4472, Or How Not To Overhaul A Steam Loco

[The Stationmaster]

Look in this link for a PDF entitled 'Flying Scotsman Report', fairly near the top. I had read it after receiving a copy via a contact and am in some respects surprised that the NRM have published it but perhaps as copies were starting to get about on the 'net they maybe thought they'd better not be accused of keeping it quiet. I haven't checked it against the version I've received privately but if it is the same as that then the columns of various mags are going to be reverberating - it is, alas, a tale of appalling mismanagement and utter incompetence almost beyond belief.

 

All you can say is that it's now very clear why 4472 has not reappeared in public on various promised dates or jobs and that someone has finally put together all the pieces of the story showing the loco was in as poor a state, if not worse, than many said it was at the time it was 'saved for the nation'.

 

http://www.nrm.org.uk/AboutUs/nrmdocuments.aspx

[TheSignalEngineer]

Looks like Gasaxe Gertie should have been used on it.

[will5210]

A fascinating read, and does indeed seem to be a bit of a balls up at every stage.

[31A Driver]

Thanks for that Mike. It makes for very sad reading though.

 

Andy

[Andy Y]

Obviously there's a lot of statement of fact and apportioning 'blame' in there but I think it's worth considering what the alternatives would be if it had been sold to an alternative private domestic or overseas bidder; would restoration be any further forward or cost any less? If it had been the latter with it going overseas I honestly think there would be greater outcry if it were abandoned as a lost cause. At best it would probably ended up stuffed and mounted somewhere if it wasn't in the hands of a body with a definite commitment to restore it.

 

Things aren't perfect but the alternatives would have probably been worse.

[S.A.C Martin]

The whole situation from top to bottom makes my blood boil, but not more so than the absolute clap trap that the railway comics have put out month by month continuously since 2007, with (it seems) the express intent of trying to trip the NRM up at every turn.

 

The recent pair of interviews in Steam Railway Magazine by David Wilcock were downright appalling. Absolutely no respect or full understanding of the situation at all. What should have been a decent fact finding interview speaking to Steve Davies quickly descended into a witch hunt trying to get him to say the NRM had been humiliated. The manner in which he pursued his story was tabloid journalism at its worst, and frankly targeting both the wrong man and the wrong people for his derision in his extremely rude interviews.

 

There are means and ways of going about it; the way he did more or less slammed and derided one man who cannot in any way be held personally and solely accountable for all of 4472's troubles. Frankly it can be argued quite proficiently that Steam Railway Magazine as a whole have not helped 4472's fortunes particularly (despite donations indicating the contrary) over the past decade in the NRM's ownership.

 

Bob Meanley has indeed written a fair, considered and extensive report. It lays the blame at the door of change of leadership, lack of knowledge, lack of structure and lack of decision making. There is no doubt in my mind that 4472 has been mismanaged by the NRM in its overhaul; that is not in doubt, and this report should stimulate them into producing a cohesive management structure, with compliance guidelines in place for every stage of future overhauls, in order to prevent anything of the like happening again. The NRM must make sure this does not happen again for any project.

 

Let us not forget that 4472 has seen, in its time at the NRM, several changes of engineering staff, several changes of management at the top, and has been expected every which way by absolutely everyone in railway preservation to appear at this, that, and t'other at a moment's notice. This does not excuse the mistakes and mismanagement, but it does allow us to understand them in their correct context.

 

What is plain as day, however, lined out in the report item by item, is that 4472 as sold to the NRM was in an absolutely dire state. The report makes for sobering reading for anyone not aware of the sheer amount of, and varied nature, of the mechanical problems 4472 was experiencing. There are some items in Bob Meanley's report which are absolutely unacceptable fixes at any level of engineering.

 

The use of domestic gas plugs to act as washout plugs, fitted by the previous owners of 4472; the tender handbrake cut, to fit various other components (which meant Scotsman always required chocks when parked up), the use of the 250lb A4 boiler at full pressure, with no changes to the frames and surrounding superstructure, which will have caused the cracks and damage to other components. There's more besides that (read the report for the full list) and that's before we question why so few of the known spare parts at Southall were included in the sale of the locomotive.

