4472, Or How Not To Overhaul A Steam Loco

[PhilH]

is that a FACT.......

[S.A.C Martin]

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systems in place, but they are geared to maintaining a fleet for use on our railways when the current crop are withdrawn from service, not for helping the NRM out- for instance we have 34105, 76017, 75079 and a couple of s15s going through the works at the moment.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?

 

Phil, I in no way was suggesting it should be at the detriment of other preservation groups' work or that it should be done because it's the NRM and everyone has to cow-tow to them. In the same manner that Bob Meanley has written a report, respected people of known authority in the heritage community could be hired - and paid accordingly - as consultants by the NRM to help the NRM develop their own system.

 

And yes - the NRM would have to foot the bill for doing so. Where they get the money from to do that will, as always, be down to using their grants carefully and whatever goodwill the public put their way, or directly from the sales of the vast 4472 merchandise on sale.

 

EDIT: And may I add (trying however not to sound rather toadying) that I would be ecstatic if the NRM would talk to Ropley at all - one of the best centres in the country in my view and the results after seeing both privately ownedd Bittern and NRM owned Cheltenham outshopped from the MHR's works and work groups, justifies that stance.

[The Stationmaster]

Phil, I in no way was suggesting it should be at the detriment of other preservation groups' work or that it should be done because it's the NRM and everyone has to cow-tow to them. In the same manner that Bob Meanley has written a report, respected people of known authority in the heritage community could be hired - and paid accordingly - as consultants by the NRM to help the NRM develop their own system.

And there you enter all sorts of potential problems and pitfalls Firstly the Museum would have to put in place, or pay to have put in place, the necessary structures such as SMS and Engineering Standards and Procedures although some of that should be there already (the report makes clear that it isn't/wasn't). But before it does that the NRM has to make up its mind if that is what it wants to do or ought to do - has it even made that decision yet? Or does it follow the alternative and put operational locos in the hands of 'reliable organisations' which have all that in place (or should have - although that is fairly easy to check and audit)?

 

The next potential problem relates to 'competent persons' and this has already been through several mills, with different results on several occasions, deciding how they are deemed competent and on whose authority. Then comes the problem - possibly - of paying them as they will not be cheap and then comes the very thorny matter of who carries the insurance costs and what would the cover be and how would liabilities work, or nor work, which is also a potentially very difficult area for both covering individuals and covering hardware etc - a potential lawyers' field day there. Some of this must (or should) already happen with NRM locos etc out on loan but the numbers get a lot bigger and the issues much wider when you get involved with mainline working. Maybe the answers for some of it already exist but the question of competence is still open to debate as is the matter of insurance cover for 'competent persons' (my cover is only for operations related stuff but it still has to cover potential liability of over £1 million, engineering cover for the mainline would be a lot more I think).

 

And then - as Phil has pointed out - there is the sheer difficulty of finding folk to do whatever has to be done, be it workshop capacity or skilled labour within that workshop, or those with wider knowledge and experience who aren't already heavily involved and thus have little time to spare.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible but it could be very difficult and it will always be difficult to put rigid timescales to jobs because of the skilled labour and facilities situation apart from the inevitable work arising issues. I honestly don't know what the answer is but it is clear from that report that the NRM has got to find an answer of some sort if it is going to remain involved with mainline steam locomotive overhaul and maintenance.

[coachmann]

Remove the smoke deflectors and put Flying Scotsman plates on 'Tornado' and it would fool Egbert J. Lookasteamer and his missus until the real A3 is ready for the road.

[S.A.C Martin]

Points taken Mike. Food for thought.

 

Does make one wonder how the youngest generations of railway volunteers will cope in similar situations.

[woodenhead]

he 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.

 

Are you sure they did this completely off their own backs? I would think with the NRM being a publicly funded institution that perhaps those who provide such funds would have been asking the NRM to explain why their £2.3m investment in a marketing tool from which lots of money could be raised under the banner of "home of the Flying Scotsman" is now exactly the opposite and is actually a money pit.

 

What this whole episode shows is that everyone who has owned Flying Scotsman since it was bought off BR have used it's name to try and make money but eventually each has succumbed to the cost of maintaining it.

