Guest Belgian Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 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"using parts as in service" as the vast majority were restored to forms they had long since moved on from when finally withdrawn, whether by BR, grouping or pre-grouping companies. 4472 has had replacement frames, replacement boilers, probably wheelsets, and many more besides, and to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. Grandad's hammer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 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. I'm afraid by that logic, every steam locomotive in railway preservation which has run is "no longer the real..." - fill in your choice of number here. I wonder how many people would be offended if that was said of Lizzie, Tangmere, any number of black fives, or John Cameron's Union of South Africa? It is a pity that Scotsman is always treated as a separate and wholly different case to other locomotives in railway preservation, when its situation and reality is not so different at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Grandad's hammer. Absolutely. But it still remains Grandad's hammer/Trigger's Broom - does it not? Identity is not defined by the originality of parts. None of my parts are the same as when I was born in 1987 - I'm still Simon A.C. Martin last I checked! 4472 by the same extension is still 4472. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Absolutely. But it still remains Grandad's hammer/Trigger's Broom - does it not? Identity is not defined by the originality of parts. None of my parts are the same as when I was born in 1987 - I'm still Simon A.C. Martin last I checked! 4472 by the same extension is still 4472. I wasn't disagreeing with you Simon, precisely the opposite. JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I wasn't disagreeing with you Simon, precisely the opposite. JE My apologies JE. I think I'll go have a cup of tea now and give the debate a rest! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Sadly, I'm inclined to think that we could have had two nice replica A3s for the money that's been ploughed into Scotsman. The curse of 4472 endures. I'm going to build a pair and a couple of Thompsons when the Euromillions turns up! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Simon, this might be a touch off topic, but it might it be an idea to completely machine brand new parts for "4472"? Not so much an overhaul as a complete rebuild or would costs be prohibitive? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted November 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 9, 2012 Simon, this might be a touch off topic, but it might it be an idea to completely machine brand new parts for "4472"? Not so much an overhaul as a complete rebuild or would costs be prohibitive? Not the NRM's policy, they like original bits however ropey they might be. We have stewardship of an NRM loco on the MHR which was a complete bag of nails when it came to us as a supposedly mainline certified engine and is only just useable now after a couple of years of fiddling and fettling. If the original restorers or us had been allowed to knock up new bits for it it could have been a superb tool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Simon, this might be a touch off topic, but it might it be an idea to completely machine brand new parts for "4472"? Not so much an overhaul as a complete rebuild or would costs be prohibitive? I refer the honourable member to my previous post! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 ...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... Not arguing with that at all. For the railway a loco was simply an actuarial asset, and the only 'original' piece on it may be the build plate. It is just an assemblage of parts, and in theory they can all be replaced to create the same loco, but in completely new build form. The problem is that this doesn't happen with a museum piece. There is a perpetual conflict between operating the thing properly, which means ditching all no longer economically repairable parts, and replacing new; and the curatorial imperative to retain the old parts. The trouble with the latter is that the spend to repair is greater than make anew; and typically you end up with a compromised component. The compromise may be any or all from fatigue life, corrosion resistance, accuracy, strength, rigidity, wear resistance, adjustment range, repairability. By the time you get to a loco with a significant proportion of such compromised parts it is not good news; the interaction of all the compromises further degrades the machine. Tons of money spent, performance still not what it should be; and this is the story we all know. Far better to cut loose, and build entirely new. You could legitimately operate the process as the railway did to end up with the all new build running machine with the original build plate on it, and plinth the assembled heap of discarded worn out parts in the museum as 'Flying Scotsman earlier components' but I would prefer the 'old, withdrawn from operation' exhibit, and an honest 'all new build'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 9, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 9, 2012 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 big problem with 4472 is that it is not just the typical steam loco thing of years of constant renewal and exchange of parts but more deliberate change beyond that such as the fitting of the A4 boiler (but a cosmetically restorable A3 boiler came with the loco of course) and the conversion of the loco to air braking (which struck me as odd but private owners do what they consider right at the time I suppose). Thus the loco was far removed - apart from being