Flying Scotsman

Press release on NRM website from today... Flying Scotsman restoration update - About us - National Railway Museum

 

That's sad but still positive. 2015 is a long way off.

Direct link to the report at http://www.nrm.org.uk/aboutus/~/media/Files/NRM/PDF/NRM Flying Scotsman Final Report.pdf

It's heavily redacted, presumably largely for commercial reasons. I'm sure there was a draft version around previously that wasn't redacted?

Simon

 

Paragraph 11 is interesting, given the discussion about a million pages upthread about whether it was advisable to operate the loco with bored out cylinders and a higher than designed boiler pressure...

Sorry to bang on once again...

Incidentally, what is the implication of having one outside cylinder at 19.5" and one at 20" diameter? Assuming that the forces generated by each cylinder are proportional to the areas (ratio of the square of the diameter), that gives a 5% mismatch in force from side to side. Is that within expected tolerance for P&V work?

Tom

 

My personal opinion

Having seen the story in the mag about the report that it would be better to "stuff and mount it" due to the spiraling cost over the £3 million mark now, if you told me before the overhaul was started it would cost this much, then I'd be inclined to agree with their finding of stuff and mount it (hindsight is a wonderful thing), and although 4472 is not my favourite machine and I'd rather something else in the National Collection got some attention, I think the far bigger scandal at this stage would be to have spent well over £3 million and to have nothing to show for it, it's past the proverbial point of no return now as that money can never be recouped, so may as well see it through and at least have an operational main line asset at the end, even if it has come in hideously over budget.

 

Classic press release of burying the bad news on a Friday. Good news it's not being stuffed, but 2015 is a long way off.

 

Not in the least surprised, So the story about the cylinders was true, its sad when you concider just how much has already been spent and how much more will be needed, its telling also that York has admitted it does not have the facilities to do the work but isnt that what everyone expected? not knocking york but this job is not like just reviving an engine in the collection that has remained untouched , 4472 has needed what would almost be a rebuild back into A3 guise and only the major railway workshops such as Riley, carnforth etc would have had the experience of such work, in my estemation that should have been the decision from day one.
what was the thinking behind the fitting of the A4 boiler in the first place, was it because the plan was to tie it in with the VSOE contract to make the greatest return? on the asset? as i have said previously 4472 was seen by some as the golden goose because now in the full ness of time what infact happened was to kill the goose.

 

I have printed out the report to read in full (well apart from the bits that have been censored) but I have had a quick scan through. A depressing read.
Doesn't look like she will be used much when she is finally restored and she won't be visiting many Heritage lines if any at all when you read the recommendations and rules for future use.

 

It hasn't had the plug pulled and that's good. I personally hope Mr.Riley tenders for the work and they get the job. They know the loco, they've had it and done what they were contracted to do.
I think that when the loco. is finished, fit and healthy it will get plenty of work. I hope it does and that I live long enough to see it leaving KX with 10 on.
Remember this, the report could have been worse, a lot worse. Be pleased.:nod:

 

I am reading the report bit by bit today, taking it all in. Very glad it hasn't been shelved, and I agree wholeheartedly that I'd like to see Bury complete the job.

This passage makes very interesting reading.

 

A quick read through the report suggests that the investigation included two quotations/estimates for the completion of the work, not just an assessment of what is needed. I hadn't realised that it would go this far. *If* the funding is available, this should help to speed up the tendering/contract process.

Richard

 

(Speculative wibble alert)

I didn't read it like that. It's possible (I don't know) that the two quotes were one external and one internal, to demonstrate that doing the work internally would be either more expensive or take longer. I doubt they would be formal, binding quotes.

Also, assuming the remaining bill is over a low six figure sum (can't remember the exact amount, but about €200k rings a bell) as a Government body, any external procurement will have to go under OJEU rules and have a full European tender, unless some dispensation can be agreed. That is a time consuming process.

Tom

 

Its not that bad, most of the major lines that have had or currently have experience of either the A1 or an A4 shouldnt have any problems, and you have to be mainline connected.
i have just read the report its interesting, it makes damning reading and pulls no punches the incorrect replacing of the middle cylinder coupled with the A4 boiler plus over bored cylinders caused the engine to wreck itself ,or would have done eventually.

 

Good point - maybe the quotations were got to give a "real" idea of the costs, rather than just guesstimates.

Richard

 

@ Jamessquared: the odd sized cylinder is the replacement one fitted as part of the CURRENT overhaul, 4472 has not actually run with the three cylinders it presently carries.

 

Ah, thanks for that.

Para 11 of the executive summary of the report is still pretty damning for the treatment the loco received under the previous ownership.

There's also (from admittedly a skim read) a definite emphasis on careful treatment in the future - for example suggested load limits of 11 - 12 coaches for lines radiating from York, depending on gradients; no transport on lorries except in emergency; careful selection of heritage lines to ones without excessive curvature and mainline connections; a suggested annual mileage of only about 7,000 per year on average etc.

This was another telling quote, in respect of firebox management:

Tom

 

I would be interested to know how difficult it would have been to identify the cylinder misalignment at an earlier stage of the overhaul

 

IKB, There are a multitude of questions that need an answer but i doubt if we will ever find out the why and therefores,
when doing overhaul of frames and wheelsets , the main works in BR days would have had access to measuring and datum tools as well as experts who knew by eye when everything was true, in the early days of preservation the same skills and tools might not have been availible so people try to get it as good as they can with the tools that they had, today we have lazer measuring tools to ensure you have everything correctly lined up.

 

Be a bit embarrassing if that happens and Meiningen puts in the lowest tender!

 

Doncaster Loco Works used optical alignment equipment. This same gear is still used today, at the SVR.

 

Well, there are ways you could minimise the possibility of that outcome by careful design of what you tender for. (Though saying that just shows how misguided the whole public sector procurement process is at times - it's a way for the public sector to get the wrong result in a way that is scrupulously fair! Been there, got the scars...)

But, without this degenerating into politics, it's just a simple reminder to anyone that thinks that it would be a quick job to procure the necessary technical services from an external company - think again. It will take a long time, even assuming that the NRM / NMSI have the money available and excellent in house procurement skills. Given that the report also sets out a critical path for the work of at least 60 weeks, it's easy to understand why 2015 is being given as a possible return date.

Tom