Flying Scotsman

The fatigue started after her foreign adventures and when she became 60103 again in the 1990's. When we were on holiday in North Devon one year and 60103 was visiting the P&DR my Father drove from Parracombe (near Combe Martin) to Paignton so that we could travel behind 60103 after reading in Steam Railway that she would be in use. However, when we arrived we found 60103 sitting in the yard with the smokebox door open and people working on the boiler. When my Father enquired about the problem and when she would be running the volunteers just shrugged their shoulders and said "not for a while". There were quite a few reliability problems when she was back in BR guise and she later failed at the Llangollen. I heard at the time that she was very sick and worn out. This was proved to be the case when she was stripped down for the Marchington overhaul.

 

Copy and paste of the last but two para. from the above report:- When Alan Pegler had bought the locomotive, he had also purchased a set of spare cylinders. Unfortunately, the middle cylinder block, which was desperately in need of replacement, had been languishing in the outside at Carnforth ever since with a lot of corrosion damage. Roland had the facings re-surfaced at Ruston's of Lincoln. This involved the removal of 1mm on one side and 1.5mm on the other. To make sure the cylinder fitted snugly between the frames, Roland had shims laser cut from stainless steel to match each facing. This, and the cylinder then needed to be fitted to the frame. The 93 bolt holes of the frames and cylinder didn't line up and many needed reaming- some were nearly half the diameter out. All were fitted and, subsequently, there was never a problem with them during running.

I'm gobsmacked! Fitted bolts should be just that. Fitted! Touching whatever they are fitted to all around their circumference. Not stuck into what were in effect oval holes!
I just can't find words to express my total amazement that the man should have the nerve to admit to this in public.

 

But then the problems were compounded by what was done to her in that overhaul, the deep seated problems could have not been properly addressed, or done in such a way to make it worse, if you have worn running gear clearences etc and you dont set everything up correctly ,and then put them to even more stress , your going have problems she lasted only 5 or 6 years after this vaunted 1m heavy overhaul when if done properly she should have ran without serious issue for most of the 7 year mainline ticket.

 

you have to ask, yourself this question, in the light of what we now know, was Roland's reputation founded on experience, or on what everyone else was expected to believe, after all, if he was a top notch engineer, would he have made life a bit difficault for a certain high profile person associated with FSS

 

Why are you gobsmacked? The quote says that many needed reaming out and that all were fitted. What's wrong with that?
I am quietly amused at some of the comments on this thread. For example, if the replacement inside cylinder is marginally narrower than the gap between the frameplates, the sensible solution is to fit shims, so what is the fuss? BR would have done just that. Most steam locos weren't built to a high degree of accuracy and things were 'fitted' by fitters. If the cylinder centreline doesn't go through the theoretical axle centreline, it is of no real consequence. It was quite common on GWR locos.
Having said that, some of the engineering carried out was very questionable and, if the rumours I've heard (from respected sources) are true, some of the goings on are equally so.

 

Steve, I would just like to point out that the cylinder centreline on the Gresley pacifics was set at 1/2" above the theoretical axle centreline.

 

Steve. If you ream out a hole which is half it's diameter from where it should be, you end up with a oval hole. That is not "fitted".

 

Depends on how big you ream out the hole. The simple fact is that neither of us know the true dimensions and 'nearly half a hole out can be a bit of an exaggeration (something we've all done) but is qualified by the statement that 'all were fitted.'

 

In my post I was simply trying to say that accuracy of alignment (or perhaps inaccuracy) was quite common and would not have any drastic consequences. Steam locomotives are not precision engineering.

 

poor old Flying Scotsman was badly looked after, knackered, and needs an awful lot of TLC that thankfully is now being provided.

my own hope is that another iconic loco ie Stepney on the Bluebell Railway will receive the same treatment very soon!

cheers,
julian

 

NO wheel was dropped down the wheel drop was you there NO. FISH7373

 

If the block had to be machined to remove corrosion damage, it is difficult to see how it could then be made to fit tightly between the frames without the use of shims. The only other alternative would have been to make a new cylinder block of the correct width.

 

The shade of Ken Cook would vehemently disagree with you... And of course whilst accuracy of alignment may not be crucial in one plane, it can be critical in another.
See pp 461 and 468 on in this copy of "The Engineer". http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/6/6b/Er19550930.pdf

And there might even be an argument to suggest that attitudes accepting a lack of achievable precision were a factor in the current situation...

 

no chassis alignment was done, or done wrongly, and now the full extent of past mistakes, or cutting corners has come home to roost. i dont think that the full 1million, or what it cost Dr Marchington, found its way to the engine, as seems to happen at the time, i'm sure that there are still un told stories to come out yet. COPY AND PASTED FROM MR M BUTLER

The frames where set up by MR M sorry not with us any more god rest his soul. FISH7373

 

Some Pics of cylinders being worked on:- http://www.flyingscotsman.org.uk/see/photos.aspx

 

They practised that manoeuvre on the J15, sorry Y14 in June http://www.mandgn.co.uk/news.php

 

Doncaster knew what they were doing through bitter experience. Hunslet may have done but an A3 has unusual problems, and Doncaster had evolved particular effective and efficient methods of dealing with them that were mostly not even needed on other Gresley classes. (They did pretty well with the Deltics too - no-one else on BR wanted to touch them apparently!)

I very much doubt that without involving someone with a decent knowledge of A3's and Doncaster practice anyone could have achieved a decent overhaul, regardless of general engineering competence or amount of money spent. A few hours perusing all the available technical literature might however at least have warned those planning an overhaul that major frame problems were almost certain to be an issue.

Building a replica might have been cheaper!

 

Possible, but to date we do not know (I am sure that you mean fitters) but it would be interesting to find out just for the sake of filling in one of the many gaps in the preservation story. Hunslet did not have the facilities of Doncaster but it appears that the work carried out there did not involve a total strip down, though details are scarce.

If Kim M set up the frames at Southall what did he have available to carry out the work? Did the SVR loan out the Doncaster kit? If the work was done well it does make you wonder how much flexing was going on when it was working - thank goodness it is unified drive.

The inside cylinder casting poses a few questions and we will have to see how Ian Riley deals with it and compare the various measurements involved with those from the initial installation. I don't think that he does optical alignment but would be happy to be proved wrong.