When was the title for the train Flying Scotsman adopted.

[52D]

From the early days on the ECML the ten o clock departures from Kings x and Waverley were simply known as The Scotch Express is there a definitive date for the adoption of the Flying Scotsman name.

[greenglade]

Wiki states this..
'It was the LNER which, in 1924, officially renamed the 10:00 Special Scotch Express linking Edinburgh and London in both directions as the Flying Scotsman, its unofficial name since the 1870s. To further publicise the train, a recently built A1 Class locomotive was named after the service, and put on display at the 1924 British Empire Exhibition.'

I'm sure that I've read that somewhere too, might be Andrew's new book from the NRM... not able to browse it to confirm just now though..

regards

Pete

[65447]

Yeadon's 'Named Trains on LNER Lines Part I' notes that the train was known as the 'Flying Scotchman' from the 1880s but was not officially named until 1924, it being referred to in the workings as the [Special] Scotch Express. The locomotive was given the name 'Flying Scotsman' in February 1924 in advance of being on show at the British Empire Exhibition and the train given the name 'Flying Scotsman' from September 1924 with the introduction of two new sets of carriages, one for each direction - the down train leaving King's Cross and the up train Edinburgh Waverley at 10 o'clock, hence the collective name of the "ten o'clocks" by which they were usually referred. The name of the train changed in 1950 to 'The Flying Scotsman' when new BR-style cast aluminium nameplates were introduced; up until then the original, based on the NBR style, and then GIll Sans painted styles had remained in use.

Another useful source is Dave Peel's 'Locomotive Headboards - The Complete Story' as is the LNER's own book 'The Flying Scotsman - The World's Most Famous Express with the World's Longest Non-Stop Run' first published in 1925. In fact the latter suggests the informal naming dates from June 1862. Extracts comprising the earlier chapters of the LNER book were re-published in the LNER Society Journal and there were various articles and features that appeared in the official LNER Magazine.

[john coffin]

From the beginning of the GNR in London, there was a "10.00 AM Special Scotch Express, although at the beginning it took about 10 hours to get to York, until the Direct route was opened, so that the trains did not have to travel via the Lincoln loop.

In the 1860's it became even more important due to the establishment of the East Coast Joint Stock organisation between the NBR, NER and GNR
since there was a train each way twice a day which was also referred to as the Scotchman.

In 1924, the newly formed LNER was looking for some extra publicity, and also wanted to give prominence to its new liveries which included new designs for lettering etc.

Certain our researches make it clear that the unofficial term Flying Scotsman was used by most of the running staff who worked on it since before the turn of the century, i.e. 1900.

Paul

[65447]

From the beginning of the GNR in London, there was a "10.00 AM Special Scotch Express, although at the beginning it took about 10 hours to get to York, until the Direct route was opened, so that the trains did not have to travel via the Lincoln loop.

According to the LNER's own publication this train departed KX at 9 a.m., 9.15 or 9.30 until June 1862 whilst the Edinburgh departure continued to vary at 10.10, 10.15, 10.20 or 10.25 until 1876. It is suggested that it only was referred to as the Special Scotch Express after 2nd class was included in what had been a 1st class only service.

[john coffin]

Tend to consider the words of Ken Hoole more accurate than those of the LNER special publications, he studied more of the records I feel.

He suggests that the train was called the Scotch Express from at least 1855 when it was certainly the 10.00 am one. I agree before the loop line was superseded, it had odd times prior to 10.00 from KX, but it also included various carriages including 2nds from both NBR and NER as well as GNR.

The East Coast joint Stock operation was proposed from 1860, and it is certain that although the NBR paid their part, the GNR designed the early ones, and the NER also built some to those designs. Of more interest is who actually designed the clerestories for ECJS.

Paul

[65447]

Tend to consider the words of Ken Hoole more accurate than those of the LNER special publications, he studied more of the records I feel.

Your personal choice, but since the LNER book was written contemporaneously with the namings and by (CJ) Allen and Wrottesley then I suggest they were much closer to the events and the historical information than the similarly redoubtable and respected Ken Hoole.

[john coffin]

My view is based on the amount of control that the BR board had on the words of F.A.S.Brown in all three of his books about GNR engineers,
and the belief that anything published by the railway company tended to be based on their needs as a publicity vehicle, and not necessarily
on the completely historical facts we now demand, sadly too late.

Mr Allan was employed by the LNER, which he joined from the GER, and thus his view would have been carefully managed by the picture that
the board wanted to be exhibited when they launched the 1924 train.

Having worked my way through the incorrect, and lacking details of GNR tenders, not least that behind No 1 for 107 years in preservation,
I prefer to be a bit cynical about the "official" books.

Paul

[65447]

My view is based on the amount of control that the BR board had on the words of F.A.S.Brown in all three of his books about GNR engineers,
and the belief that anything published by the railway company tended to be based on their needs as a publicity vehicle, and not necessarily
on the completely historical facts we now demand, sadly too late.

Mr Allan was employed by the LNER, which he joined from the GER, and thus his view would have been carefully managed by the picture that
the board wanted to be exhibited when they launched the 1924 train.

Having worked my way through the incorrect, and lacking details of GNR tenders, not least that behind No 1 for 107 years in preservation,
I prefer to be a bit cynical about the "official" books.

Paul

There are too many examples of 'unmoderated' publications that contain errors as well. The first paragraph is hearsay although there may have been a degree of editorial influence, not least due to conflicting sources, of which there are more than enough. You have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your allegation in the second paragraph. The book was first published post event, not to coincide with the naming, and went through several editions.

Some might prefer to be cynical about your posts, given that there were challenges concerning the merit of your contributions to the GNRS News.

[john coffin]

Quite what part of Mr Allan being an employee of the LNER is an allegation is difficult to understand.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill "History is written by the winners" and "it is also to fit with the desires of those producing it".
That comment comes from being involved in publishing for many years.

As for my ideas being challenged in one article in the GNRS news, no one so far has been able to provide any different evidence
than mine gained from climbing all over various Stirling tenders, as well as reading various publications. I note that over the years,
very few people have troubled to investigate and gain any information on GNR tenders, apart from Malcolm Crawley and Willie Yeadon
I have only been contacted by a couple of people who actually are interested in learning more about the tenders. At least I do not
confuse various woodworking joints when making comments?

Paul