LSWR T3 563

That report i find says everything that is wrong, so only green arrow, which can't steam until it has a new Monoblock, at massive cost, what about another National collection engine, such as one of the atlantics? there are no atlantics none ear marked for main line, running yet, My view is, and has always been that the NRM should be a stand alone museum, working in partnership with the heritage movement, engines that are capable of being returned to traffic, could be loaned out, and replaced by equally historic, or interesting engines from the movement, that are not working, or possibly at the end of their ticket, or not suable on their home railways, but might be ok for museum rides, 6229, could be loaned to Midland railway trust, in a swop for margaret rose, and overhauled, in stream lined form, as long as fund raising can be done, on a 50/50 basis the NRM have a fund, to be put to overhauls, as long as the hiring railway matches it, by charging admitsion, and having special days, such as an LNER greats gathering, from n01, to mallard

 

The Midland Railway Trust don’t own 46203 though do they? 46203 belongs to the Princess Royal Class Locomotive Trust, and they seem to have their hands rather full at the moment.

As I say this is very much turning into ‘this is the toy I’d like to play with next, yet someone else should fund it’

Seriously Martin without wanting to sound condescending, if you have a concrete funding plan for whatever you’d like to see in action next I’m sure those in charge at York would be all ears.
Apologies for sounding a miserable sod, but there’s a lot to be considered these days regarding returning anything from the National Collection back into traffic whatever form of traction it is.

Anyhow can we please get this back on track regarding 563 please?

 

can't see this ever happening, but I like the idea

 

Monoblock at massive cost tells us nothing. What do you call a "massive cost"? We are not talking about a Class 26 Frigate here or a Premiership footballer or even a property in Sandbanks. In June 2021 the order was placed with Howco Engineering for the new cylinder block for 2007 and the price for this item was £261k at the time. This is a larger and more complicated block than that fitted to the V2 and it would not be unreasonable to expect that someone may have taken notice of this development. Once it has been proved that it is possible to create a substantial welded monoblock it would be somewhat foolish not to take advantage of this if you were another group with a similar requirement and you should not assume that this window of opportunity will always remain open. There again some of the players involved may well be hoping that the window of opportunity does slam shut and allows the current narrative to run on and on.

 

the NRM have already stated that they will only accept an like for like replacement, so it would have to be a cast block, they won't accept a welded fabrication, and there is no mention of any other loco that might be considered, to be returned to mainline use the fact is that The NRM, given up on any thought of overhauling without a third party any of the collection,

 

I had seen that, but with the workshop closed can they do any maintentance at all there?

 

What is their objection to a welded block to allow the loco to run while the original cast block goes on display, or at least is available for viewing on request?

 

Source?

 

Shows the stupidity of the people running the NRM.

No one would know the difference to look at 4771 if it had a cast or fabricated block.

Its ok to change numerous things on Scotsman when it suits.....

They could make a nice display with 4771's knackered block once it is changed.

 

So where are you going to find a foundry capable of producing such a large and complicated one off item? And it wouldn't be a one off either because it would have to be defect free and no one can guarantee this, there are even problems producing cylinder end covers without defects these days.

So if you are going to do anything what might this be? Try to repair the existing casting? This has already been done and more than once. To access the block further would entail the removal of the block from the locomotive. Then it it could be assessed. The next problem is finding a company capable of dealing with so large a casting and so it goes on. And in light of what we have learned about the life of castings as they age would it be worth carrying out the work anyway? Which brings us back to conserve and display the original and fabricate the new block, something which was discussed years ago.

On the subject of the NRM and carrying out overhauls, if the Sir Nigel Gresley Locomotive Trust could overhaul their Pacific within the then museum workshop why couldn't the Museum staff overhaul their Pacific in the same facility?

 

Probably worth reiterating the point that the only evidence on show for that here currently is Martin's post. Just before we go about questioning the integrity of stranger's intelligence anonymously over the internet...

