Flying Scotsman

Ye gods! The raised letters!

 

Both shots are of 4498's tender.

 

It also had an A4 boiler, see lower washout plugs on the firebox sides

 

Ah the blue / grey tender back in 1981, and looking rather tatty, it served as a water tank at Skipton for the CMEs which used to reverse there in the happy days of two steam legs. 5407 took it back to Carnforth after the last one on 2nd Sept that year

 

iirc LSL have it now ?

 

Find it remarkable the amount of support for the double kylchap on grounds of performance, and the complete lack of interest for similar modifications to any of the 'normally aspirated' single chimney carrying workhorses that are still out there... because BR never fitted them so they cant have been needed ?( or BR ran out of time and interest in Steam) . Fitting a multinozzle single chimney to Flying Scotsman is completely feasible and whilst not delivering the same degree of improvement as a double Kylchap it would still be an improvement on a single nozzle single chimney, and the lack of optimisation gives you the smoke clearance you need. Might have to be slightly wider than the original - but since the original single chimney is long gone...

 

That is a cracking photo, and probably not far off the time I saw it, as we were on a CME with (my memory is very unreliable, so could have got the details wrong) Clan Line on an outward leg, and Leander on return… with a trip on the Ratty in-between.

Simon

 

Thanks - as far as I recall the tender spent the whole 81 CME season in the bay at the west end of Skipton station (as a water tank). I don't think I ever saw it on the main line on any other occasion.

 

Compared to a single chimney Jubilee taking 13 over Ais Gill? Give over!

 

I'm losing the will to live here.

Flying Scotsman is physically restricted to 12 coaches unassisted by Network Rail.

Anything more requires a diesel to be fitted on the back. A diesel is normally put on the end of the train during leaf fall season or as a backup anyway on most railtours these days.

That specific loading was pre fitting of the double chimney and in single chimney days, and has been carried through from BR, through Railtrack to the present day.

Flying Scotsman's loading is not restricted by fitting of a double chimney.

Questions over its performance with or without a single chimney appear to be based on the view that the double chimney produces a performance enhancement by far in excess of the original fitting.

The double Kylchap was certainly a welcome enhancement but the ability of the single chimney A3s (including Scotsman) to pull trains in excess of any railtour length since 1970 should not be in doubt.

That some are claiming the single chimney fitting is inadequate for the modern day is ridiculous.

If that was the case you would be clamouring to fit it on Green Arrow, all of the single chimney Jubilees and all of the GWR locos with single chimneys that have run on the mainline, not least the vast numbers of Black Fives with single blastpipes that have not been found wanting.

What a nonsense.

 

I think people are limiting their comments to this loco (a national treasure), at this time, in this condition, with this set of performance requirements and this funding model (and so on). They're not extrapolating it as case study for others, not least because the choices made by private owners have a different set of constraints to something in public ownership – Scotsman could probably do 90mph if required, but you'd expect the NRM to have grave reservations about trying it out and risking a national asset.

I understand the academic interest in loco performance, but would argue that that's not what this conversation is about.

Simon

 

Train length is not necessarily the same as train weight. And one of the major issues with the NRM's overhaul was the wear and tear caused by overuse of the locomotive.

 

I suspect the pressure to do something to boost the performance of 60103/4472 came about towards the end of BR when it had a reputation of being tired and worn.
Even in the early 2000'sa fter another overhaul the locomotive still had a poor reputation. I've heard a story of a couple of steam drivers volunteering to work ballast trains over a weekend and pass the chance to work 4472. That reputation has only been diminished by the total rebuild that Ian Riley did for the NRM. (Note diminished, not removed, as the folk memory of 4472 being "a bag of nails" will take many more years to fade out, despite all the good work that was done at Bury.)

The comments about the loads hauled by any locomotive back in the day, have to be countered with the fact that steam or any other heritage traction has to keep up with, or keep out of the way of the current commercial railway. Just look at the pathing time added to schedules or the time sat in loops waiting a path for heritage traction tours in recent years. The wider railway industry demands a good performance, with financial penalties of Delay Attribution applied to the operator causing delays.

Cheers, Neil

 

But as previously pointed out, these locomotives were originally designed to take 600 ton trains unassisted. They regularly took 500 tons + in BR days.

Most railtour weights are 400 tons or thereabouts. So they are working well within their defined capabilities.

Yes, which is partially helped by limiting the locomotive to 12 coaches unassisted and a diesel added to the train where required.

This isn't difficult gents.

 

The NR restriction is not about the locomotive's welfare, but overall performance risk on the network. The weights taken unassisted were on a locomotive built as an economic asset, with finite life - not a historic artefact. And I am curious about how today's usage (weight and required acceleration) compares with that of the LNER and BR eras.

That is for the double chimney locomotive; there are then questions about the impact of reverting to single chimney form on the acceptable margin of error.

 

What this is about is that the NRM can Present 60103 in its current semblance as a reasonably accurate historical incarnation of a post war ex LNER A3 which suits its remit as a museum.
This somewhat dull appearance is less popular than its various incarnations in Apple Green, some of which persisted at least as long as its time in BR as a Double chimney -smoke deflectors A3 and have therefore become a unique historical instance in their own right and are also coincidental with its 2nd time around as a 'celebrity' locomotive.
As a working exhibit it suits the purposes of several important parties that Flying Scotsman is in its latest and ' most capable' form on one hand, whilst at the same time guidelines to manage the wear and tear and risk of failure render the need for that capability irrelevant.
The argument against Apple green is to appear in an authentic guise would hamper performance, the argument against improved performance under the skin of thast guise is one of cost/ authenticity.
Until a generation have failed to be sufficiently impressed by the drab workaday guise she has now and until bums stop fighting over the somewhat expensive seats and something is needed to regenerate some interest in the old cashcow I seriously expect that nothing will change...

 

I did read what you said and I do not dispute what a Gresley A1 could do in times past. That proves nothing about the loads that FS might be allowed to take on the main lines today. I suspect that railtour promoters would be delighted to sell seats on 15 or 20 coach trains if they could run them; but load limits are now imposed, even if they don't fully reflect the respective capabilities of different locomotives.

Do you disagree that FS in its present form would have more in hand for delays, poor coal, etc than in its single-chimney form?

Edit: HOWEVER I personally would join you in preferring to see FS in single-chimney form, painted apple green.

 

Apologies if I'm reading g this wrong, but I don't think Simon would disagree that FS in current form would have more in hand, it's just that it would have plenty in hand as a single chimney loco as well.

I think the analogy here is if FS were a bank, and had 3 million pounds in hand to buy a 2 million pound property in "single" format, but had 3.5 million pounds in hand to buy that same property in "double" format, then it wouldn't matter that it was technically better off in "double" format, both would be equally suited to the job in hand.

John

 

The load limits are literally the reason why double kylchap or single chimney arguably makes little difference to the ability of FS to pull a railtour proficiently and it is disingenuous, not to mention breathtakingly bonkers, to ignore the locomotive's working life and history when talking about its ability to pull trains.

A Gresley A1 is a lower pressure loco, with shorter valve travel, and a myriad of other limitations that the A3 design does not have. Yet we can very clearly prove by way of evidence that it was not lacking.

Scotsman as a single chimney A3 is not an invalid and would be more than capable of taking any railtours asked of it.

I do I'm afraid, there has never been a question of the Gresley single blast pipe plus 220lb boiler of being able to raise steam in its history.

Precisely: thank you John.