an A3 instead of an A1 - from its historical state and wasn't even in the state in which it last ran in BR ownership; so historically it was representative of only part of its period of private ownership. This of course was then part of the situation which faced the NRM - what should they 'restore' it to? (although that also seems to have lacked some clarity according to Bob Meanley's report). The wider point made by Scots Region about neglect of heritage locomotives is a very difficult one because where do you draw the line in histor?. As Simon has already pointed out working locomotives will, by their very nature, involve renewed and exchanged components plus - in this day & age - modifications and additions to make them compliant with the conditions for mainline operation if that is what they are to do. Even locos working regularly on 'heritage' railways are likely to have been altered in some way - for instance some Railways fit hopper ashpans on just about any loco they can get one onto and I've no doubt their regular and volunteer labour force is mush happier as a result. If you want it as the day it was withdrawn, or at its last major shopping then the only answer is stuffing and mounting on the day of withdrawal; if you want as it was the day it was first outshopped then be prepared, in the case of most steam engines, for some very expensive reconstruction work - before it is stuffed & mounted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Barry O Posted November 9, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 9, 2012 A full review was undertaken by a major UK engineering company who had worked on this loco in the past. I received a verbal report which went along the lines of - we won't touch this with a barge pole. However what needs to be learned from this is - employ SQEP people and listen to what they say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgian Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 One thing which I think has been overlooked in this debate was the NRM's original view of 4472. As far as I am aware they bought it because of its iconic role as the 'Peoples' Engine' rather than as an example of a museum-quality and historic machine. It was specifically bought to be retained in main line working order, the impression being that its actual form was irrelevant. In fact, when the famous list of locomotives for national preservation was issued in the early 1960s the A1/A3 class was omitted as none were considered to be 'historic'. Thus the NRM is not obligated to retain any 'original' parts nor does it feel obliged to present the locomotive in any 'historically correct' form, much as we enthusiasts bemoan the double chimney and deflectors on an Apple Green machine* . Thus 'stuffing and mounting' it would not be one of the NRM's objectives. Contrast this with the position of 'Green Arrow', which has enjoyed main line use but has now been sidelined due to cracks in its monoblock cylinder casting and thus is unlikey to be restored to use once again. It will be 'stuffed and mounted', as will 'Mallard' in the foreseeable future. JE * I know, I'm repeating myself, repeating myself, re .... it's age! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 9, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 9, 2012 I have not had time to read the full report but a couple of things are of interest. First why did they use the same people to give a check over who have being doing this for years as this would be like somebody who wants to buy a house and the surveyor they use is the owner of the house now. It was a rush job for the Lottery funding or some grant or other (sounds even then a bit inadequate as there should have been some very full documentation of repair hostory as well) The problems with the frames most likely is going back form it's LNER/BR days as the track going into Top Shed was too sharp, and they only found this out when the bogies starting cracking on the Class 55 engines. I don't know how far it goes back but when I rode on it in 1985 it was clearly in need of some pretty hefty attention below the footplate - bad and noisy riding with a lot of unexpected movement (I thought it was down to the spring and horn guides but it would probably have been worse than that). It contrasted badly with a high mileage loco I had ridden in Poland 10 years earlier - and it was due shopping for a general! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 one thing ive often thought a shame is that some more A3's where never preserved. more so that the enthusiasts who want to see an A3 how they remember them could do so and those who want "flying scotsman" could have that. could we not pinch one of the boilers out of those repatriated A4's and make one send them back without the boiler inside, put some wheels on from something else they wont notice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 No point - from what I hear, both the boilers on 60008 and 60010 are by no means steamable! In the Scotsman report, there is mention made of the NRM investigating the costs and implications of buying a 118a boiler - the same type as used on Tornado - for Scotsman. The conclusion was that the A3 boiler would be better for the A3. Bear in mind all the different boiler types, though they may have the same outer dimensions, will use different grade materials and also have different thicknesses of said materials. The A4 boiler is an altogether heavier boiler, and it is this which may have done the most damage to Scotsman's frames, hornblocks, springs and similar as it was on the A3s which were given A4 boilers near the end of their working lives. Case in point - recently seen in the gallery on RMweb, no.60112 St. Simon. Withdrawn in 1964 after two years using an A4 boiler, and from