 

It must be telling that the two most high profile locomotives overhauled at Southall in the last decade have not only experienced near identical problems with frames, wheelsets and boilers, but that both are now still under overhaul at their different respective owners. It is clear that 4472's troubles have been doubled or worse by a lack of inspection - the initial inspection and report for the locomotive before sale, incidentally, prepared by the locomotive's then owners.

 

Bob Meanley's report has wider implications for railway preservation as a whole. This should act as the wake up call for everyone.

 

Dare I say, this is not the only report out this year which should have people thinking carefully.

[PhilH]

Obviously there's a lot of statement of fact and apportioning 'blame' in there but I think it's worth considering what the alternatives would be if it had been sold to an alternative private domestic or overseas bidder; would restoration be any further forward or cost any less? If it had been the latter with it going overseas I honestly think there would be greater outcry if it were abandoned as a lost cause. At best it would probably ended up stuffed and mounted somewhere if it wasn't in the hands of a body with a definite commitment to restore it.

 

Things aren't perfect but the alternatives would have probably been worse.

 

It would have gone to Ropley for restoration under Hosking's ownership.

 

It came very close, just as well he saw sense.

[Re6/6]

The report couldn't have come from a more suitable person than Bob Meanley.

 

I enjoyed several footplate rides on FS when she came to the (then called) Torbay Steam Railway in the 70s, under the management George Hinchcliffe and Bill Hoole.(IIRC)

[The Stationmaster]

Obviously there's a lot of statement of fact and apportioning 'blame' in there but I think it's worth considering what the alternatives would be if it had been sold to an alternative private domestic or overseas bidder; would restoration be any further forward or cost any less? If it had been the latter with it going overseas I honestly think there would be greater outcry if it were abandoned as a lost cause. At best it would probably ended up stuffed and mounted somewhere if it wasn't in the hands of a body with a definite commitment to restore it.

 

Things aren't perfect but the alternatives would have probably been worse.

I'm absolutely certain there would have been a huge outcry if it had gone abroad and there is a very telling point about the difference (only 15% I think it says) between what the NRM paid for it and the underbid. In that respect, and although I still think it was grossly over-priced, it wasn't such a bad purchase deal but to regard it as a runnable loco - even with the reports from AEA - was possibly misleading as many folk associated with preserved steam working were saying at the time.

 

The real problems however came with what happened after the NRM acquired it and proposed to 'overhaul' it - admittedly they were let down by one contractor but the overall tale is still a very sorry one including examples of left hand and right hand within the NRM and so on. It had, of course played a part in bankrupting, or at the least placed huge costs, on a succession of private owners none of whom when it came down to it had ever got to grips with the amount of work the loco needed even a decade or more before the NRM bought it. I don't doubt that proper overhaul to full, safe, mainline working order would be massively expensive (I was surprised by how low the initial NRM estimate was to be honest) nor do I doubt that it was going to be a huge task - the report concentrates heavily on the fact that the NRM consistently failed to recognise or properly take into account and manage exactly that.

[pete_mcfarlane]

For much of the time, project management was ineffectual or non-existent.

That's true of an awful lot of projects, irrespective of what industry it's in. A lot of 'project managers' seem to limit their involvement in the project to expecting regular updates on how the work is going .

This is fine when it's all going according to plan, but you need somebody to make firm decisions when problems arise.

Looks like Gasaxe Gertie should have been used on it.

Or (more seriously) the bits reassembled and cleaned, and the loco placed by the turntable in the NRM's Great Hall. And kept as a static exhibit for good.

[The Stationmaster]

The report couldn't have come from a more suitable person than Bob Meanley.

Although knowing Bob as a (very) 'plain speaker' I have had more than a passing thought that his co-author 'calmed down' some of Bob's observations

[Michael Delamar]

Is it true that Sir Nigel Gresley picked Flying Scotsman for the 100mph run, not because it was the best but the worst performer of the class?

his reason being that if it could do it then they all could in the proposed timetables?

