Flying Scotsman 4472 report published

[mick b]

This saga gets more bizarre at every step .

FS a matter of weeks from steaming, now all of a sudden all three cylinders are knackered and a minimum of a year and half to rectify, why on earth would such a repair take so long? . Let alone the hornblocks and frame failures which appeared by magic !!
No idea what NRM are doing about this?? surely it time to spend some money and sue the repairers/examiners of the previous work ? which appears to be a total joke.

[Andy W]

It's a very good question that SACM poses - you do wonder what made up that figure of £2.25m. What has had to be replaced/remade on the loco this time around does make you think what on earth did they do the last time and how much of it was completely new manufacture?

I think it is generally accepted that it was fairly well worn when it returned from down under but the intervening years and the hurry by the NRM to acquire the engine and get it back working, without knowing what really needed to be done, has been everyone involved's undoing.

I am optimistic that the lessons will have been learned by all parties and the whole NRM steam thing will now move forward on a firmer footing. I was afraid that it would have been easy to say let's finish with it all but Tony Roche and Allan Baker have shown them (and others) the way to go.

I feel a lot more positive about the future for FS now than I have done for some months and it is, as SACM says, going to be a much better engine than what was originally purchased by the NRM. But, as the report says, what they need to do now isn't going to be a quick job.

[harvester]

A question running in my mind like lots of others is why the latest problems were not discovered earlier and why the engine is nearly completely re assembled be fore new problems are discovered. Surely when the main frames were being repaired and the engine in bits all alignment checks would have been made??????????

[greenglade]

According to the two documentaries that Tony Marchington had made about 4472 whilst he owned it, the total cost of the Southall overhaul was in excess of £2.25 million, a figure which is contradicted by the railway magazines at the minute (and given at a much lower figure of £1 million, despite having previously reported the higher figure).

I think that this is were most of 4472's issues may have started, I remember watching those documentaries and listening to what the chief engineer had to say and being a little concerned by the modifications he proudly stated he had done and how 4472 now had a tractive effort of over 40k and was more powerful than any of the A4's. Amongst other mods he increased the bore size to 20" and also increased the cylinder steam pipes to 7" id to match the main steam pipe size, previously they had been 5" as per Gresley's specification and of course the increase in boiler pressure. At this time there were many engineers who disagreed with some of these mods, in fact's it's still a subject of contention on Engineering forums today. All of this extra power, will cause wear and tear at a higher rate than normal and remember Gresley's pacifics were delicate thoroughbreds to begin with.
It's the same as when modifying a car to a greater power output ( something I know a lot about, far more than what I know in regards to steam), when you double the output of an internal combustion engine, my current project has been increased from 220 to 450+ bhp you need to beef everything else up as well not forgetting to make considerations for the extra heat generated. Thus I'm not surprised that 4472 has issues with her frames and cylinders when the tractive effort had been increased by such a large amount. It is heartening though that perhaps now finally 4472 will be put into competent hands who can rebuild her with the correct size bores and perhaps lower the boiler pressure a little too, not sure if they will do anything about the steam pipes but at least she has a fighting chance of being properly repaired and then used to the ability of her original designers plans and not trying to break stupid records for tractive effort, she's an old girl and needs to be treated as such.

Regards

Pete

[jamieP]

Cant say much for the cylinder steam pipes but with the A3 boiler thats on her she will run again at 220psi.

JP

[brsince78]

Having read the report, I have a few comments:-

Firstly:- Well done to the NRM for publishing it (with appropriate redaction).

Whilst much can be said about why the locomotive is in its current condition, it is clear from the report the extent of work needed to complete to a satisfactory standard.

The report also clearly states that the NRM should not contemplate heavy overhauls of mainline steam locomotives in future without significant investment in workshop facilities and additional skilled staff. Whist these facilities and capabilities are available elsewhere, I cannot see the justification for investing public money in creating it inside the NRM.

Lastly the report states that "the NRM should reassess its internal resources and processes for engineering control, project management, financial management and contract management necessary for monitoring and reporting on the performance of the contract." In my view the NRM should concentrate on ensuring accountability for future projects, i.e. Do Less and Manage More.

[Iron Duke]

An interesting thread..........

[workev]

It would seem that those who criticised the NRM for taking an age to get 4472 back on the mainline were eager to judge. Reading the report (the commissioning of which should be praised) it seems to suggest that the engine was in a poor state as far back as mid-1990s. It also appears that the attempts to "supercharge" the engine through a larger boiler, steam pipes and cylinders has greatly added to the engine's problems.

I guess some criticism should be levelled at the NRM when buying the engine. Those who sold it and subsequently reported on its state in 2007 had some vested interest in not being responsible for taking the engine out of its design envelope; especially given its celebrity status. What information was available to the NRM when they bought the engine?

The fact the NRM has released this report should be praised; and to me it sets the blueprint for future steam operations of NRM engines; outside contractors to probably maintain, overhaul and possibly service engines and NRM to project manage the engines' life. I suspect, however, that it will take other people's money to get other engines running again.

Maybe the NRM need to consider other forms of funding for mainline steam of their locos, maybe under lease?

As for Steam Magazine, those who are at the heart of the NRM criticism should take a long look at themselves. I have learnt from personal experience that the steam preservation world is full of self-serving people, including those in the media.....

Don't get me wrong, without that attitude many engines wouldn't be running at all, but I think that running something under public ownership vs. owning your own engine is different. Where were all these people in 2004, or when the modifications were being made to supercharge a 70 year old engine?

Remember this is the same organisation that is re-uniting 6 A4 Pacifics in the Summer.......

[DeCaso]

I do not believe any organisation has a works facility that would allow the overhaul of a steam locomotive to be carried out quickly and efficiently as it needs to be done. The NRM thought the work would be quite straight forward. As it turned out they were mistaken. But having better facilities would have helped.

When the boiler was lifted a crane had to be hired in. When the locomotive was lifted at Bury the necessary gear had to be brought in. Given a works with overhead cranes of traditional works capacity then the whole locomotive could have been split down and reassembled far more readily and under cover too. Given a full suite of alignment gear the defects in the chassis set up would have been discovered from the outset. And so on. Time costs and mistakes cost even more. Heavy overhauls are getting more and more expensive. A central, state of the art, facility could prove very useful (but quite where to put it). Think of the opportunity for skills retention and development.

I do not care for automotive phrases or expressions being used for steam locomotives. However there has not been one built that could not be improved to a significant extent. If you choose to undertake a program of modifications you really have to know what you are dealing with. 4472 could have been improved and, externally, few people would have been any the wiser. When the engine emerged from the last overhaul I believe some people were asking questions but I do not think it was easy to find out exactly what had been done - that appears to the story for more than one overhaul. The boiler was no larger but with higher W.P. and bored out cylinders plus enlarged steam pipes some one should have seen trouble brewing.