[micklner]

 

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.

 

Really ? hardly any difference at the moment that I can see, other than the NRM is a public museum with access to a bigger pile of cash to throw at her.

[Sir Hadyn]

We didn't have a big pile of cash, we had funding from the National History Memorial Fund, Mr Branson and many many members of the public who wanted to see it saved for the Nation and kept running. Before 2004, many of the general public were surprised to find when visiting the NRM that we didn't own Scotsman.

[slilley]

Lets just look for one moment at the cottage industry question.

 

Part of my work is to assess suppliers that my company might use. Some are big some small. One of the things that I do look at is the issue of competence. How does the supplier ensure that the right people are given the right work? I also look at quality control, what inspections are done, how do they ensure they have captured the clients requirements properly? If they are unsure about something what is the process for raising queries. Such things are basic and have nothing to do with onerous terms and conditions but everything to do with the NRM saying "if we give you a piece of work are you competent to complete it properly?".

 

On the NRM's side I would like to look at their risk management. Did they before starting work look at all the possible risks involved? What steps did they take to mitigate those risks? Were the risks regularly reviewed? How often were there reviews not only of the risks but of the project as a whole.

 

As I said there are lessons in all of this for the preservation movement as a whole to learn. Most loco restorations go well because there is proper management and planning in advance. I am sure there are some out there who just see this sort of thing as red tape getting in the way of getting fingers dirty. The report talks about parts being scattered near and far, no real idea of what was where. That is basic stores management!!! Log in your parts, make sure you record where they are.Not red tape but common sense.

[Bob Reid]

Far too many chiefs (project managers, heads of engineering, chief engineer, engineering manager et. al) all staring at the sky (along with much navel gazing) and far to few skilled and experienced folk actually working on the loco (one workshop supervisor, a fitter with a packet of chips on his shoulder, and later two more "fitters") is it any wonder the overhaul is incomplete? Sadly without proper planning and proper resourcing I fear this loco will never return to mainline service. When for example they can't resource someone to produce CAD drawing for the subcontractors then it's clear no amount of gantt charts and even more management presence are going to fix this loco.

 

If they are not careful the report could be the loco's legacy, and the final chapter in Flying Scotsman's history. I fear that without passing this loco on to a group who can plan & resource it's overhaul (and surely this report makes it clear the NRM cannot) then it'll be lucky if it's ever re-assembled. What an appalling state of affairs. Best they stick to things like NRM-Lite.

[edward66]

Bit of nit picking here, domestic gas fittings were certainly not used as fusible plugs, they were used to replace washout plugs which are a totally different thing, not to say that domestic fittings are a good idea at 250psi! [comment from Mr Martin on page 1]

 

Edward

[BR60103]

Would it now be possible to end up with two Scotsmen? Use the current one as a pattern (with suitable caveats like not duplicating the cracks in the frames) to make a new loco and use the "pile of knackered metal" for a static display at the NRM.

[roythebus]

Regarding the price paid for FS, may I draw a similarity to that of the price of the iconic Routemaster buses that we all know; selling price from the London companies was as low as £3k for decent runners. During the last few years, demand has risen for them and I've sold a couple on for between £7k and £18k. The "usual" price seems to be £25k-£29k at the moment. We were all shocked to read of one in mediocre condition that had been sold by auction at Sothebys or Christies the other week for £65k, plus 20% auctioneers fees and 20%VAT, bringing the total to well over £100k for a Routemaster!

 

As for tendering by sealed bid, when I used to run a bus company that tendered for TfL routes, we lost a decent contract by 1.5% to the lowest bidder, and that difference was the dead mileage from our depot to the line of route.

 

So, is sealed bid tendering the way to dispose of national treasures like FS, or is the Christies line better? I must admit my wife and I were nearly taken in by the FS Appeal to donate money.

 

Maybe the name Flying Scotsman was the best piece of publicity devised by the LNER?

[Kits from Somerset]

 

We were all shocked to read of one in mediocre condition that had been sold by auction at Sothebys or Christies the other week for £65k, plus 20% auctioneers fees and 20%VAT, bringing the total to well over £100k for a Routemaster!