[oOld Harry 666]

My view is that a proper engineering assessment should have been prepared upon strip down to decide the extent of repairs needed, especially in view of the much known problems during the Marchington period of ownership.

 

Perhaps if a recognized specialist, such as Ian Riley or Bob Meanley had been approached at the start then the direction of the overhaul could have been managed in a proper fashion from the start, at a saving of much Public money. In fact it would have probably been cheaper to have contracted out the work to Riley's or Tyesley..

 

 

In fact this has turned into a job typical of anything carried out in the Public sector. Poor research, assessment, implementation, management, and quality of work leading to waste, over-run, undue expense etc. etc.

[S.A.C Martin]

It would have gone to Ropley for restoration under Hosking's ownership.

 

And as we have seen with Bittern, it would have been turned out in excellent mechanical and external condition. I cannot think of a locomotive I have seen, fresh out of works, that sounded as good or performed as well as Bittern did in 2007, just out of Ropley for the first time.

 

It came very close, just as well he saw sense.

 

I suspect he has seen a similar situation with Royal Scot to that the NRM has experienced with Scotsman.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Obviously there's a lot of statement of fact and apportioning 'blame' in there but I think it's worth considering what the alternatives would be if it had been sold to an alternative private domestic or overseas bidder; would restoration be any further forward or cost any less? If it had been the latter with it going overseas I honestly think there would be greater outcry if it were abandoned as a lost cause. At best it would probably ended up stuffed and mounted somewhere if it wasn't in the hands of a body with a definite commitment to restore it.

 

Things aren't perfect but the alternatives would have probably been worse.

 

There are enough kettles preserved, losing one which was a money pit wouldn't have been a problem, then the money could have gone to a more worthy cause.

 

Mike.

[S.A.C Martin]

There are enough kettles preserved, losing one which was a money pit wouldn't have been a problem, then the money could have gone to a more worthy cause.

 

Mike.

 

Not really true though is it Mike? You are assuming the money donated for Scotsman would have gone into railway preservation as a matter of course. May I suggest that there's a greater percentage of the general public who put their money in simply because it was 4472, and not any other locomotive or railway cause?

 

It's a bit like the otf-repeated argument that Tornado's building took money away from other railway heritage projects - completely without foundation and with no evidence to suggest anything but the contrary is true.

[The Stationmaster]

There are enough kettles preserved, losing one which was a money pit wouldn't have been a problem, then the money could have gone to a more worthy cause.

Mike.

I think Scotsman is - for various reasons - far too iconic a loco to do that. And that was part of the problem - once the NRM had got it they were expected to run it and in order to do that it needed overhaul and then things started to go awry because nobody was either able or prepared or equipped to realise that it would be a very expensive and very long job and they also made some public promises which were detached from even the reality of their own internal assessments.

[Oldddudders]

That's true of an awful lot of projects, irrespective of what industry it's in. A lot of 'project managers' seem to limit their involvement in the project to expecting regular updates on how the work is going .

This is fine when it's all going according to plan, but you need somebody to make firm decisions when problems arise.

Year after year, BR undershot on capital expenditure, typically managing about 70% of its projected spend, even in the boom years of the late '80s. In the final months of the financial year, there was much spending on PCs and other off-the-shelf items. Some Sectors managed to devise quick-spend schemes in advance, knowing that as this period approached they would be able to dust them down and get going quickly. NSE excelled at this, mopping up money InterCity and Provincial had failed to use - sounds of grinding teeth in certain quarters! Project management was seen to be part of the problem, where functional reporting limited the availability of "the truth" to the PM if he was independent of that function, and suppressed his reporting if he was employed within the function. PMs were widely seen as historians - and in most cases were not empowered to override the functional decisions, anyway. "It costs what it costs!" as a colleague of my wife put it to his management group.

