4472 What colour

My understanding is that the NRM operated Flying Scotsman on the Scarborough line both with and without smoke deflectors after buying it - but before withdrawing it for its current overhaul. The results of these trials confirmed the wisdom of P Townsend in fitting the German design of smoke deflectors and a report of the NRM trials was confirmed by the NRM shortly after withdrawal from service.

I am not saying that the cost of running in various forms was the reason for the bankruptcies of the various owners but only Pete Waterman had the savvy to understand that running costs include financing the next overhaul of the loco. It is at that point decisions can be made asto to what appearance ( shape ) the loco will carry because once made, any changes will add to the overhaul cost. Whilst agreeing that Pegler lost money because his USA tours didn't generate the (British ) support required to make the American trip successful both Pegler and Marchington under-estimated the cost of the overhaul thus depleting their already reduced finances and over-estimated the income they would make to fund the next overhaul once it returned to the main line.

I believe that Pete Waterman fully costed his involvement with 4472 and charged the "proper" hiring rate despite protests from "enthusiasts" that as a millionaire he should subsidise 4472 by charging rates that "enthusiasts" could afford rather than rates that 4472 needed to be financially secure. Once Pete Waterman calculated that 4472 was going to become a bottomless pit ( i.e earn a lot less than was needed to maintain its running costs let alone finance the next overhaul ) he made the astutely correct decision to sell it on before he too became bankrupt.

And that brings us back to the basic point. Flying Scotsman needs to earn money to fund its operation and overhauls; at £1 million + they don't come cheap thus someone has to pay and the NRM as its current owner has to fund that. The fact that enthusiasts over-subscribed the initial appeal simply gives the NRM a once-off chance to fund a proper and rigorous full overhaul.
It doesn't matter what Flying Scotsman did in the past, its future operation on the increasingly regulated main line means that any decision will be made on the most economical way of operating designed to raise maximum revenue to both fund its operating costs and future overhaul.

It is therefore best left to those responsible for operating the locomotive to make their decisions whilst less knowledgeable enthusiasts should accept their wisdom and savour the sights and sounds of locomotives at work rather than beggar the questions that are not theirs to either ask or answer.

 

ONE A3 was fitted with a kylchap blastpipe in LNER days - Humourist. This engine caused endless problems for the LNER with drifting smoke and various innefective deflector designs were tried, none of which made significant improvements. Whether the engine was fitted with A1/A2 style deflectors once these were proved to make a difference I don't know. Either way, no one is disputing the need for smoke deflectors.

It is worth remembering that 4472's 100 mph run was achieved when the engine was still an A1 (the Gresley A1, obviously...) and was one of the last of the class to be converted to A3. The only major visual change was the addition of the projecting Superheater covers on the upper smokebox. Papyrus, already an A3, reached 108 on Stoke Bank. On the day of the test, No. 2750 ran for over 300 miles at speeds of 80 mph or more, though admittedly with a lightweight test train. Even so, there was nothing wrong with the single chimney design then.

The last few A4s were built with Kylchap blastpipes originally (including Mallard) and the rest of the class were soon coverted, yet in spite of the improvents shown, the performance of the single chimeny A3s was obviously regarded as perfectly good enough to make it not wothwhile modifying them. Or maybe they left them as was because the drifting smoke problem had proved such a handicap on Humorist.

Of course it was subsequently shown to be financially worthwhile to modify the A3s, but is economics really the main factor driving the management of NRM locomotives? No, judging by their costly rebuild of an A3 boiler, they claim to be interested in authenticity over their finances. So, why throw all that money at repairing an A3 boiler you can't visually tell apart from an A4 boiler or a new boiler, then prove they wasted our money by making the resulting engine look totally unauthentic with the bits you can see?

Preservation is about the past - it is about recreating the past. The day people seriously start to think that it is about the future, and seriously imagine that railway engines, vintage cars, traction engines etc. can continue to function without the the input of additonal funding given purely by people or public bodies for the benefit of preserving / recreating the past is the day that we might as well give up and go and play golf.

 

Did you read what I wrote? Please read a person's post properly before you reply. To say it again, the NRM have never run the loco with a single chimney, and in that form it doesn't need smoke deflectors. In double chimney form, it needs smoke deflectors, we all know that, and the NRM didn't need to commision a report to justify them.

 

Not so sure I agree with that sentiment, especially now that the locomotive is part of the National Collection - I believe 'we' (as in joe public, enthusiasts - the nation as a whole, whoever!) are entitled to ask questions and receive some rationale behind certain decisions made. We have a right to ask and voice opinion - it is up to those looking after the loco at the NRM to decide how much - if any - notice is taken, if indeed what is being said is even considered by those in charge to be appropriate and valid.