 

from the man himself mr Couls i asked him on a NRM loco channel that was about the V2, His reply was that the NRM would like to see the engine work again, but they agreed the casting is life expired, and that any replacement would have to be another casting, the same as the existing block, they would not sanction an fabricated cylinder assembly

 

Which tells you all you need to know. It is impossible to produce a defect free and serviceable casting of this size and complexity today. Even if you could find a foundry prepared to take the job on it would be very costly indeed and I don't believe anyone would take it on, wheel centres are hard enough to produce today. In terms of foundry competence available today, there is nothing surviving like the GSC/Commonwealth of Granite City. So if the NRM says it will only accept a casting then it has no intention of ever running the locomotive again. So if you want a working V2 a new build is the way forward.

 

Except that the issue of material authenticity associated with Green Arrow's cylinder block has been discussed many times, and I'd understood that the NRM were firmly aligned to the monobloc because of its historical significance.

I'm with @MuzTrem in judging that there are a variety of considerations, and that a "triggers broom" approach to repairs risks losing important aspects of the engineering history of these locomotives. I'd also suggest that, in a craft sector like heritage railways, £261k is a lot of money, and careful thought would be required as to whether that money is best used in this way, or some other.

 

Because, following the Flying Scotsman debacle, they decided to contract out all future overhauls. That’s also why the unused space was available, for a while, for the SNG team to hire until the NRM repurposed it and disposed of much of the workshop equipment.

 

On this forum, in 2014, Anthony Coulls (NRM) said (about the Monobloc/cylinders): "When the V2 was preserved, locos were selected because they were the first/oldest/most original survivor of their class. Green Arrow was available so was selected. The single casting cylinders were significant but not the be all and end all. We don't know that they aren't repairable - there would need to be a survey with the loco dismantled, but it's not the Arrow's time at present."
https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/green-arrow.332507/page-2#post-934865

Anthony was also involved in developing the strategy in the 2019 paper which mentions GA as a possible candidate for future overhaul for main line operation, but not a priority at that time.

 

And the debacle came about because? We cannot blame the workshop it was simply a facility and we cannot say that it was not fit for purpose because that was evidently not the case. If you ever paid visits the workshop while the two overhauls in question were being undertaken the difference in the amount of activity taking place was marked to say the least

So what causes a debacle? People. You can explore this avenue and come up with some names.

A strategy paper produced in 2019, in light of what has happened over the years since it was produced do you honestly believe that it has any value? Was it ever intended to have or should it have been viewed as being similar to a political manifesto and be seen with a very jaundiced eye?

 

Possibly needs its own thread now, away from 563 - but for what it's worth, Anthony Coulls has always been a highly professional and honest man in my experience of him, and it's disappointing to see what I would call politely an apocryphal story being played out on this thread regarding him, when a simple google search (and even checking this forum!) reveals a very different story.

Please can we try and cite sources? I know that's not always possible but it costs us nothing to check our facts before posting. I've been guilty of this before, I know, and have previously cautioned where I haven't got it to hand.

It has value because it shows a snapshot in time of what was intended at the NRM then. Have things changed? Of course, but it seems a bit mean spirited IMO to describe as a "political manifesto".

Not everyone is going to agree on the direction or strategy of the Science Group or the NRM but can we please avoid aggrandising the relative importance and intentions of strategy documents.

 

Friend of mine knows him from NG lines in Wales and occasional drinks in London. Speaks very highly of him; I enjoyed his last video on the fireless locomotive in the National Collection.

 

See the link below for a quite detailed report on the NRM’s mismanagement (until 2012, when they obtained the external help they needed to sort it out) of the Flying Scotsman overhaul. It doesn’t name names but it isn’t hard to guess some of them.

Whatever you or I might think of the decision to close the NRM workshop it has now gone.

https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org....17/06/flying_scotsman_report_october_2012.pdf