the descriptions of this locomotive given in several different publications, the A4 boiler (though reduced in boiler pressure) caused stresses on the frames more than they had already been known when used with the A3 boilers. It is interesting in many respects that the A4 Pacifics never seemed to suffer quite the same amount of frame fractures as the A1s or A3s. When you read up on the sheer number of renewals of the main frames on these particular LNER Pacifics, a pattern can perhaps be seen. Does perhaps put into perspective the view of Gresley's original Pacifics. Excellent machines but only with careful and constant maintenance and parts renewal or replacement. EDIT: And I should quantify that view by saying, justifiable in terms of the performances they were able to put up, and also with several fully equipped steam locomotive factories and many maintenance facilities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJones Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Wow, that is quite a damming report but does highlight the strange position of engineering with regards to heritage stuff. It's no wonder so many cock ups were made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 'Spearmint' almost made it, but was found to have a cracked frame, and thus beyond economic repair at that time. Doncaster were clearly learning on the hoof with the pacifics, and finally got the detail of the frame design right on the A4. You only have to look at the trouble Stanier had in his later start on pacific development, frames breaking, loose cylinders, completely new design of boiler required: then throw the whole lot away and design a new class from a clean sheet. Churchward, Raven, Bulleid, Thompson, Peppercorn, Riddles, all had a go at pacific designs, and all had their significant troubles too. In this respect Gresley's template which went unchanged in layout from A1 to A4 is a real triumph. It really is not easy packing the pacific format with the increase in sustained power capability it has to justify its existence, within the constraints of UK loading gauge and axle load. Quite why the earliest successful class of UK pacific - it's that as an A3, just as much as it would have been as a Gresley A1 - wasn't considered as 'historic' at the time is too late to ask. But as bizarre decisions go, that one is right up there... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 'Spearmint' almost made it, but was found to have a cracked frame, and thus beyond economic repair at that time. Doncaster were clearly learning on the hoof with the pacifics, and finally got the detail of the frame design right on the A4. You only have to look at the trouble Stanier had in his later start on pacific development, frames breaking, loose cylinders, completely new design of boiler required: then throw the whole lot away and design a new class from a clean sheet. Churchward, Raven, Bulleid, Thompson, Peppercorn, Riddles, all had a go at pacific designs, and all had their significant troubles too. In this respect Gresley's template which went unchanged in layout from A1 to A4 is a real triumph. It really is not easy packing the pacific format with the increase in sustained power capability it has to justify its existence, within the constraints of UK loading gauge and axle load. Let's not forget though, that Gresley of all those engineers, had the best part of 20 years working with the A1s/A3s and then the A4s to "perfect" them. Churchward built the first Pacific in this country, and by all accounts it was not as poor a locomotive has been described in the popular media. It is a shame that it was broken up to be turned into a castle, as there's evidence that with careful and specific changes to the locomotive, such as the radial truck, it would have proven to be a prototype for an excellent class of GW Pacifics. Well ahead of the GNR, NER, LNER or the later LMS and SR Pacifics in this country. Raven's were more or less enlarged Z Class Atlantics and were built and run in specifically to beat nationalization in many respects - they were not perfect but they were the equal of Gresley's contemporaneous A1s in many respects. Bulleid's Pacifics were hugely experimental, costly, unreliable at times, and when you consider their development, the fact remains that the vast majority of them were completely rebuilt as more simple, rugged, but reliable locomotives. There's no doubt they were high performance machines, but seemingly at the cost of reliability in their early years. D.W. Winkworth explains it best in his book on the Bulleid Pacifics, I feel. Bulleid however, did have a very short amount of time to develop his locomotives, and to be frank was brave in his approach which produced, if not the most reliable of locomotives, but a high performance, striking and certainly unique one, which is both much loved and certainly well preserved - nearly a quarter of his 140 Pacifics are preserved! Thompson's Pacifics used as many standard parts as possible, and kept most of the proven Gresley components such as the 250lb boiler, the double kylchap (the only locomotive engineer of those mentioned whose Pacifics used this throughout the classes) and many more besides, except the conjugated valve gear (which in fairness to Thompson and Peppercorn who followed, were correct in picking this out as a future weakness in terms of the maintenance available to these locomotives during, and after, the world war). We must also bear in mind (as with Bulleid) that he had only five, at best four to three years to develop his standard range of Pacifics; he somehow gets the worst rap for locomotives which certainly were not any worse in terms of their ability to boil water and haul trains than the original Bulleid Pacifics which are repeatedly praised. Peppercorn's