4472, Or How Not To Overhaul A Steam Loco

[JeremyC]

How is it that many very small yet, obviously knowledgeable, skilled and competent teams have rebuilt FROM THE SCRAPHEAP numerous fine steam locomotives, some of which run on the main line today, yet our national "organisation" of so called experts spend £millions and achive NOTHING with an iconic locomotive that was in "decent" order when purchased (i.e not a rusting heap).

 

I have just read, and I cannot believe that report - mega expensive work done, THEN they do fracture checks ?. Frames out of true, etc etc, what's their engineering experience ?, probably built an MTK white metal OO kit. !!

 

Brit15

Read the report. FS certainly wasn't in 'decent order' when purchased by the NRM, in fact I'd suggest that some 'Barry Wrecks' may have been in better mechanical order before their restoration!

 

I wonder how many people sounding off on this topic actually have the knowlege to understand the technical side of the report. From an engineering point of view it is not just critical of the NRM.

 

The different views on the boiler condition are particularly worrying, as is the implication that someone was concerned about its condition and apparently did nothing about it. Are there other preserved locos out there with boilers in the same poor condition? The statement that there was damage due to over firing and forcing of the boiler is interesting; there was an article in one of the heritage railway magazines a couple of years ago which suggested the loading of some railtours was leading to this happening and was responsible for boiler problems on a number of locos.

 

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome of all this is a decision that the NRM should not restore or allow the restoration of any of its collection to working order and should concentrate on being a 'stuffed and mounted' museum.

 

 

 

Jeremy

[Crantock]

One point the report tries to drive home is an irreconcilable contracting problem:

• To subcontract to non-railway general engineers the NRM would need to have CAD skills and be able to give precise engineering specifications of the work required. It does not have those skills.
  
• The preservation movement and "cottage industry" supply chain can operate without those detailed instructions but can not operate within the sort of procurement contracts and set deadlines that the NRM likes. Another way of looking at it is the NRM is unable to operate within the industries informal framework.
  

Which leaves the NRM unable effectively to subcontract.

 

The NRM hopes that the "cottage industry" will adapt. That is ridiculous, the NRM needs to adapt to operate in both environments.

[S.A.C Martin]

I wonder how many people sounding off on this topic actually have the knowlege to understand the technical side of the report. From an engineering point of view the it is not just critical of the NRM.

 

Jeremy

 

Just speaking for myself, I have minimal engineering understanding; but I do know that using domestic gas plugs in a high pressure locomotive boiler is wrong.

 

I couldn't agree with more with your sentiments though Jeremy. There is definitely several specific and very pointed commentary on other people/overhaul centres in the report, and not just the previous owners or the NRM at that.

[The Stationmaster]

How is it that many very small yet, obviously knowledgeable, skilled and competent teams have rebuilt FROM THE SCRAPHEAP numerous fine steam locomotives, some of which run on the main line today, yet our national "organisation" of so called experts spend £millions and achive NOTHING with an iconic locomotive that was in "decent" order when purchased (i.e not a rusting heap).

 

I have just read, and I cannot believe that report - mega expensive work done, THEN they do fracture checks ?. Frames out of true, etc etc, what's their engineering experience ?, probably built an MTK white metal OO kit. !!

Brit15

 

But the whole point of part of the report is to explain that 4472 was in far from 'decent order' when the NRM bought - a fact which was quite widely known among those who had anything to do with or contact with mainline - in particular - steam working. And it had been in a poor, and no doubt worsening, state for some years - the expected high cost of a full general overhaul was the reason why one previous owner got out and I bet he wasn't the only one.

 

The problem then became one - again highlighted by the report - that there was a public expectation that the NRM would put the loco immediately onto special train work. Perhaps this was what they had been led to believe - certainly by the media of various sorts and also in some respects by the NRM. Whereas the not unreasonable truth was that the loco should have been stripped for long overdue attention to a multitude of known faults, the quickly discovered faults, and work arising.

