Flying Scotsman

I will try again.

If I had donated £££££'s towards say fitting vac braking, and it is spent instead on a report, I think I should be able to ask "why has my donation NOT been spent on the project I want to support". I am quite sure the loco will end up well overhauled, but the responsibility for the succession of mistakes, lies within the NRM, and as such THEY should pay for the report, and act on its findings.

If the raised money is not "ring fenced" for the projects described, the NRM leave themselves wide open for another "Steam Railway", David Wilcox kicking, something I don't want to see, and does the movement no favours.

 

This seems to be a straw man argument. No-one has reported that money donated for the Flying Scotsman overhaul project has been spent on anything else.

 

This "has my donation been misspent" argument is quite silly. We ran appeals for boiler tubes and the air smoothed casing for 34081. The boiler tube appeal came up short, the casing appeal generated more than twice what we needed so did we buy two lots of steel for the casing while only ordering the number of tubes that had been "paid" for by the appeal? Not at all. We used the surplus casing money to help pay for the tubes and did anyone complain? No they didn't, they were just happy to see progress made on the loco.

 

Given all the project delays and extra costs, does anyone know whether there is anything left in the Flying Scotsman appeal pot?

 

i dont anyone outside the UK really cares either way.
Outside the hobby and outside the UK the interest of 4472 shrinks considerably, I'm sure in Syria, for instance, they have other things on their mind.
Inside the hobby world wide, most people just see it as a delayed restoration... how many here know of the issues of 3801 in Australia or the PRR K4 in the US for instance ..
and how many people care the status of the 200+ steam locos in Poland, or the scrapping of North British products in South Africa ?

 

I doubt the money is ring fenced to that level of detail. Provided it is spent on activity that progresses the restoration in a fashion that is considered the most cost-effective way, what is the problem? Ultimately, everything has to be done - boiler, frames, brakes, wheels etc.

But even if your specific donation were ring-fenced just to, say, "brakes": That doesn't just encompas an actual real greasy-handed fitter turning spanners and cutting metal. Someone will have to carry out an audit of which components still exist and which have been lost. Someone will have to decide whether the existing components can be refurbished or will have to be made anew. Someone will have to provide a design to integrate (presumably) air and vacuum systems; and someone will have to get that design approved for use on the mainline; someone will then have to document the work carried out and be able to demonstrate to an insurer that it was done to an acceptable quality. The consultants' report just looks like it was doing a small part of that work (scoping out what needs to be done, and suggesting a sensible way for all the various work packages to be managed), but covering the whole engine rather than just one sub-system. That looks like a sensible use of money, rather than, say, reviewing and planning each sub-system in isolation of its impact on other sub-systems.

Or are you so purist that your money must be spent on the brakes (or whatever other component you choose) that you don't care if the work is done in an inefficient manner providing you can point to a tangible piece of metal and say "I paid for that"?

Tom

 

I'd be interested to hear comment from our learned friend Rumpole on this. I think that, if money is donated for a specific thing, it has to be spent on that thing and nothing else or otherwise returned. The usual way around this is to put a caveat in the appeal to say that, if it is oversubscribed, the organisation can spend it on other things unless requested otherwise. It's all a bit hypothetical, of course and, I'm sure that, as long as the intended goals are achieved, no one is going to complain!

 

Well Tom, as you seem such an expert, I will leave it at that, what you should think about, and don't answer is, "should SR" get and inclining that the money they "helped" to raise, is not being used for a project they promoted, will a further storm be brewing for the NRM.

A possible storm that could be prevented from happening if money is apportioned to a specific project, I know Anthony looks in on these matters, would be interesting to hear his view on it.

As mentioned by Steve, we all want it back in service, it is an icon, and a lot of people have contributed to its saving, and overhaul, and a host of other appeals for other "extra" work.

 

I'd entirely agree with that last sentence. My contention is simply that I don't think it is helpful to try and micro-manage from the sidelines exactly where ever last penny is raised, and what every last penny is spent on. If the NRM consider that, prior to spending any more money on actual physical restoration, getting expert advice is in the best long-term interest of the restoration of the loco, then I'm happy to accept their judgement, and I don't feel particularly fussed that any money I may have donated is spent on that purpose rather than on, say, a tangible component.

But I suspect we aren't going to agree on that, so best to agree to disagree.

Tom

 

Seek as much learned advice as you like but I bet every loco restoration project has been in a similar situation and acted in a similar fashion.

 

Very wise observation Big Al. Most of the steam traction that is used on the main line gets overloaded as a matter of course, certainly in comparison with steam days. Class 5s regularly taking 11 or 12 over the northern fells for example. Obviously the owners consent but what cost will future custodians be faced with?

