ste234 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 To be honest I'm just glad that we still have the loco. Yes, it may be like Triggers broom, but it is still the Flying Scotsman. I just look forward to the day it belts down the ECML again (preferably not being towed by a diesel!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigd Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Equally I suppose it has really to decide where and how it will go next with 4472 although it will, I'm sure, be committed to getting it back into steam in some way or another; it just has to decide how. I expect that one lesson the NRM has learned is to not make any more promises about when Scotsman will be ready. Perhaps they should be like Carnforth, and have radio silence, until she is ready to steam. If this is the case, I would not expect to hear any announcements from the NRM for a good while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted November 11, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 11, 2012 Like all working machines of the era it was a 'Bitza'. Another good case was 'Albert Hall'. When it first arrived at Tyseley I noticed that some of the stampings on the motion had been chiselled through and restamped '4983'. Not uncommon I thought as Swindon was well into standardisation of components and re-use. It only emerged years later that prior to withdrawl it was 4962 running on 4983's boiler ticket. I have, sat here close to me, one of the driving desks from 86628, stamped with the correct E number of the loco and with "86628 Aldaniti" written on it underneath as well. 86628 is still in service! Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Does the money (or a proportion of it) from those unbelievably tacky and kitsch clocks advertised in the mags go toward the actual loco, or just to the purveyors of the tat, sorry, vendors of fine merchandise? steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Hadyn Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 It actually does come back to us Steve, amazing how many have been sold! Yet I've never seen one in anyone's house... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 amazing how many have been sold! Yet I've never seen one in anyone's house... I imagine that they would go down well in certain parts of Glasgow by the look of them. Bernard (With apologies to Andy Y for getting a bit too close to sectarianism) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I suspect that one of the elements in the NRM's acceptance of its role in acquiring the locomotive and its subsequent overhaul stems back to its own previous experience. Back in the 1970s the NRM had acquired 46229 'Duchess of Hamilton' from static 'preservation' by Billy Butlin's organisation. With the help of the 'Friends' the NRM overhauled that locomotive twice (or was it three times?) and returned it to (highly-successful) main line running. In that time they built up a skilled labour force and engineering base at York together with a team of support staff and the locomotive was widely lauded and recognised as the 'flagship' of the NRM. When the 4472 saga started (for the NRM) 46229 was sidelined as 6233 had just been returned to the main line by the PRCLT and the NRM didn't want to dupilcate it at that time, thus 46229 became available for Bob Meanley's no. 1 ambition, to restreamline it. The NRM had a team available, with experience, who could 'get their teeth into' Scotsman, so it was probably not considered to be a major challenge. As Phil says, hindsight is a wonderful thing (and, I would add, possessed only by journalists and critics), and I doubt that anyone, even though the preservation 'world' knew about Scotsman's problems, could have foreseen how bad it was. I don't think the NRM should be criticised too much for not being journalists, and should, as others have said, be given due praise for commissioning and publishing this report. Critics should wait to see if they act on it or not. JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Never mind, it's just a steam locomotive. At least the NRM isn't building submarines, because they need to be done right because, oh wait a minute.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 You know its very easy for us to crawl into the corner and bemoan that fact the world hasn't gone to plan, but its quite a hard job for those who have to except the failure and try and make something worthwhile out of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted April 18, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 18, 2013 The authors of the new consultancy report are of interest. Former BR Board Member for Engineering, Tony Roche, and former Divisional Traction Engineer, South Eastern, Allan Baker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium OnTheBranchline Posted May 4, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 4, 2013 I don't see what the big problem is... City of Truro did it first! (I'll get my coat). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron14xx Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 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. I don't think that the Rocket in the Science museum is completely original. The Rocket in that museum has had various rebuilds, things added, things taken away and appearances changed. Isn't the working Rocket replica based upon the original Rocket when new? This really raises the question. What do we define as 'original' and 'non-original' on a steam locomotive, and how should we go about answering this question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