 

But the uncomfortable reality was that the NRM was not really organised and resourced to either do or manage that task - it's a museum, not working steam railway or a group with several year's experience of mainline running and maintenance plus major overhauls. That is the organisational and practical shortcoming which the report has clearly identified but what it also shows is the history of how such shortcomings influenced, or didn't control, events in respect of the loco's overhaul. And while I think it is undoubtedly a tale of poor management (and inexperience where it mattered) it is grossly unfair and unrealistic to compare it with heritage railways which have experience of rebulding locos from what were basically some veery bare bones, and taking a long time to do it.

[Katier]

I think your spot on there Mike. Clearly if they had been in a position to do a proper investigation early on in the process they would have gone about the whole project in a different way. The suggestion, for example, of sending her to Tyesley for a complete restoration type project would, I would expect, have been considered if the depth of repairs had been appreciated.

 

I remember at the time of the 'whoops we've found cracks' incident it looked bad for the NRM.. but reading the report now it was clear the expectation was that 'all' she needed was major boiler repairs and work done to the cylinders. There was no implication that the chassis was practically falling apart and had that been appreciated at the time it would have been dealt with at a more appropriate time.

[roythebus]

A sorry tale indeed. I must agree with the comments made by Crantock about the NRM adapting to the needs of the cottage industry. One reason my bus company stopped working for the county council was that we could not made head nor tail of their contractual requirements, being partly a "cottage industry".

 

Government bodies expect far too much of small companies, especially in the specialist sector. However, I was amazed when I heard of the fram cracks a few years ago; my intial thoughts then wre "why didn't someone check the frames before the boiler wnet back on". the same could be said of a fairly high profile unique restoration on a railway I belong to where a new boiler was built, the loco re-entered service after considerable absense then suffered something like cylinder failure in a short space of time.

 

So it's not only the NRM that can get it wrong. There was also the case of an austerity, sold on to a Scottish line as servicable, but suffered boiler failure within its first week or two of operation with the new owner. From memory, the firebox was so thin, this caused the early withdrwal despite a previous "glowing report" from a boiler inpsector.

[The Stationmaster]

The different views on the boiler condition are particularly worrying, as is the implication that someone was concerned about its condition and apparently did nothing about it. Are there other preserved locos out there with boilers in the same poor condition? The statement that there was damage due to over firing and forcing of the boiler is interesting; there was an article in one of the heritage railway magazines a couple of years ago which suggested the loading of some railtours was leading to this happening and was responsible for boiler problems on a number of locos.

Jeremy

 

Having had a fair bit to do with various aspects of mainline steam operation in the past several things need to be borne in mind. Firstly there has always been the 'iconic engine' aura surrounding 4472 and even in the 1980s that was perhaps responsible for keeping it in traffic when other locos would have been stopped by their owners if they had been in a similar condition.

 

The other issue is one of experience in keeping locos in good running condition and some groups have excelled at this and developed experience over the years plus they've come to know their loco inside and tried to plan budgets to fund maintenance and overhauls. 4472 hasn't had quite that attention having passed through a succession of owners who usually sold it either because of bankruptcy or to avoid heavy expenditure - the loco simply hasn't had a consistent life with planning against major overhauls and it has steadily deteriorated. This does not seem to have been helped by some apparently amateurish and inexperienced attention when people have actually done some work on it.

 

By contrast other groups have - generally - learnt and maintained standards from an original core of experienced ex BR people with mainline steam experience and who knew just how far they could let things ride until proper repairs or overhaul took place or the engine was stopped until it could be dealt with. I suspect that 4472 lost that sort of expertise among its carers a long time ago although I might be wrong. Equally until more recent years those who inspected a loco's readiness and fitness to run on the national network at Daily Exam level were experienced steam men working in the less formal atmosphere of the 'old' railway. They knew - as long as they knew the engine - just what could be excused 'for one trip' if not entirely up to scratch but equally they would stop an engine which they did not consider fit. Much of that experience has gone and the contemporary approach is, of necessity, fat more black & white - as is what is done on major repairs.

