Flying Scotsman

I think on reflection this possibly illustrates an under current that seems to be seeping through SR at the moment, they seem to be very supportive to people who will feed them stories (hence the monthly stories from Graeme Bunker) but woe betide you if you won't co-operate with all their requests - they will go after you with a bitterness.

The stance against the NRM seems to have come about because the NRM wouldn't provide an update a few months back and seemed to suggest that SR should wait for stories as per the rest of the media, following this it seems to be fair game. Take for example the editorial this month which again seems intent on having a go regarding the fact that the NRM are not steaming Mallard next year instead of celebrating the repatriation of the two others - again its just pathetic posturing for the sake of it and biting the hand that feeds you.

Then again no doubt they will make up and SR will launch an appeal to fund the painting of the bufferbeams so they can then claim for the next 10 years that they funded the overhaul and that 4472 is a SR readers loco.

Sorry I just think that such rude, bitterness does not do the magazine any credit, perhaps if they spent more time reporting the stories and didnt let their ego's mean they had to be the story it would be a better read - very disillusioned with it all!

 

I personally cannot fathom Nick Broderick's stance at all. The time to make the case for Mallard to steam for the 75th anniversary was at least five years ago, giving the NRM some time to examine their own resources and see if it was possible.

Given in the same said space of time the NRM has been working on Scotsman, allowing Tysley to do a magnificent job on Hamilton's re-streamlining, dealing with all of the fallout from the failure of NRM+ to materialize, organizing and running Railfest, not to mention the museum on a daily basis, add to that the logistics for bringing back the two A4s, and Mallard steaming for the 75th anniversary seems a rather moot point in comparison to bringing all of the A4s back for a once in a lifetime get together.

 

I have to say I've never been a huge fan of DW. His guiding principles seem to be to pander to populism and tell ill-informed or misguided enthusiasts what they want to hear. I'll never forget the article he wrote for HR a few years back demanding that the North Americans "give us back our A4s" and asserting that "they would steam" if they were brought back to Britain - completely ignoring that they are their A4s now, we gave them to them, they would not necessarily steam, and it would not necessarily be a good thing to return them to steam because it would destroy their prefect 1960s authenticity. That article probably incited the Facebook trolls that have taken every opportunity to demand the permanent return of the locos to Britain, have publicly accused the Canadians of neglect, and consequently threaten to damage the image of the UK preservation movement in the eyes of our foreign friends who are so kindly lending us their locos.

Casting my mind even further back, I remember a passage in Down Main in SR314 (2005), in which Wilcock claimed that there would "almost certainly" be a Manor over Barmouth Bridge the following year. This, despite the fact that 76079 had specifically been given the Cambrian trains that year because it was the only engine light enough to traverse the now-very-fragile Barmouth Bridge - and he couldn't present any real evidence that Network Rail were about to change their minds on that one. Sure enough, we are still waiting for the return of a Manor to the Cambrian. Yes, we'd all love to see a Manor on the Cambrian again, but it clearly wasn't going to happen; so the article amounted to little more than an insult to his readers' intelligence.

I think The Railway Magazine is the only high-quality journal that reports on the steam scene. Steam Railway has improved a little lately, but this has been counterbalanced by the decline of Heritage Railway, which has even resorted to drawing on these forums for the content of news stories. You know what? I can read the forums online, for free. I can get as much speculation, gossip and rumour as I like here. What would induce me to part with my money for the magazines would reliable, high-quality, trustworthy reporting that helps me to look beyond the gossip and get to the truth - even if that truth isn't very exciting. Instead, the comics have reacted to the rise of the internet by trying to be even more sensational. It's completely the wrong approach.

Sorry to rant, to but I feel it has to be said.

Moving back on topic: for those who haven't seen them, the NRM has posted pictures on Facebook in the last few days showing Scotsman being fitted with a new bogie stretcher and new cab floor.

 

I've been a avid reader of Steam Railway for a few years now and even I would admit that article was not the magazine's finest hour... Though as someone else has already pointed out earlier in this thread, this isn't really SR's fault, its David Wilcocks', because as someone has already highlighted, the magazine is run by a new editor now and DW is freelance.

That heated interview was obviously mostly his diong, not the magazine's, though I do find it odd that they brought up the subject of Mallard steaming again so soon to the event, with there being just no time to get it running again...

But overall I would say SR has improved with it's news and articles these days and would also agree that tough questions need to be answered about 4472's management, though DW grilling Steve Davies (a man who has not been in charge of the project for most it's duration) and trying to get him to admit it's an humiliation, is not what I (and I'm sure everyone else) had in mind...

On a more positive and curious note, besides the ELR, who's going to secure 4472 for their gala first? My bets are stuck between the SVR and the NYMR, though the GCR could be strong contender too.

 

I believe that all interested lines are "in the hat" - I know the Mid Hants is

Its probably the fairest way of doing it,

 

Wasn't there something a while back about 4472 going to Loughborough at somepoint and when SR did their appeal for the vaccum brakes it was said she would be taken to the NYMR and SVR to run her with their set of teaks. I would guess she'll appear at the 2 Winter ELR Gala's assuming she goes back to Bury and when she's ready.

