Flying Scotsman with Robson Green

[sn1975]

Hi all,

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but tonight (Friday 22nd April) between 2100 and 2200 on ITV there is a documentary about the Flying Scotsman.

Kind regards.

 

[CosherB]

Hi all,

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but tonight (Friday 22nd April) between 2100 and 2200 on ITV there is a documentary about the Flying Scotsman.

Kind regards.

Prime time Friday night telly - who'd have thought!

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

Not the greatest piece of TV. Has already described a loco under restoration as "rusting away", whilst Flying Scotsman is, apparently an A1

 

[Phil.]

Not the greatest piece of TV. Has already described a loco under restoration as "rusting away", whilst Flying Scotsman is, apparently an A1

Robson Green described Flying Scotsman being built as the new A1 class. This is factually correct. Flying Scotsman was built as an A1 with a 180lb boiler and short valve travel. When the GWR had demonstrated to Gresley the advantages of long valve travel and higher boiler pressure as used on their Castle class which outperformed the A1s on the loco exchanges in both hauling power and coal economy the A1s were modified by fitting long travel valve gear and upping the boiler pressure to 250lb and were re-classified A3. The remaining A1s were reclassified A10 before modification.
It was nice seeing Peter Townend. Some years ago I met him and he was kind enough to autograph my copy of his book, "Top shed" for me. Like a fool I loaned it to a colleague who, some weeks later denied all knowledge of me lending it to him.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

There was also the usual claim of the first 100mph run. That statement really should include the word "verified" as it's highly likely that City of Truro managed that feat many years earlier but without verification. And I speak as someone who has always thought a copper-topped chimney to be a ridiculous ornamentation.http://www.railforums.co.uk/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

 

[montyburns56]

I watched this and I thought it was better than I was expecting and at least he actually got to work on it. And if that steam pipe leaks in the future we'll all know why!

 

[Cletus]

Enjoyed the programme, but just didn't like Robson Green as a presenter.

 

[Rail Ranger]

It was strange that there was no mention of Ian Riley as being the person really in charge of the restoration. Also it was amazing how young those working on the loco were.

 

[bnm]

Were there not some factual errors regarding the story of a train being derailed near Cramlington, Northumberland by striking miners in 1926? The script gave the impression that it was the locomotive Flying Scotsman that was derailed rather than the passenger service train of that name. Robson did say it was the train Flying Scotsman that was derailed, then adding that it took two years for Sir Nigel Gresley to restore it, seemingly referring to the locomotive.

Wasn't the locomotive that was derailed in this incident call Merry Hampton?

 

[theageofthetra]

As said earlier, this series and the programme the other week had something very encouraging in the young age of those working on the loco. The skills they have learned and applied are vital to the survival of heritage rail and those that brought them in and trained them deserve our applause.

 

[Mag_seven]

Once again a programme on railways thats obsessed with steam - I was brought up with diesels and electrics and we never seem get any programmes about them.

 

[46223]

Wasn't the locomotive that was derailed in this incident call Merry Hampton?

It was indeed.

 

[edwin_m]

Were there not some factual errors regarding the story of a train being derailed near Cramlington, Northumberland by striking miners in 1926? The script gave the impression that it was the locomotive Flying Scotsman that was derailed rather than the passenger service train of that name. Robson did say it was the train Flying Scotsman that was derailed, then adding that it took two years for Sir Nigel Gresley to restore it, seemingly referring to the locomotive.

Wasn't the locomotive that was derailed in this incident call Merry Hampton?

Ironic when Robson Green called Flying Scotsman a train early in the programme and was admonished by whoever he was talking to saying it was actually a locomotive. At that point I felt in need of something more believable and switched to the Blues Brothers on Dave.

 

[455driver]

Robson Green described Flying Scotsman being built as the new A1 class. This is factually correct. Flying Scotsman was built as an A1 with a 180lb boiler and short valve travel. When the GWR had demonstrated to Gresley the advantages of long valve travel and higher boiler pressure as used on their Castle class which outperformed the A1s on the loco exchanges in both hauling power and coal economy the A1s were modified by fitting long travel valve gear and upping the boiler pressure to 250lb and were re-classified A3. The remaining A1s were reclassified A10 before modification.
It was nice seeing Peter Townend. Some years ago I met him and he was kind enough to autograph my copy of his book, "Top shed" for me. Like a fool I loaned it to a colleague who, some weeks later denied all knowledge of me lending it to him.