 

The matter of over-loading is a contentious one and long has been and probably always will be. A steam engine can be damaged by all sorts of mismanagement in operation and a lot of that mismanagement has little to do with the train it is pulling. Equally an engine can be worked hard without suffering any damage apart from possibly greater wear of bearing etc surfaces. One school of thought on loads was that if the engine could shift it then that was o.k and if the load was too great it would lose time or at worst require a shove or other assistance. But once an engine is getting rough then being worked hard will unavoidably play on the weak spots and make them worse - that I reckon is where 4472 suffered, and not necessarily because it was worked hard but simply the fact that it was not getting the general repair level of overhaul it needed when it needed it.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Not won the Euro this week folks. You'll need to wait a wee bit longer for 60093A, Coronach II!

 

Incidentally; am I right in assuming that underneath the cosmetic features, other than a different frame design a replica A3 could pretty much be built using the A1 tooling?

 

Dave.

[Guest Belgian]

I think that the NRM was as guilty as everyone else (especially the railway press) in believing the hype that had been put around by Tony Marchington and his owning company.

 

They had triumphantly declared that they had subjected 4472 to a 'million pound plus' overhaul which included the provision of the A4 boiler and they had extensive plans to create a 'Flying Scotsman Village' as a form of theme park. The general impression, led by the railway press (which, to be fair, had neither the resources nor the expertise nor the opportunity to validate such claims), was that the locomotive was as good as new and prepared for the 21st century as the 'most famous locomotive in the world'. Furthermore, Tony Marchington portrayed himself as a Flying Scotsman 'nut' and appeared to be absolutely dedicated to its well-being and to the pursuit of perfection. As a 'highly-successful businessman' he indicated he had all the money needed to do this and the Flying Scotsman Village plan was promoted as a way of securing the locomotive's future for future generations. He certainly had a genius for publicity - all of it favourable.

 

We all fell for it. Literally millions turned out for its inaugural return to the main line in 1999: it appeared to be in immaculate condition and went on to haul a whole series of high-profile trains, culminating in VSOE work. We were all very disappointed when it was taken off the rails to appear as a static exhibit at some traction engine rallies, but we had all swallowed the hype that traction engines were Tony Marchington's first love and, hey!, he had paid for its restoration, hadn't he, so was entitled to get some personal payback.

 

We also swallowed the story that the Flying Scotsman Village was being held up by evil bureaucrats and that this was the reason that the engine was being sidelined off the main line and then that the company was to sell the locomotive. Everyone 'knew' that it wasn't his fault and that this magnificent machine with all its heritage had been sadly-underutilised since its extravagant overhaul should be bought by a grateful nation and not be allowed to go overseas to some foreign entrepreneur who would make millions from its heritage.

 

. We didn't know that the overhaul was botched and that the locomotive was knackered and nor did the NRM. It had no need to know, as the locomotive was a private asset and the NRM had no requirement for it within its collection.

 

Suddenly the locomotive was threatened with a fast sale: it looked like it would be sold overseas: 'Save the Scotsman' campaigns instantly arose - they roused everyone to rally round and avert this threat to our national treasure, and 'only the NRM' could do it - no-one would tolerate another private owner it 'must' become national property.

 

The NRM was forced to act, by overwhelming pressure and by the astute and cunning Marchington and co, who demanded sealed bids in an extremely short timespan with the implicit threat that it would be lost forever. How else could the NRM react? There was no opportunity to do a 'proper' investigation and little enough time even to raise the funds - and it had to make the purchase.

 

The NRM's faults lie in its subsequent actions, not its original one. Sadly, they happened, but I don't think there was any evil intent: this was just an organisation (set up and staffed as a museum, not a locomotive restoration business, remember) that got caught up in events but which has now got the report it needs to identify the problems. I - and I'm sure most others - hope this will lead to a safe and popular future for the locomotive as ambassador for the steam movement in general, but who can predict the future? Certainly no-one did in 2004.