69843 Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 I don't think that the Rocket in the Science museum is completely original. The Rocket in that museum has had various rebuilds, things added, things taken away and appearances changed. Isn't the working Rocket replica based upon the original Rocket when new? This really raises the question. What do we define as 'original' and 'non-original' on a steam locomotive, and how should we go about answering this question. I believe the term original in this sense comes from the fact that since retirement, Rocket has had no new material added, has not been restored and is exactly how she finished service. The term original is a subjective thing, and I would rather leave that to interpritation by others, but to put it in a local example, 3609 down at the RTM is considered by many to be original, as in the term of not rebuilt/modified to put her into service since withdrawal but isn't original in the fact that since being built it has had major changes, such as a Belpare boiler and a different cab. 3642 is most definitely not 'original', as it has had many changes to help it run on the mainline, such as a second lubricator, ICE radio and other features necessary to support a mainline Australian steam locomotive and keep her running. I am sure it would be a similar argument with any locomotive, whether here in Oz or over in England. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldgunner Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Yup, rocket is as 'withdrawn' rather than original, but what is original anyway? Rocket went through many modifications in her lifetime, most notably the cylinder angle. That part of time and space has always been 'Rocket', and 'Rocket' it shall remain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Hadyn Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 Originality and authenticity are two different ends of a sliding scale... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted September 23, 2013 Share Posted September 23, 2013 I believe the term original in this sense comes from the fact that since retirement, Rocket has had no new material added, has not been restored and is exactly how she finished service. Not so . I have a copy of the NRM's heavyweight "The Engineering and History of Rocket" (which sadly contains some serious printing faults , shameful in a major work of museum scholarship : eg Fig 2.5 and Fig 2.6 completely mislabelled with a repetition of the label for Fig 2.1 - so goodness knows what they actually are) In the summary they note "It was withdrawn ..c 1840.. .It remained stored out of service for 22 years, during which time many of its fittings were removed and irretrevably lost. In anticipation of its donation to the Patent Office Museum in 1862, some of the missing components were poorly relicated, most of which have been removed during the 137 years it has been on display in South Kensington" (p2) "other , erroneous, replica components fitted in 1862 have been removed during Rocket's time at South Kensington, whilst it's chimney and carrying wheels have been fitted by the Museum's curators" (p4) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Quick, preserve Tornado Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted October 29, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 29, 2013 At least it's going to be done properly now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 29, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted October 29, 2013 At least it's going to be done properly now. And managed properly subsequently by the look of things - but an interesting little caveat in there about the condition of the frames when the cylinders are taken off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted October 29, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 29, 2013 Just hope Riley & Son get all the problems sorted before it is put back together, so there are no problems when (if) it gets back on the mainline so they don't become another financial casualty of this engines history. Rileys are just about the best there is - if it can be sorted, it will be sorted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted October 29, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 29, 2013 And managed properly subsequently by the look of things - but an interesting little caveat in there about the condition of the frames when the cylinders are taken off. If it turns out to be a crock of the brown stuff they could always put it on ebay on a free listing day -unfinished project - spares or repairs - £2,000,000 start - cash on collection preferred as the Paypal fees would be a bit steep Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted October 29, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 29, 2013 Just hope Riley & Son get all the problems sorted before it is put back together, so there are no problems when (if) it gets back on the mainline so they don't become another financial casualty of this engines history. We aren't party to the details of the getout clause, but in view of the known problems and the previous report I bet the caveat is pretty heavily worded. Rileys have hopefully given themselves a way of getting out from under without financial pain in the terms being paid for all work up to decision day, then additional on top of the agreed price for anything not disclosed by NRM during the tender process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Saw her on Saturday, judging from the amount of dust on top of the Boiler not much has happended for a while. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold LH&JC Posted October 29, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 29, 2013 Her frames left York at midday bound for Bury, not sure about the boiler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted October 30, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 30, 2013 Her frames left York at midday bound for Bury, not sure about the boiler. Still lying on the workshop floor on Wednesday afternoon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.