 

In 1989 Touche Ross were brought in to run the rule over the whole shebang, and they consulted with a working party headed by the Director, Projects and the Director, Financial Planning. TR identified a lot of issues, many of them cultural and organisational, not least the need for "ownership" of a project outside the lead function involved in implementation. Sectors were seen as the necessary owners - they held all the budgets, after all - but the functions were still terribly powerful. Chartered engineers reasonably resent being told how to do things for which they have been trained. From early 1990 a series of courses for PMs was designed to up their competence and empower them. The Gantt chart became a badge of office. More PMs were recruited. Then the recession hit, and the number of PMs increased just as the available Capital went down...

 

And, at about the same time, a new Chairman arrived - Bob Reid Mark II. He had come from Shell, and when told of the 70% spend problem, commented that that was pretty much what happened in his last job, too!

[Guest Belgian]

My view is that a proper engineering assessment should have been prepared upon strip down to decide the extent of repairs needed, especially in view of the much known problems during the Marchington period of ownership.

 

Perhaps if a recognized specialist, such as Ian Riley or Bob Meanley had been approached at the start then the direction of the overhaul could have been managed in a proper fashion from the start, at a saving of much Public money. In fact it would have probably been cheaper to have contracted out the work to Riley's or Tyesley..

 

 

In fact this has turned into a job typical of anything carried out in the Public sector. Poor research, assessment, implementation, management, and quality of work leading to waste, over-run, undue expense etc. etc.

Whilst agreeing with the above analysis, I do think from an enthusiast's point of view, that, had the full cost of overhaul been assessed at the start, the NRM would have been held to account and not been granted the necessary funds. As a result of which Enterprisingwestern's comment might have occurred and we would not have any prospect of seeing the locomotive at work again (even though, again from an enthusiast's point of view), we may grumble forever at the non-historical appearance if the double chimney and German deflectors remain on a locomotive in LNER livery.

 

JE

[scots region]

The whole situation from top to bottom makes my blood boil, but not more so than the absolute clap trap that the railway comics have put out month by month continuously since 2007, with (it seems) the express intent of trying to trip the NRM up at every turn.

 

The recent pair of interviews in Steam Railway Magazine by David Wilcock were downright appalling. Absolutely no respect or full understanding of the situation at all. What should have been a decent fact finding interview speaking to Steve Davies quickly descended into a witch hunt trying to get him to say the NRM had been humiliated. The manner in which he pursued his story was tabloid journalism at its worst, and frankly targeting both the wrong man and the wrong people for his derision in his extremely rude interviews.

 

There are means and ways of going about it; the way he did more or less slammed and derided one man who cannot in any way be held personally and solely accountable for all of 4472's troubles. Frankly it can be argued quite proficiently that Steam Railway Magazine as a whole have not helped 4472's fortunes particularly (despite donations indicating the contrary) over the past decade in the NRM's ownership.

 

Bob Meanley has indeed written a fair, considered and extensive report. It lays the blame at the door of change of leadership, lack of knowledge, lack of structure and lack of decision making. There is no doubt in my mind that 4472 has been mismanaged by the NRM in its overhaul; that is not in doubt, and this report should stimulate them into producing a cohesive management structure, with compliance guidelines in place for every stage of future overhauls, in order to prevent anything of the like happening again. The NRM must make sure this does not happen again for any project.

 

Let us not forget that 4472 has seen, in its time at the NRM, several changes of engineering staff, several changes of management at the top, and has been expected every which way by absolutely everyone in railway preservation to appear at this, that, and t'other at a moment's notice. This does not excuse the mistakes and mismanagement, but it does allow us to understand them in their correct context.

 

What is plain as day, however, lined out in the report item by item, is that 4472 as sold to the NRM was in an absolutely dire state. The report makes for sobering reading for anyone not aware of the sheer amount of, and varied nature, of the mechanical problems 4472 was experiencing. There are some items in Bob Meanley's report which are absolutely unacceptable fixes at any level of engineering.

 

The use of domestic gas plugs to act as fusible plugs, fitted by the previous owners of 4472; the tender handbrake cut, to fit various other components (which meant Scotsman always required chocks when parked up), the use of the 250lb A4 boiler at full pressure, with no changes to the frames and surrounding superstructure, which will have caused the cracks and damage to other components. There's more besides that (read the report for the full list) and that's before we question why so few of the known spare parts at Southall were included in the sale of the locomotive.