 

JE

[PhilH]

One thing that needs clearing up is the 'Scotsman will go overseas if not bought by the NRM' stories. This was never likely to happen - it was expected to go to JH, see my post from way back.

 

It was a matter of surprise to most in the preservation world that a) the NRM bought the thing and b ) paid so much over the odds for it.

[Titan]

According to the report, it was only 15% higher than the next highest bid, which when you consider it was a 'must win' auction, was a pretty narrow margin when you do not know what other people are bidding, and therefore hardly anything over the odds - let alone so much over the odds! Even the report mentions that under the circumstances of getting it at all costs, only being 15% above the next highest means that the bid they put in was about as low as they could have possibly got away with, and indeed still had some risk that it would not be enough.

[Bernard Lamb]

One point the report tries to drive home is an irreconcilable contracting problem:

• To subcontract to non-railway general engineers the NRM would need to have CAD skills and be able to give precise engineering specifications of the work required. It does not have those skills.
  
• The preservation movement and "cottage industry" supply chain can operate without those detailed instructions but can not operate within the sort of procurement contracts and set deadlines that the NRM likes. Another way of looking at it is the NRM is unable to operate within the industries informal framework.
  

Which leaves the NRM unable effectively to subcontract.

 

The NRM hopes that the "cottage industry" will adapt. That is ridiculous, the NRM needs to adapt to operate in both environments.

 

I can go along with your last line but not with how you got there.

One major problem seems to be the lack of adequate drawings and how to obtain them.

That could be solved by a link with one of the major universities with a good engineering department.

I am sure that they would jump at the chance to get involved with such a project and would gain brownie points for their efforts.

An alternative would be to subcontract to overseas railway companies where the required knowledge exists.

The Tornado team had the good sense to do this.

The cottage industry preservation groups cannot operate without adequate drawings.

Sooner or later they will be caught out if they continue to do so.

Clearly shown in a report from an incedent with the SVR concerning faulty springs as the cause behind a derailment.

I recently asked the question about use of original material on preservation projects and was shocked by the lack of knowledge and adherence to procedures shown in the replies

Many industries have trade associations where rival companies put aside thoughts of competition and agree certain standards that shoud be adopted.

It would seem that the preservation industry needs to put things on a much more formal footing and start to put together some standard procedures on best working practise.

Bernard

[PhilH]

According to the report, it was only 15% higher than the next highest bid, which when you consider it was a 'must win' auction, was a pretty narrow margin when you do not know what other people are bidding, and therefore hardly anything over the odds - let alone so much over the odds! Even the report mentions that under the circumstances of getting it at all costs, only being 15% above the next highest means that the bid they put in was about as low as they could have possibly got away with, and indeed still had some risk that it would not be enough.

 

£2.3m IS way over the odds for a nameplate and a pile of knackered metal.

[Oldddudders]

£2.3m IS way over the odds for a nameplate and a pile of knackered metal.

Yes, but a market is a market. Just look at the Ebay Madness thread on here!

[Foo]

 

 

I don't think you are in touch with what goes on currently- given the vast amounts of money involved, given the levels of expertise and experience amassed by restoration teams it's hardly a cottage industry these days. It's big business and heavy but precision engineering.

 

But alas the report constantly calls it a cottage industry.... Just going on the facts presented

[chaz]

Having read through some of the posts above, many of which show a degree of egineering expertise that I don't have, and a knowledge of what has happened to the loco I hesitate to comment myself but....

 

Would it be so bad if 4472 (or 1472 or 60103) was to become a static exhibit? Tornado seems to have taken over the role that the Scotsman used to fulfill and those wanting to see and hear a Gresley Pacific in action can seek out an A4. I understand the appeal of the famous name although personally if big money is being spent I would choose to spend it on putting the V2 back into service....

 

I'll get me coat...

 

Chaz

[Guest Belgian]

One thing that needs clearing up is the 'Scotsman will go overseas if not bought by the NRM' stories. This was never likely to happen - it was expected to go to JH, see my post from way back.

