Flying Scotsman

SR and accurate - sorry - are you having a laugh?

I and my colleaugues are still waiting an apology for libel from them fifteen years on - it was quite funny listening to my boss giving them an ear bending after he had walked into my office when they happened to be in the phone. They had gone public with a tale the consequence of which - if we had succumbed to their pressure - would have been a now quite prominent preservation scheme being rendered ineffective. We ignored them and carried on doing a professional job which created a worthwhile and usable venture.

If they don't like their reputation, all they have to do is report accurately, and truthfully, and announce publicly that they are moving on from their unfortunate past

 

Errm, you asked how often it appeared without deflectors, not how often it appeared on the main line without deflectors.

 

Excuse me old chap but nobody mentioned speed in the question.

 

HaHa thats a laugh - they have been doing this ever since they started, its not just the current team that's to blame, the mag has to my eyes had this philosophy for years . . . . . and yet people still buy it . . . . then again people still buy some of the Murdock press can't think why? - and as a former editor of SR used to say regurally "never let the facts get in the way of a good story" . . . . .

 

Did you sue them for this libel?

 

HaHa - the only people that win in such situations are the Lawyers - do what you all should do and ignore them as TBF did . .

 

At no stage did I say they had ever been particularly accurate, more that perhaps they have become less subtle/intelligent in publishing biased nonsense in these days

 

My point really was that whether or not you had a Kylchap was irrelevant to the likelihood of the frames fracturing. It's likely more to do with curvature than power output. It does cast some light on why Thompson went for a radically different (but sadly even more problematic) frame layout for his Pacifics.

The idea that a loco's identity is determined by its frames is a long standing (at least back to the 1930's) enthusiast shibboleth - a loco's identity is actually determnied by its owners (or their accountants).

It's hardly a revelation about the A3's having regular frame exchanges, since I got the info mainly from the RCTS guide, and presumably anyone who worked at Doncaster in steam days would have thought it a totally unremarkable process to change the frames under an A3. With the number in the class and mileage they ran I expect the A3 overhaul line was constantly busy, and I suspect that if you needed one in traffic you just assembled the bits you had to hand.

Don't get me wrong, I love A3's and LNER locos in general, and I'm very glad we have a representative of the class that will soon be in steam. And if calling it Flying Scotsman persuades more people to lay their money down, then why not?

So, the loco is what number it carries, no more no less. I doubt more than 10% of it by weight would have been part of the engine as it last ran in LNER ownership but people still wibble on about it not being 'authentic' for LNER livery. Makes oi laff it do.

 

I'm pretty certain when I worked on her when she visited Peak Rail that the outside motion was marked up as 60103, some of the inside motion as 4472 and 1472 and some of the cab controls (if memory is correct, it was a while ago!) includied some 1472 stamps.There were also some bits from salmon trout (60041). It's no surprise really. She was built in 1923 and during the war when parts were scarce and the need to get locos back into service was a priority, that parts from different locos ended up getting swapped. Boilers were frequently swapped around to speed up overhauls the GWR being the most efficient with spare boilers for swap outs.
Whilst these ongoing costs are starting to go the way of the Millennium Dome (oops sorry O2 arena) preservation does need the big names. There has been a lot of blame left at the door of previous owners for the condition she was in when the NRM took ownership. To avoid a repeat, lets all just allow the NRM and Rileys to sort the issues, do a good job and outshop a reliable loco. After all locos like 6233 aren't rushed and look at the stunning performances and reliability of the Duchess.

 

The 60041 "Salmon Trout" connection you mention probably dates from when Alan Peglar bought the loco and had it overhauled in 1963-ish? rather than wartime. I suspect that 60041 was being scrapped at that time and certain parts bought as strategic spares for 60103. I think the current boiler was from 60041, and wasn't there a cylinder block somewhere also from 60041? Maybe other smaller parts were recovered, and used in that first private-ownership overhaul if they were in better condition than those on 60103 at the time it entered the works.
All conjecture, I leave it to the experts to verify or otherwise chop me off at the knees!

 

IIRC, 60041 was one of the last A3's to be withdrawn in 1965, a couple of years after 60103 had first been preserved and it was actually having its second overhaul at the Plant. The swapping of boilers, etc, dates from this time.

 

Agreed. Sounds like my 10% for bits by weight in 1947 may be a bit optimistic though. It's nice that at least a few bits of 1472 remain.

All the 'big 4' (poss exception SR?) had boiler floats for virtually all their classes except those totally obsolete or classes with only a couple of members. Boiler changes at general overhaul were normal on the LNER. If the current loco has Salmon Trout's last boiler, 27024, that has previously been used on 60042/5, 60054, 60061/9 and 60075 (I only found records back to 1951). Boilers are very traceable because they have to be recorded both for insurance and inspection purposes.

 

I don't think the SR was any different from the others in this respect.

To take a few examples:

(*) Preserved E4 B473 is currently running with the same boiler it was originally built with in 1898. But that boiler was only refitted in 1960; it had previously been fitted, in addition to B473, to other E4 engines, as well as engines of class E3 and D3.

(*) The SECR originally ordered 66 H class tanks; however only 64 were turned out! The remaining parts were "lost" into a pool of spares used during overhauls. When REL Maunsell took over he took steps to see the last two were completed - which explains why two of the class have build dates of 1913, long after the others. Notionally the missing parts were rounded up and two new engines turned out, though I suspect a fair amount must have been built new, but on the revenue account rather than the capital one!

(*) Many Adams classes on the LSWR had new Drummond boilers made for them (not always to their advantage!). The boilers were pooled and swapped at overhauls (and sometimes between classes), such that a particular engine may have gone from Adams to Drummond and back to Adams appearance through its life.

(*) The Adams B4 docktanks (and the Drummond K14 equivalent) were recorded as running in the 1930s with 28 boilers for 25 locos: 18 Adams originals (two had been scrapped from the original 20 engines); 5 Drummond and 5 newly built by the SR.

So boiler swapping was just as common on the SR as elsewhere, and often took place (particularly in pre-grouping locos) between classes as well as within a class.

Tom

 

My ignorance re SR is corrected!

We know lots about boiler changes because as mentioned above boilers have, by law, their own records. Floats of other parts such as frames and wheels wouldn't be recorded in the same way, and normally are only noticed when there is a visible difference or where the part is actually marked with the loco it started life on.

 

Add the Bulleids to this list. 34081 had three during its BR career. Nos. 1348, 1278 and 1288. 1348 was fitted new, 1278 had one previous owner and 1288 had three previous owners.

 

Big Press do at Bury on Friday......................

 

Good news I hope

 

Any suggestions as to where the news will be available first? I'm all excited...

 

I would think it would be the NRM's own website.