 

 

How do you get from £65k to well over £100k. If the bus had no vat on it the grand total will be £80.6k (£65k bus £13k selling fees and £2.6k vat on fees) and if there was vat on the bus and the auctioneers fees were on the bus including the vat it will be £96.72k. (£65k bus £13k vat on bus £15.6k fees £3.12k vat on fees)

[S.A.C Martin]

Bit of nit picking here, domestic gas fittings were certainly not used as fusible plugs, they were used to replace washout plugs which are a totally different thing, not to say that domestic fittings are a good idea at 250psi! [comment from Mr Martin on page 1]

 

Edward

 

Quite right Edward, my apologies. Managed to get my quotations and fittings mixed up. I will edit my post accordingly and subsequent ones too.

[The Stationmaster]

 

Maybe the name Flying Scotsman was the best piece of publicity devised by the LNER?

 

On a guided 'special' visit to the NRM a good few years ago I remember that a big streamlined engine that was in the main hall and on the front was a headboard that read, in correct LNER style, 'Flying Scotsman'. Our guide explained that a very large percentage of visitors went away saying how much they had enjoyed their visit and seeing 'the Flying Scotsman', it seems that the more observant were quite happy just to have seen 'Mallard'.

 

So perhaps the LNER's most brilliant idea of all was to give the name of a well known train to a loco and then do a spot of promotion (maybe they'd hired someone from the GWR for their publicity department )?

[PhilH]

If only they'd named the thing 'The Dangly Sporran' or something we wouldn't be bothered about it would we?

[JeremyC]

Regarding the price paid for FS the report says it recognises that the NRM was expected to be successful in obtaining the engine for the nation and the price would be determined by factors similar to those for a famous work of art. Whether you agree with that or not is a different point, but the report doesn't seem to think under those circumstances the price was unreasonable. FS is British; does the money spent on it even reach the levels paid for some paintings by a foreign artist?

 

Having got the engine what should the museum have done. With 20/20 hindsight it should have had a full intensive survey done on it, followed by immediately stripping for overhaul and repair, but again 'public relations' factors took hold.

 

Having made the decision to overhaul the locomotive what were the options?

1. Do the work in house, using specialist contractors where required.

2. Contract out the whole job.

3. Put it on loan to a private group to overhaul and run like other national collection engines.

 

Option 1: The option followed. We now know the NRM didn't really have the ability to carry out such a complex project. What it should be capable of doing is another issue.

Option 3: My understanding here is that the private group case pays for the overhaul and recoups its money from running the engine. If that is the case I'd suggest given the state of the loco it would not have been financially viable, no matter how able the group was.

 

That would seem to leave option 2, contract out the whole job. Here some people have said they should have given it to xx [enter preservation group/company of choice]. Here there are other problems, the 'cottage industry' [the reports term, not mine] nature of many of these companies. Some have said the NRM must learn to work with these groups, but I suspect that the museum is constrained by Government procurement rules and must work with proper quotes, contracts etc; it is probably not permitted to do otherwise and these rules are not at all flexible. Following from that and given the cost of the work it probably would have required to tender the work, not just to UK companies, but EU wide. It could be argued that that might have been a good thing as it would have possibly brought in someone like Meiningen Steam Locomotive Works in Germany, but would having the work done abroad been 'politically' acceptable?

 

Has the money spent on FS been wasted? The extra money spent redoing work because the job wasn't properly assessed probably has been, but much of the money might have been spent anyway, but just budgeted for. Some have said it should have been spent on xx [enter loco of choice], but there is no guarantee the money would have been made available for another engine which doesn't have 'icon' status. Some say we should reassemble it and 'stuff and mount' it, at least that's a sensible suggestion. Others say we will be lucky if it's ever reassembled, well, should we have abandoned 'Cutty Sark' after it was gutted by fire during its restoration, because I bet some said the same about it.

 

Aside from the faults at the NRM and the point public money does need to be spent wisely there is a wider picture here, how do we treat 'nation treasures / icons' These things have no real commercial value so are of no interest to the commercial sector [here I'm not regarding preserved railways as commercial because, generally, they're not there to make a profit for someone]. Do we just be come a nation that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing [an all too common view in my opinion], or do we value our past?