 

It must be telling that the two most high profile locomotives overhauled at Southall in the last decade have not only experienced near identical problems with frames, wheelsets and boilers, but that both are now still under overhaul at their different respective owners. It is clear that 4472's troubles have been doubled or worse by a lack of inspection - the initial inspection and report for the locomotive before sale, incidentally, prepared by the locomotive's then owners.

 

Bob Meanley's report has wider implications for railway preservation as a whole. This should act as the wake up call for everyone.

 

Dare I say, this is not the only report out this year which should have people thinking carefully.

 

As usually Mr Martin, you have enunciated the facts in manner of a far higher quality than me or many others. I put it to the house that a general review of the procedures of heritage locomotive transaction take place forthwith to ensure that firstly no piece of industrial heritage ever be allowed to suffer such neglect at the hands of anyone, and that proper long term solutions can be swiftly found and enacted.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you for being permitted the honour.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Should have been brave and taken the early decision to plinth the old girl - it is an important relic in so many ways, in respect of all of design, service life, preservation, and fame - and build a new operating facsimile. Probably still remains the best course of action as there is always going to be conflict between conserving what originality remains and maintaining ideal operational condition. Done this way you have options like the 'original' in visually as built condition, and the operating facsimile in finally developed form for best performance.

[LMS2968]

There are enough kettles preserved, losing one which was a money pit wouldn't have been a problem, then the money could have gone to a more worthy cause.

 

Mike.

Although I'm not the biggest fan of Sir Nigel, the LNER or 4472, even I wouldn't suggest that she be written off. When all is said and done, she is THE iconic British locomotive of whatever propulsion type. Quite frankly, she deserves better treatment than she's had, both from the NRM and also those who owned her previously. I hope she doesn't end up as a mere static exhibit, although that would be preferrable to losing her completely.

[pete_mcfarlane]

In the final months of the financial year, there was much spending on PCs and other off-the-shelf items.

I remember going to a meeting many years ago with an NHS customer of my employer, around the end of March. The sides of the meeting room were stacked high with several hundred newly acquired PCs, to the point where you could hardly pull the chair out to sit down.

[S.A.C Martin]

Should have been brave and taken the early decision to plinth the old girl - it is an important relic in so many ways, in respect of all of design, service life, preservation, and fame - and build a new operating facsimile. Probably still remains the best course of action as there is always going to be conflict between conserving what originality remains and maintaining ideal operational condition. Done this way you have options like the 'original' in visually as built condition, and the operating facsimile in finally developed form for best performance.

 

The more you read about 4472's life, the more you realize she's a working locomotive, and "original" is a term best reserved for locomotives such as the Rocket on display in the Science Museum. Certainly none of the locomotives in the NRM are going to be "as built" or "using parts as in service" as the vast majority were restored to forms they had long since moved on from when finally withdrawn, whether by BR, grouping or pre-grouping companies.

 

4472 has had replacement frames, replacement boilers, probably wheelsets, and many more besides, and to think of it as having to be original when it's been a working locomotive since 1923 perhaps misses the point. If we treat 4472 in some respects as a living, breathing leviathan of the age, then she is no different to any of us - as we get older, parts are replaced, things get knackered. That place in time and space has always been 4472, regardless of the originality of the parts, and in that respect should be treated as a working locomotive; no more, no less, with the acceptance that as a mechanical being, components can be renewed, refreshed and outright replaced to keep the whole working.

 

Let's face it - what steam locomotive in railway preservation that is working today, can legitimately claim to be wholly original? Not a single one I'll wager. The originality of the parts is irrelevant for a working steam locomotive. It is the whole which counts.

[steve1]

Surely it's time to stop wasting money on what, let's face it, is no longer the real 4472 and stuff it and mount it in the NRM.

 

The GBP just needs a big kettle to gawp at and Tornado admirably fits that role.

 

steve