Readers' letters at the heart of the heritage railway scene...
Flying Scotsman’s triumphant entry at Railfest 2004 at the National Railway Museum following its purchase for £2.31-million. ROBIN JONES
‘I can’t believe David Ward’s letter’ – FSR critic
I can't believe the letter you published from David Ward in issue 112 concerning Flying Scotsman. It is an excellent example of ‘revisionism’ by making so-called ‘facts’ fit an untrue story!
Two of his comments do not stand up to the grim reality surrounding a national treasure that was abused while in the charge of Flying Scotsman Railways, of which he was, according to his many published statements on the subject, an active member of the management team.
First, he mentions the ‘superb extensive overhaul’ the loco underwent between 1996 and 1999, and particularly praises the increase in boiler pressure, the reduction in cylinder diameter, and the refitting of the Kylchap system.
I am no Nigel Gresley, but even I understand that if you take a 70-odd-year-old Class 7 Pacific which has not seen any major modifications to its frames for at least 33 years, and ‘upgrade’ the power output to equal that of a Class 8 Pacific (Mr Ward compares 4472 to Clan Line in his letter), you are putting additional stresses on components which were not only not designed for such stresses, but which are also likely to be not as strong as they were, due to age. This was no way to ‘conserve’ a locomotive.
Mr Ward then states that the engine was handed over to the NRM ‘in a much better condition than when he (Marchington) bought it’. Clearly, his memory is playing tricks.
Flying Scotsman was in such good condition that it failed to even reach York under its own power in 2004, a diesel having to push it into the Railfest site for its official handover to the NRM! The engine was in such superb condition that it had to undergo ‘emergency repairs’ to allow it to run York-Scarborough trains, and had to be withdrawn for a major rebuild the following year – a rebuild which is still being undertaken due to the state of its boiler and its general, poor, condition.
There have been various comments made regarding boiler condition, but the simple fact is that neither of the two boilers that came with the locomotive was in particularly good condition and the NRM, on ‘conservation grounds’, has decided to repair the one in the worst condition.
Finally, we must also remember that ‘the nation’ had to rescue No 4472 from FSR for the princely sum of £2.31-million!
The bid had to be enormous to meet FSR's requirements (presumably to pay off its debts) and to ensure it was sufficient to beat allcomers, in order that the locomotive be properly conserved for future generations rather than the potential of being operated once again as a money making asset rather than a priceless preservation asset.
FSR was a shining example of how not to run a steam locomotive, and they would have been better advised to speak with the Clan Line people to learn how a steam locomotive could successfully run on the national network.
The stunning incompetence shown by the FSR management team, which presumably included Mr Ward himself, resulted in the NRM having to find that sum of £2.31-million, which could have been spent on other projects.
Ian Smith,
Leeds
• David Ward, who was operations director for Flying Scotsman Railways 1996-2004, responds:
“Before the boiler pressure was increased to 250lb, FSR consulted professional steam locomotive engineers familiar with the LNER Pacific, and with the Vehicle Acceptance Body, which is responsible for certificating locomotives for main line operation. After comparisons were made with the A4 class mechanical specification, all agreed there was no engineering reason for not increasing the pressure. It had been reduced to 220lb in BR days to reduce maintenance costs.
“One of the reasons for increasing the pressure was to avoid the waste and annoyance from excessive blowing off at the safety valves, caused by today’s lack of experience in boiler management, and the increased intermittent demand for power in current operating conditions.
“Before the NRM bought Flying Scotsman, under due diligence it had it independently examined by experts, and it received a clean bill of health. When handed over to the NRM, the frames, motion and cylinders showed no signs of distress as a result of any increased power exerted by the locomotive.
“The perforation of a boiler tube en route from Southall to the NRM was due to the age of the tubes, which have a much shorter life than hitherto. This failure had nothing to do with the way No 4472 had been used or maintained by FSR.
“The A4 boiler which was fitted to the locomotive when it was purchased by the NRM could have been overhauled for probably £500,000 less than it is now costing the NRM to overhaul the A3 boiler, as reported in last month’s Heritage Railway.
“Using the A4 boiler would also have enabled the locomotive to return to traffic about two years earlier than now estimated, and because of its stronger and superior design, would have been a better proposition on an operational locomotive. With support from the taxpayer, the NRM is fortunate to be able to take financial liberties of this kind – a private owner has to make much more realistic decisions to survive.
“The team which carried out the 1996-99 restoration and subsequently maintained the locomotive, led by Roland Kennington, was highly regarded in official railway circles, and Ian Smith’s allegations of ‘abuse’ do not fit the facts.
“In his letter, Ian Smith mentions Clan Line. For long periods of its working life with FSR, Flying Scotsman was stabled alongside that locomotive at Stewarts Lane, and there was much mutual support, debate, exchange of views and advice, and ribaldry, between the two teams.”
• Heritage Railway senior contributing writer Geoff Courtney was press and PR consultant to Flying Scotsman Railways 1999-04. He writes: “Thankfully we live in a country which permits free speech, and I would defend to the hilt Ian Smith’s right to hold firm views on the subject of Flying Scotsman and its tenure with FSR, and to put them in print.
“I would say, however, that the nation, through the NRM, did not have to ‘rescue’ No 4472. The underbidder in the tender process, a private individual – and a Brit, by the way – was only a few bob shy of the NRM’s offer, and if the museum had not bid so much, or not bid at all, it would have gone to him, and, as with the NRM’s ownership, stayed in the UK. I know his identity, and can assure Ian, and the readers of Heritage Railway, that his custodianship would have been at least the equal of the NRM’s.
“The NRM could have chosen not to bid, and instead, as Ian says, spent the money on other projects. The problem with that argument, of course, is that the museum would not have had all that money, because it was donated or granted by various sources exclusively for the purchase of No 4472.”
‘Bitter’ at charge for four A4s line-up
I recently paid £32.50 for 90 minutes of the National Railway Museum's reunion of four A4s.
Also recently, I paid £32.50 ($65) for a New York City Pass – which entitled me, over nine days to do the following:
1 Visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art
2 Visit the Museum of Modern Art
3 Visit the Guggenheim Museum
4 Visit the American Museum of Natural History – including a special event at the Planetarium
5 Visit the Empire State Building observatory
6 Have a two-hour harbour cruise.
In David Wilcock's excellent Thin Red Line in issue 112, I was interested to see Mr Scott's attempt to justify the museum's commercial planning team's charge – part of which referred to the fact that he would not expect a special exhibition at the National Gallery to be free – perhaps not, but ironically at Schipol airport on our way to and from New York, we were able to see, completely free of charge, an exhibition of original paintings by Van Gogh and other Dutch masters.
I only paid the £32.50 for the A4s because it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, but it wasn't value for money, and it did, and does, leave a bitter taste.
FR Mallon,
Thornaby
Top of the page>>