I know a few lines I'd like to see her at

 

So after 1543 posts, what do we actually know about Flying Scotsman's restoration / reconstruction?

- It was much more comprehensive than anticipated.
- It has therefore taken far longer than NRM anticipated.
- It has also cost far more than anticipated.

This suggests that it was in a materially poorer state when acquired than the NRM thought. The NRM has also decided to make it more of a museum piece with the A3 boiler than a private owner may have done, whilst at the same time keeping the historically inaccurate apple green/double klychap configuration - though unless you were also to build a new, non-corridor tender (costing £k?), it would remain historically inaccurate as 60103.

What also seems obvious to me is this is the most comprehensive overhaul 4472 has had since she was in daily service, and that with the possible exceptions of Jeremy Hoskings and Pete Waterman, only the NRM has the resources to conduct this kind of reconstruction. I also expect that given time, Ian Riley and the NRM will turn out 4472 in probably a better material state than at any point in the last 40 years, with the expectation that 4472 will remain a reliable ambassador for the NRM and railway preservation in the decades to come.

And when she comes to the end of her second mainline ticket in the early 2030s, I look forward to SR/HR/whoever else getting behind a campaign to give her a shot a repeating her 100mph exploits on the 2034 centenary!

Tobbes

 

Agreed that this largely seems to be a matter of the extent of the problems not being understood before the overhaul was started, and it seems like once overhauled, the locomotive should be in excellent condition and future overhauls should be easier/faster/cheaper than they would if a "quick" job had been done.

The funny thing is, thinking laterally, I think the most significant condition that the locomotive could represent given the current parts would be as originally preserved by Alan Pegler. As the a pioneering privately owned preserved loco (presumably the first privately owned preserved locomotive to run on the main line, and to run during the 'steam ban'), it would 'tell a story' that it wouldn't presented as a generic "BR Class 7 pacific". And in a sort of "story within a story" way, it also tells the story of the Flying Scotsman as an early British pacific, of the pioneering non stop London-Edinburgh runs.

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there - the editor is responsible for the output of the magazine and once he had read DW's interview it was up to him to decide whether it went into the mag or not. That's his job. DW's position as freelance makes no difference - if he was a member of the paid staff of SR the editor still has to make that call.
As he decided to publish we can conclude that Gary/SR agrees with DW.

Keith

 

Much as my heart would love to see that, my head says no! Flying Scotsman is almost ninety years old now; like most ninety-year-olds, I think she will have to take things a little easier in future. If she's well looked-after, the present overhaul should hopefully set her up for another twenty to thirty years of running - certainly that is the NRM's stated intention. But if she spends the next ten years thrashing up Shap with thirteen coaches on a regular basis, then at the end of it I think we might find that she needs seven-figure sums spent on her yet again.

I'm not saying she should be wrapped in cotton wool, just that we shouldn't try to push her beyond what she was designed for - and her 100mph run of 1934 was the exception, not the rule, of her working life.

 

Given his past record, I am surprised that any magazine publishes anything by Wilcocks. If you are to be interviewed by the man - refuse. If you are not in a position to be able to refuse be aware that he has already pre-scripted the answers he wants. If he doesn't get them, prepare to be bombarded until you deliver in accordance with his script. The preservation world needs a better class of publication than SR - hopefully it's owners might just be made aware of this.

 

Correction - the first privately preserved loco to run on the main line was the J52 no.1247. 1962 - Preservation Pioneer, at Hatfield.. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Fair enough! Still a pioneering loco in preservation though (can I get away with "first preserved express loco to run on the main line"?).

 

Aye. Most people were aware of 4472 going into preservation but 1247 was well below most people's radar in those days.

 

OT I know, but weren't some Bluebell-owned locos runing to and from Brighton to HK via Ardingly even before that date? Certainly Stepney came in 1960, but I am not sure if that was a passenger carrying trip or just ECS. I'm sure I have seen photos with Brich Grove at Brighton station from the very early 1960s.

Anyway, back on topic...

Tom

 

I would be interested to see the circulation figures for both SR and HR over the period of the last 10 years and whether this may be influencing their editorial style.

 

Indeed, some folks on here are, maybe not directly, are making the NRM and their management out to be the villains in all this. NRM were making the best they could out of what was already a bad job.

 

Staying OT, that 1962 pic wasn't her first run by the way, I linked to it purely for illustration. She certainly did some in 1961 and as Capt. Smith bought her in 1959 it's entirely possible she ran in private ownership in that year before restoration to GNR green. Have yet to find a detailed history though. What I did find is this pic of her supposedly in 1930s Yorkshire when it's almost certainly early 1960s Horsted Keynes. L.N.E.R. J52 1247 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Hmm, the third rail is a bit of a giveway it isn't 1930's Yorkshire - unless my knowledge of railway history north of the Watford Gap is sorely lacking (entirely possible BTW!)

Tom