 

Gresley designed his A1 Pacifics to handle 600 ton trains day in, day out so a 13 coach train would not be overloading it. In double chimney form they were considered a Class 8 and often used as such.

 

Thanks Spamcan. I must have posted the same design loading specs a few times now. The problem with the engine is not the design, though this is not perfect, but rather is down to people involved with it.

Quite when the problems began with this engine you cannot blame the 96 tons or so of steel, iron, copper and brass it is made from. When put back, at long last, into first class order then 13, 14 or 15 coaches would not be a big challenge for it. Remember the GN was a one train to one engine railway, so was the LNE. Yes, it can handle lighter, high speed trains and would probably be able to match the recent test runs by 4464 if asked the question but it was originally produced as a heavy load machine. 13 would not be an overload in general terms though it would be wise not to ask the big questions of the engine paricularly frequently, that point is well agreed.

At some point in the past some errors were incorporated into the set up of the locomotive. Perhaps some parts were not of the quality they should have been. No one is going to own up and admit it was them.

I still believe the NRM missed a great educational opportunity in not having the engine measured up using the equipment that was produced for the job. I would have liked to see the old Doncaster gear in use and a special event made of it.

Out of interest what did the consultants use for the pre-report assessment?

 

[quote="Big Al,

Looking ahead, I found the recommendations in the recent report about future loadings for the engine very interesting. The message was simple and actually pretty obvious. Flying Scotsman suffered, inter alia, from instances of overloading in the past and it would be a good idea not to do it again. Train lengths of 10/11 including POB and dependent on route are suggested - the locomotive is, after all, only a Class 7. But what is true for 4472 should also, I think, apply to all locomotives on the main line. When Tornado made light work of Drumochter with 11 up on the 2012 Cathedrals Explorer, there was a suggestion at the time that it would be good to see how it fared with 12 or even 13. With hindsight, not such a good idea, perhaps?

So maybe, out of all this mess, something useful for the preservation movement as a whole has emerged - namely a bit of common sense on train loadings. It'll squeeze margins for some tour promoters who will be keen to add another coach if there is the demand But in the light of the FS debacle, I would be happy to see any loco owner become very strict about what their engine(s) will haul.[/quote]




I can't understand WHY folk call for more and more on the hook just "to see how it would go". To me the thinking that......it took 11 up such and such bank, let's hang another on and see if it can manage that. Where do you draw the line? It's too late when the loco. stalls, blocks the line, no diesel, and all hell breaks loose and the folks who were calling for more load say "whoops, that was one too many". My feeling is load a locomotive with a comfortable load, a load that it is known that it can manage.

 

It is not so much a question of "more on the hook" etc. If you wanted to play that game with 4472 you would be looking at 20+ coaches for the simple reason that they have dealt with that kind of loading in the past. Route specific naturally.
If some people had been listened to the Black Vs would not be doing today what they have done for decades. That is work with success covering for a shortage of class 7 or 8 locomotives. If the owners of these engines are happy with this work still being asked of these engines why should this be seen as a problem?
Again, if the same people had been listened to the working of The Fellsman series of excursions should be well beyond the capability of the preserved K4. If they were to be believed the engine would be flogged mercilessly in full gear struggling to stop falling further and further behind time. But sadly for them this is not the case, a load of 12 or more appears to offer not too much of a challenge to 61994.
You just have to question some people's motives.

 

They weren't also doing 75mph with those loads though, and Gresley had all the resources of Doncaster works to perform regular heavy overhauls every couple of years.

The well known high-speed exploits of the Gresley pacifics were with relatively light loads - the Silver Jubilee was only seven coaches, partly articulated, so only about the equivalent of 6 Mark 1s in load.

A different example: Bulleid Merchant Navys regularly took 13 or 14 Pullmans over Honiton bank on the "Devon Belle", probably a trailing load of 550 tons or so. But I doubt there were many examples of them going much quicker than about 30mph by time they reached the tunnel. That sort of running, on a long single-track section, would be unacceptable today, or at least very difficult to path.

Tom

 

Not suggesting for one moment that 4472 is loaded to 600 tons but simply pointing out that 13 on the drawbar would not be overloading the loco. Nor has anyone suggested that any high speed exploits would be possible with such loads either.

 

Had the pleasure of being on the K4's first run over the S&C in 1989. It's performance surprised many people, especially those who said it was only good for short burst of high output and not for the continuous power needed for the Long Drag.

 

The design specs for many locos included the ability to shift quite hefty loads. I agree that it would not be wise to expect such loads to be taken in this day and age though. It reminds of a foreman fitter from March. Somebody was bewailing how hard 4771 was being worked on one occasion. The old chap replied "if you think it's being worked hard, then you obviously never heard them with 16 on the drawbar on an overnight parcels train."