I thought the A3s were 225lb, with the A4s being 250lb, hence the trouble FS had in preservation after being fitted with the higher pressure A4 boiler.

 

[Phil.]

I thought the A3s were 225lb, with the A4s being 250lb, hence the trouble FS had in preservation after being fitted with the higher pressure A4 boiler.

I've done some checking with one who really knows about these things and we're both wrong - me more so. The A3s were fitted with a superheated 220 lb boiler.

 

[theageofthetra]

Could someone explain how the higher boiler pressure than that originally designed for causes issues on a loco? I am guessing its along the lines of those who 'chip' their cars or boost turbo pressures and wonder why the clutch, gearbox or worse subsequently fail.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Could someone explain how the higher boiler pressure than that originally designed for causes issues on a loco? I am guessing its along the lines of those who 'chip' their cars or boost turbo pressures and wonder why the clutch, gearbox or worse subsequently fail.

to be clear, you should have a redesigned boiler on any such loco. You can't just "up" the pressure on the same boiler. Well, you can, by adjusting the safety valves, but that is not a good idea. The boiler could, indeed would, be likely to explode if you raise the pressure to extremes.

If you put a new boiler, eg a 220 psi boiler on a locomotive designed for 180 psi, you get (when the boiler pressure is at its maxium) a (approx - in my head) 22% increase in the force on the piston
(from 220-180/180 = 40/180 = 0.22)

So, just imagine, all your motion, the rods and the bearings designed to take a maximum force created by 180 psi suddenly finds itself straining with forces 1/5 as big again.

Then there is the question of the frames that have to provide the opposite forces, trying to keep the wheels and cylinders in their right places.

We had a discussion on this a few months ago. try searching for, hmmm, I forget the title. Maybe it was A4 boiler or some such. HTH

EDIT2 - One way around this - I forget, it might have been used on the A3s - is to reduce the size of the cylinder bore, so as to reduce the area exposed to the higher pressure, and so bring the total forced on the motion down to what it was with the original lower boiler pressure. Usually would only need 1/2 - 1 inch reduction in total diameter. This way, you get the efficiency advantage of using the steam at a higher pressure. If you can redesign the cylinders/pistons, you can also reduce the weight and the reciprocating masses - thereby reducing the wear and tear on the motion.

EDIT - so yes, a bit like forcing a car engine to produce more power than it's designed for. (I've never heard of the word 'chip' in this sense.) It may well do it - but for a shorter period before it needs things renewing.

 

[DarloRich]

Once again a programme on railways thats obsessed with steam - I was brought up with diesels and electrics and we never seem get any programmes about them.

because most people will watch a programme about a diesel train they know nothing about. They will watch something about a British cultural icon they know and associated with. This is mainstream ITV not Spotter TV :roll:

There was also the usual claim of the first 100mph run. That statement really should include the word "verified" as it's highly likely that City of Truro managed that feat many years earlier but without verification. And I speak as someone who has always thought a copper-topped chimney to be a ridiculous ornamentation.http://www.railforums.co.uk/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

No proof no happen!

Ironic when Robson Green called Flying Scotsman a train early in the programme and was admonished by whoever he was talking to saying it was actually a locomotive. At that point I felt in need of something more believable and switched to the Blues Brothers on Dave.

Or perhaps it was just the standard trick used by presenters to "learn" something for the benefit of the audience. Not everyone within the target audience group will be an expert like you are.

Not the greatest piece of TV. Has already described a loco under restoration as "rusting away", whilst Flying Scotsman is, apparently an A1

Again a standard presenters trick to sensationalise the story.

 

[theblackwatch]

Once again a programme on railways thats obsessed with steam - I was brought up with diesels and electrics and we never seem get any programmes about them.

You clearly missed this one:
Timeshift - The Engine That Powers the World
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06csy8c/timeshift-series-15-3-the-engine-that-powers-the-world

Not exclusively railway, but there's a good amount of coverage from Barrow Hill including a visit to the DPS Deltic depot.

 

[MarkyT]

If you put a new boiler, eg a 220 psi boiler on a locomotive designed for 180 psi, you get (when the boiler pressure is at its maxium) a (approx - in my head) 22% increase in the force on the piston
(from 220-180/180 = 40/180 = 0.22)

So, just imagine, all your motion, the rods and the bearings designed to take a maximum force created by 180 psi suddenly finds itself straining with forces 1/5 as big again.