If the loco was still privately owned then I would agree with you ;-)

 

"Anthony Coulls wrote:
We still have a policy of not renumbering locos to something they weren't for charters or any other event. Photos of renumbered/named engines could confuse in the future - in fact some enthusiasts have already queried the existence of other long scrapped steam/diesel locos in the heritage era. I'm not going to open that can of worms here though."



Should the above policy, about renumbering locos, also apply to a loco's livery? Will it not also cause confusion if the livery does not match the "appearance" of the loco?

 

I read your post but I am also aware that since LNER days the HSE requirements have forced through changes that may appear unconnected to your knowledge. Whilst single chimney A3s DID RUN on the LNER there was also a constant concern about drifting steam for which at that time no practical solution had been found.

Since then a solution has been identified with the provision of smoke deflectors a la German style and, since drifting steam would be considered an unacceptable hazard on today's network, I believe that HSE would not allow single chimney A3s to operate on today's railways. If my belief is correct then your statement that what was acceptable over 50 years ago is irrelevant to the discussion because it is NOT what was allowed many years ago that needs to be considered but what will be acceptable today.

Whilst not seeking to prolong discussions about the appearance of locomotives working on the main line I note that many opinions seem to disregard the requirements being imposed by both the Vehicle Approval authorities and HSE before the locomotive gains main line certification and then by Network Rail to ensure safe working on the main line. Whilst not involved in this area directly I believe some locomotive owners have already been forced to compromise between originality and main line approval and no doubt the NRM will be required to do the same for Flying Scotsman if main line running is to continue.

 

I read your post but I am also aware that since LNER days the HSE requirements have forced through changes that may appear unconnected to your knowledge. Whilst single chimney A3s DID RUN on the LNER there was also a constant concern about drifting steam for which at that time no practical solution had been found.

Since then a solution has been identified with the provision of smoke deflectors a la German style and, since drifting steam would be considered an unacceptable hazard on today's network, I believe that HSE would not allow single chimney A3s to operate on today's railways. quote]

If the HSe are presented with a single chimney Flying Scotsman, owned and run by the National Railway Museum, they'll let it through. Imagine the public outcry if they didn't. We don't even have to go back as far as LNER days, Scotsman ran up until the mid 1990s in single chimney form, and it obviously wasn't an issue then. The NRM just need to go for it in single chimney form, and deal with HSE if they can prove a major problem.

 

That is a point of view that I have never heard put forward before, and I have never read anything anywhere suggesting that drifting smoke was ever more of a problem with single chimney A3s than with any other non smoke deflectored engine running today on the mainline. Indeed, on film of Scotsman running in the 70s and 80s the smoke always appears to be thrown much higher and more clear of the cab than it does in video footage of the kychap chimney even when deflectors are fitted.

Other engines on the mainline today are far more susceptable to the problem than a single chimney A3 would be - an unrebuilt Bulleid for a start. Smoke deflectors only become necessary on A3s after the Kylchap conversion because of the much softer exhaust from a double chimney not being thrown so high.

 

What utter tosh!

Firstly there would be no public outcry - the "public" don't care. If it's green with FS plates then it's Scotsman as far as they are concerned. You could probably stick FS plates on Green Arrow and fool most of Joe Public. The only people who really object are those obsessives with cameras.

Secondly, if you think the "HSe" (sic) will wave any objections they may have due to a public outcry then you've never dealt with them (or the other correct regulatory bodies for that matter).

 

When Scotsman came out as an A3 she was numbered 103, but as for livery, you can complain of Double Chimney and deflectors in LNER, but what of the tender?
Want it in BR? Anyone got a non coridor tender going spare?

 

This is what I think.
I first saw the Scotsman in about 1968. I was four and remember very little of it but it did start up my interest in steam and if anyone has ever asked which is my favourite engine then the Flying Scotsman is the answer.
I next saw Scotsman many times at Steamtown, and it is in that period that I grew to enjoy seeing the engine more and more. Therefore, my ideal scotsman is LNER Apple Green and no smoke deflectors. I'd like to see her back to that but I would also not mind seeing her in BR colours with the smoke deflectors on for a while. I would not go off on one if that happened.
So there you have it. An opinon from someone who is not obsessive about cameras and who can tell the wonderful Green Arrow from the Flying Scotsman.

 

wow , 5 pages of what coulour an engine should be .....does no one on National preservation have a job?

 

I am considering a job with Dulux...

 

well i can understand that you would be trying to get a deal with NRM , but apart from yourself ..... \/

 

As the dog? :-k

 

Unlike you to try and be funny... :-k

 

Will the NRM Spray paint or brush paint 4472 and what about the lettering transfers or hand painted letters and numbers
:-k :-k :-k :-k

 

Brush

 

Roller...

 

Basil - boom - boom!