 

It was a matter of surprise to most in the preservation world that a) the NRM bought the thing and b ) paid so much over the odds for it.

Bear in mind Phil, that I am describing the view of the 'common man' rather than the experts within the preservation industry. In fact, it raises the question 'if the preservation industry knew so much about its woeful state, why didn't they speak up at the time?'

 

JE

[The Stationmaster]

 

I can go along with your last line but not with how you got there.

One major problem seems to be the lack of adequate drawings and how to obtain them.

That could be solved by a link with one of the major universities with a good engineering department.

I am sure that they would jump at the chance to get involved with such a project and would gain brownie points for their efforts.

An alternative would be to subcontract to overseas railway companies where the required knowledge exists.

The Tornado team had the good sense to do this.

The cottage industry preservation groups cannot operate without adequate drawings.

Sooner or later they will be caught out if they continue to do so.

Clearly shown in a report from an incedent with the SVR concerning faulty springs as the cause behind a derailment.

I recently asked the question about use of original material on preservation projects and was shocked by the lack of knowledge and adherence to procedures shown in the replies

Many industries have trade associations where rival companies put aside thoughts of competition and agree certain standards that shoud be adopted.

It would seem that the preservation industry needs to put things on a much more formal footing and start to put together some standard procedures on best working practise.

Bernard

I'm sorry Bernard but that is not how it is - one swallow does not make a summer and the engineering malpractice (as it was later seen to be) of one railway does not necessarily reflect far better practice on the part of others who do use drawings, do use material specs, do record what they're doing and even in some cases use CAD. In all cases that I know of the level of professionalism among those groups who are basically mainline loco operators, have long been part of SLOA, and who have had their locos in traffic for 30 years in traffic or more are well up to scratch - partly because they have to be.

 

And of course preservation already has various organisations which at least exist even if I - and others - do not necessarily go along with what they say (but I'll not go down that road as it is not entirely relevant to this debate except to say that if such an organisation puts out bad advice it can become just as widespread as good advice).

[PhilH]

Bear in mind Phil, that I am describing the view of the 'common man' rather than the experts within the preservation industry. In fact, it raises the question 'if the preservation industry knew so much about its woeful state, why didn't they speak up at the time?'

 

JE

 

No need - the NRM were aware of the state the thing was in:

 

At the time the auction, there had been strong rumours that the locomotive was in a

considerably worse state than described by its owners. These were recognised by NRM staff, one

of whom subsequently commented:

“Those behind Flying Scotsman were very fond of portraying the locomotive as being in

‘better than new’ condition but it was common knowledge in the rail heritage community

that this bore no relation to reality. My recollection is that Flying Scotsman had operated

only a small percentage of its booked work in the year before sale because of reliability

problems. This itself was indicative of problems. When the locomotive was offered for sale it

was not in working order. On our first inspection, the rear drivers had been removed to deal

with bearing problems. The visiting NRM team was most unimpressed with the quality of

work being done on the bearings. Other examples of poor workmanship (of which I cannot

remember the detail) were evident on inspection.”

[oOld Harry 666]

Bear in mind Phil, that I am describing the view of the 'common man' rather than the experts within the preservation industry. In fact, it raises the question 'if the preservation industry knew so much about its woeful state, why didn't they speak up at the time?'

 

JE

 

If staff at the NRM did not know the likely true condition of 4472 when they bid for it then they must all have been deaf, dumb and blind (and unable to read braille).

 

In any case they then had a 2 year period to find out before commencement of the overhaul and the problems encountered in that period should have made them persue the route of a full engineering assessment at strip-down.

 

However you look at this those in charge at the NRM at the time of the commencement of the overhaul do not appear to have acted in either a professional or competent manner.

[The Stationmaster]

Bear in mind Phil, that I am describing the view of the 'common man' rather than the experts within the preservation industry. In fact, it raises the question 'if the preservation industry knew so much about its woeful state, why didn't they speak up at the time?'