A1 Pacific is arguably the best Pacific locomotive class which has ever run in the United Kingdom. You only have to compare reliability in terms of shopping for repairs, and fuel consumption, and annual mileages to conclude that in a purely objective sense. In terms of the subjective: the Pacific locomotive gets hearts beating and passions raised for all the right (and wrong) reasons, so it would be unwise of me to say that the statistics alone are conclusive. It was held in such high esteem, a new one was built. That must say something for the design! Riddles Pacifics were adequate for the tasks they were built for, and we all know the story of 71000 - arguably the best Pacific locomotive in the country (though sadly in dire straits at the moment). Gresley had the advantage of all of these locomotive engineers in that he had the longest time to develop his ultimate Pacific locomotive; the best facilities available to him, and more than any of the rest, and that he was not, like two of those mentioned above, having to design and build and test his Pacifics in the middle of a very bloody world war. That is taking nothing away from Gresley's ability as a locomotive engineer - he is undoubtedly one of the greats - but we must be balanced when we consider the merits or demerits of any of these Pacific locomotives. It is never as simple as "Gresley good, Thompson bad" or "Raven bad, Churchward mediocre". Quite why the earliest successful class of UK pacific - it's that as an A3, just as much as it would have been as a Gresley A1 - wasn't considered as 'historic' at the time is too late to ask. But as bizarre decisions go, that one is right up there... It has always puzzled me that one was not preserved - but more than that, that no private owner went to save one. Three A4s saved in private hands, one Peppercorn A2 and not a single one (bar 4472) from classes A1/1, A2/1, A2/2, A2/3, A3 and Peppercorn A1. Yet in the class A3, we had a class arguably with as high if not higher a profile as the GW Castles - there are eight in preservation - or the Bulleid Pacifics - there are 31 of those in preservation - and clearly much loved by those who spotted them. So why was not a single one other than 4472 preserved? It can't have been all down to the lack of a northern Barry Scrapyard, surely? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Hello all, after reading the report about F.S. by Bob. it sounds about right for F.S. and how the N.R.M. can work. Lets spend a LOT of money on 4472 and get it to run so we can get some money back from running it on the main line. If the N.R.M. had spent a bit more on 6229 (approx £75,000). it could have had an iconic loco running on the main line and making money. To help fund the money pit that is F.S. I'm not a F.S. fan but I did have two good runs out of the Cross in about '83' up to York. The best part was standing on the open veranda at the back of the train going along the E.C.M.L. The food was very good as well. Do I have my camera to show all this, no, it was in the coach that I should have been sat in. But my two mates can say that this did happen. OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Hadyn Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 6229 will cost a lot more than £75,000... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 9, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted November 9, 2012 6229 will cost a lot more than £75,000... That sounds right - in view of the costs that were around for smaller locos 15 years ago I think the only thing to be decided nowadays is the digit which goes in front of the 5 noughts when it comes to what amounts to a Heavy General. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Hadyn Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 At the start a proper survey should have been carried out and until the money was available stuffed and mounted as how many other important relics have suffered if not lost because all the money been spent on this lump of metal. There are important coaches without any protection even good sheeting to protect them and the GWR whitewash coach roof was starting to collapse and if it had not been sold and gone into a covered building it most have been gone too far to be restored. All the top ones should never hold a top job again. Very little is outside at York now, and I have this afternoon been talking about plans for the coaches that are outside. Money has NOT been diverted from other relics to the A3. The whitewash car was transferred to a private owner who could do things with it. My game as Senior Curator is the betterment of the object. If that means by rehoming vehicles, so be it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Hadyn Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 That sounds right - in view of the costs that were around for smaller locos 15 years ago I think the only thing to be decided nowadays is the digit which goes in front of the 5 noughts when it comes to what amounts to a Heavy General. Correct Mike, especially when the overhaul of a Peckett or Austerity can now top 75-100k, even with a lot of work done by volunteers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 4472 - She's a grand old girl, nearing 90 years old, over 2 million miles, travelled the world, USA, Australia, Wigan (!!!), London - Leeds - Newcastle - Edinburgh god only knows how many times. She is old, worn out and buggered. (like me !!). Give her a break. Time to reassemble her, repaint her, polish her till she gleams and put her on prime position in the NRM. Lets build a new one. A brand new A3. Sister to Tornado, so call her Typhoon. I'll chip in a tenner for start. Brit 15 (Let's have a new one of these as well) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.