 

Jeremy

[PhilH]

how do we treat 'nation treasures / icons'

 

Should have just bought the nameplate then, doubtful if given the swapping around of bits over the years that there is much left of the thing which has done anything of note.

 

Hindsight is always 20/20, but IMO by far the best option would have been for this man to have bought it, restored it and looked after it. Then, maybe, in the fullness of time the NRM could have taken it over as a fully restored, working loco.

[Sir Hadyn]

Should have just bought the nameplate then, doubtful if given the swapping around of bits over the years that there is much left of the thing which has done anything of note.

 

Hindsight is always 20/20, but IMO by far the best option would have been for this man to have bought it, restored it and looked after it. Then, maybe, in the fullness of time the NRM could have taken it over as a fully restored, working loco.

 

The nameplates aren't original anyway. They were sold some 40 years ago believe it or not...

[stewartingram]

I heard it quoted some years ago, and I believe the source was reputable, not just heresay, that at that time (30 years ago?) there were only a couple of parts of the loco that were from the original build, something like cab handrails or similar.. Nothing mechanical, nor frames, boiler, tender; all minor working fittings had been replaced a number of times during its service life, etc. Just wish I could find that quote right now!

So this blows the 'plinth the remains & build a working replica' theory anyway. And having spent that much so far, why throw all the work away. Let's just finish the job and get the old girl up & running. Not too far to go now.

 

TBH, I for one am totally fed up with the critisism of the NRM and this overhaul. Either way they are damned, sure mistakes have been made but that is history now; look to the future. I'm sure, like most other people, the NRM will have learnt from its mistakes.

 

Stewart

[TheSignalEngineer]

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.

[Bob Reid]

 

......TBH, I for one am totally fed up with the critisism of the NRM and this overhaul. Either way they are damned, sure mistakes have been made but that is history now; look to the future. I'm sure, like most other people, the NRM will have learnt from its mistakes.

 

Stewart

 

Personally I'd read the report again Stewart. It was commissioned by them to learn from the mistakes of the past. If it were as easy as just looking to the future without at least understanding and learning where it all went wrong to prevent it happening in the future. Only time will tell if the NRM has learnt from it's mistakes as unfortunately, the history of their time of ownership so far as detailed in the report is an unmitigated disaster in preservation terms. No amount of sugar coating makes that report read anything else.

[The Stationmaster]

Personally I'd read the report again Stewart. It was commissioned by them to learn from the mistakes of the past. If it were as easy as just looking to the future without at least understanding and learning where it all went wrong to prevent it happening in the future. Only time will tell if the NRM has learnt from it's mistakes as unfortunately, the history of their time of ownership so far as detailed in the report is an unmitigated disaster in preservation terms. No amount of sugar coating makes that report read anything else.

I fully agree Bob but they did at least have the sense to commission the report (I presume they commissioned it) and they have had the good grace, and guts, to publish it. What we don't know as yet, I think, is what they will do next and how they will resolve the situation. As I said some way back in this thread the NRM has to make up its mind whether or not it wants to be an overhauler and/or maintainer and/or operator of mainline certificated engines with all that any or all of what those tasks entail in addition to its function as a museum.

 

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.

[Oldddudders]

TBH, I for one am totally fed up with the critisism of the NRM and this overhaul. Either way they are damned, sure mistakes have been made but that is history now; look to the future. I'm sure, like most other people, the NRM will have learnt from its mistakes.

Don't be disheartened, Stewart. FS is such a high-profile loco - perhaps only Mallard and CoT get close in UK terms- that there is a lot of sentiment and genuine emotion, especially when the National Railway Museum, and public money, are involved. It brings out the worst of the Internet, and everyone becomes a keyboard warrior - despite in most cases having no "skin" in the affair, being neither responsible for the decisions nor accountable for the quality of the engineering, still less its actual cost. 127 replies in rather less than 3 days says this is an issue upon which everyone has a view.

 

How its import compares to Hurricane Sandy or the Remembrance events of today might be another matter.