JE

I think some of them did Jeremy - but their voices were lost in a sea of emotion about 'the people's engine' and in that mad scramble which you so comprehensively outlined above. The simple fact is that it is very easy for the media to whip up public sentiment and euphoria and against that background it can sometimes be very difficult for sanity to prevail.

 

It's like Phil's comments about the loco being over-priced. On any rational basis it was grossly over-priced for anyone who wanted it as a working engine, especially a mainline engine, but as Ian said - 'a market is a market': and yes the similarity with Ebay madness was a very pertinent point. And of course folk only knew what had been paid for it after it had been bought.

[edcayton]

Many years ago I was on Bedford station watching Green Arrow go through and the Dad next to me told his kids "that is the Flying Scotsman". I think that says it all.

 

FS is THE iconic steam train/loco. Ask the GP to name a painting and it will be the Mona Lisa, Scotsman is right up there and OF COURSE needs to be in the NRM. Surely if any one loco should be kept going it is this one (as it was for several years) and a replica won't do.

 

Cock-ups have been made in the past, so learn from them and get it right this time! There is so much bitching and griping about trivia ( it shouldn't have that chimney and be in that colour) in the railway press-and here-and I think it's time to shut up and give support to those who are trying to return this legend to the rails.

 

Ed

[S.A.C Martin]

Cock-ups have been made in the past, so learn from them and get it right this time! There is so much bitching and griping about trivia ( it shouldn't have that chimney and be in that colour) in the railway press-and here-and I think it's time to shut up and give support to those who are trying to return this legend to the rails.

 

Ed

 

This dammit. The NRM didn't have to do any sort of report - it's to their credit they did, and asked a very highly respected and extremely talented man to do so on their behalf. Mistakes were definitely made, lessons MUST be learned, and it'll be down to the NRM to implement the suggestions made by Bob Meanley.

 

If they can be supported and helped by members of the heritage community in changing from their lack of a system to an efficient department, specifically set up to deal with these sort of projects, all the better.

 

However I must make one thing clear. From a layman's view, Scotsman's recent history has been dictated by a few extremely petty writers in the heritage community. Whether it was about the livery, the form, or the NRM's overhaul, these people have added to the problems and also tried to have their cake and eat it in terms of selling their magazines. The tabloid journalism angle raises its ugly head almost every issue as far as one particular comic is concerned.

 

So whilst the NRM had good intentions, and have made mistakes - big ones at that - it has been compounded by extra pressures and stresses created by those who should know better. Shame on them.

[PhilH]

 

If they can be supported and helped by members of the heritage community in changing from their lack of a system to an efficient department, specifically set up to deal with these sort of projects,

 

Very unlikely in my opinion - there is an absolute dearth of operational steam locos around at the moment, so we have to look after ourselves so to speak. Most of us do have excellent systems in place, but they are geared to maintaining a fleet for use on our railways when the current crop are withdrawn from service, not for helping the NRM out- for instance we have 34105, 76017, 75079 and a couple of s15s going through the works at the moment.

 

It would perhaps be an ideal situation to imagine that we could just drop our own projects and put a fully provenanced work system and work force into action whenever the NRM felt the need to call on us, but the biggy, apart from that outlined above, is who would pay for these systems to be put into place?

[Titan]

£2.3m IS way over the odds for a nameplate and a pile of knackered metal.

 

And way short of what it would cost to buy the Mona Lisa, which is just a piece of canvas and some oil!

 

The FACT that it was only 15% over the next highest bid is FACTUAL PROOF it was not over the odds and in line with the going market rate, and the report aknowledges this and says words to that effect - which is also a FACT. You are of course allowed to have your own opinion uninfluenced by the FACTS if you desire, but you must realise that it is just your opinion and does not change the FACT that it was not over the odds.

 

In my opinion, £2.3 million was a very high price to pay, but it was what was necessary to ensure that 4472 did not undergo another round of bodge and bankrupcy which is what would have happened yet again if it was bought privatrely.