Flying Scotsman

That's an understatement and a half......... "back end of a bus" doesn't do it justice............

The less we talk about Thompson in a GRESLEY thread, the better I think everybody's blood pressure will be.............

So, is it remotely possible that we can revert to the subject of this thread?.......... FLYING SCOTSMAN OVERHAUL?.............

I wont hold my breath............

 

I think that says more about The Great Bear than it does Collett or Thompson…



Simon

 

Not one comment amazing.

 

In what way is that evidence that Gresley was 'really in a different league from Churchward when it came to the design of long distance express locomotives', Churchward makes a throw away comment and this just apparently adds to Gresleys genius?

The fact that gresley designed a pacific in 1922 that was a great improvement on the Great Bear is hardly a testiment of his ability is it, if he couldn't improve on the design after 14 further years of development he would not have been that great an enigineer would he?

I know that there is a common desparation on here to belittle the GWR and their engineers at every opportunity by many on here, but can we at least avoid wide ranging statements for the sake of it!

For the record I have no dount about Gresley's abilities, he designed locomotives suitable for his employers line requirements as did Churchward, Collett Stanier etc, I just don't get the need for the constant my 'railway is better than yours' arguments that perpetuate on here, especially as in the majority of cases such companies ceased to exist a long time before the posters were born and thus its all based upon books that have been read?

 

I would see Gresley's changes as incremental rather than a "step change": the first pacifics being essentially enlarged Ivatt atlantics (though none the less worthy for that), then later on long travel valves and Chapelon-inspired internal streamlining. Churchward did make a "step change", so far as the UK was concerned, with long travel valves and taper boilers. But as for The Great Bear; is there any evidence that he ever took it very seriously? He is reported to have been unhappy about its rebuilding into a Castle, but that could have been just because it was a handsome loco, and the biggest one of his, not because he considered it a brilliant design. It was hardly designed, just a Star thrown together with a disproportionate boiler and an extra axle at the back to support the big firebox.

 

Off to The Works you go. More progress reported.

 

Holcroft, who was there at the time, reports that a lot of time was spent on the boiler design, and over its life short life it had three different superheaters and two different tube arrangements in the boiler. On first sight it looks a bit thrown together, but when digging a bit deeper it looks as if a reasonable amount of effort was put into it.

 

I wish people would do some research before posting: The C1 shares a Wootton firebox and a Cartazzi trailing axle with the A1, and there the similarity ends. The Pennsylvania K4 is reputed to have been the inspiration for the A1.

 

OK, I stand corrected. I admit I had in mind the general appearance more than the internal details.

 

Is that in the general sense of a 4-6-2 with a big firebox being a good idea? On the face of it, there are few similarities apart from the wheel arrangement.

 

Just a quick quote from our Wikifriends; I don't have time to go into detail of steam passages etc:

The K4s design was successful enough that it influenced other locomotive designs, and not only those of other PRR locomotives. London and North Eastern Railway Chief Mechanical Engineer Nigel Gresley incorporated much of the boiler design (including the tapered shape) into his famous Class A1 Pacific.

 

Update posted on the NRM's FB page:
Flying Scotsman's new frame sections and smokebox saddle arrived in the workshop of Riley & Son (E) Ltd last week. Ahead of their journey to Bury, the new frame sections were successfully aligned and pre-assembled to the three cylinders, blast pipe, and smokebox saddle at Arthur Stephenson’s Engineers Ltd, Greater Manchester. The next stage of the restoration project to bring the famous loco back to steam is to weld the new sections on to the existing frames. For more information visit http://ow.ly/EQmlv

 

If you look at the pictures these sections have been machined all over to allow pads to be left were the cylinders mount to accommodate the material removed when repairing the cylinders ,it would have been cheaper to fit new cylinders than go to all this trouble.

 

I doubt if 1.125" steel plate suitable for any purpose is available from stock these days. And the replacement of the life expired section of the frames that supported the cylinders was not going to make a special production run worthwhile. This would have been quite a modest job for Arthur Stephenson's. It removed the need for shims too. The cylinders should have decades of life left in them.

 

One does hope that this really is it for the surprises in the restoration and that we're going to - after a decade - see 4472 in steam next year. I once wrote in to Steam Railway (in 2011 I believe!) to ask for some patience towards the NRM for the overhaul - I described it as potentially a "Rolls Royce job". I can see it is more than that now but won't it be sweet when she is running? Renewed and restored. Perhaps like other locomotives on the mainline, now looked after to the extent that future overhauls are not so costly or extensive.

 

Anyone notice the Google squiggle yesterday? It happened to be the 80th anniversary of 4472 becoming the 1st steam loco to do an authenticated 100 mph. Pity there was no celebratory railtour.

Steven

 

I hovered the mouse over it & it came up with something about St Andrew............