, I disagree most strongly with the last sentence. 4472 is a historic item of major national importance and how it is treated is a matter for all. It's irrelevant who owns it, if they don't look after it then they are worthy of criticism, whether they are a private individual or a public body

Regards