Then there is the question of the frames that have to provide the opposite forces, trying to keep the wheels and cylinders in their right places.

. . . reduce the size of the cylinder bore, so as to reduce the area exposed to the higher pressure, and so bring the total forced on the motion down to what it was with the original lower boiler pressure.

When A1s became A3s and gave up their original 180 lb/in2 boilers for the new 220 lb/in2 design, their cylinders were reduced in diameter from 20" to 19.5". The modified locomotives nevertheless gained an improved tractive effort (at 85% BP) of 32,909 lbs compared to 29,835 lbs when built. When the thicker framed A4s were ordered with 250 lb/in2 boilers, the cylinders were narrowed a further inch, giving an 85%BP TE of 35,455 lbs.

The A4 boiler became the standard replacement when needed for the entire A3/A4 fleet post WW2. Although capable of higher pressure it was limited to 220 lb/in2 when used on an A3 chassis with safety valves set at that lower figure.

 

[70014IronDuke]

......

Again a standard presenters trick to sensationalise the story.

I don't buy that. It's unnecessary and bad journalism, because it is inaccurate.

He could just as easily have said (something like): "Unlike many other great locomotives, which ended up rusting, cold, forlorn and unloved in the scrap sidings, Flying Scotsman was bought by Alan Pegler within weeks (or days?) of withdrawal .......... "

This would have given the viewer the descriptive colour - perfectly accurately - while equally accurately explained the special history of 60103.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When A1s became A3s and gave up their original 180 lb/in2 boilers .......

Thanks, MarkyT - I did wonder if you'd come along and clarify things.

 

[edwin_m]

Or perhaps it was just the standard trick used by presenters to "learn" something for the benefit of the audience. Not everyone within the target audience group will be an expert like you are.

My point was that Flying Scotsman is a train as well as a locomotive, and they got that wrong later in the programme when talking about the train (not hauled by that locomotive) being derailed during the General Strike.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

We had a discussion on this a few months ago. try searching for, hmmm, I forget the title. Maybe it was A4 boiler or some such. HTH

This is the thread, I think?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=123334

 

[MarkyT]

My point was that Flying Scotsman is a train as well as a locomotive

True but the NRM, Rileys et al have definitely been engaged in restoring a locomotive, not a set of coaches or a daily steam hauled train service of the same name, unless I'm terribly mistaken and there's a regular open access operation using teak coaches being planned behind the scenes as I write! Inspired by the fact the loco was named by the LNER after their crack train as a publicity exercise for the 1920s Wembley Exhibition, I suspect the NRM are wilfully allowing the identities of loco and train service to once again become mixed and confused a little, all in the name of publicity. No harm in that really if it garners more attention from the media. Anyone with any deeper knowledge understands the distinction anyway.

and they got that wrong later in the programme when talking about the train (not hauled by that locomotive) being derailed during the General Strike.

That was a more serious factual mistake in my view as there was a very clear implication the particular named locomotive was involved and required extensive repairs, which it clearly wasn't and didn't.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Is it not the case that Flying Scotsman is also the only instance where a racehorse has been named after a train instead of the more usual other way round?

 

[edwin_m]

True but the NRM, Rileys et al have definitely been engaged in restoring a locomotive, not a set of coaches or a daily steam hauled train service of the same name, unless I'm terribly mistaken and there's a regular open access operation using teak coaches being planned behind the scenes as I write! Inspired by the fact the loco was named by the LNER after their crack train as a publicity exercise for the 1920s Wembley Exhibition, I suspect the NRM are wilfully allowing the identities of loco and train service to once again become mixed and confused a little, all in the name of publicity. No harm in that really if it garners more attention from the media. Anyone with any deeper knowledge understands the distinction anyway.



That was a more serious factual mistake in my view as there was a very clear implication the particular named locomotive was involved and required extensive repairs, which it clearly wasn't and didn't.

But having said it was a locomotive and not a train, they were then painted into a corner when they tried to cope with it being the train and not the locomotive that was derailed. Far better if they'd just explained an abbreviated version of your first paragraph - or left the train incident out as irrelevant (though I think as I switched over they were saying this incident was something personal for RG).

 

[Southwest]

Once again a programme on railways thats obsessed with steam - I was brought up with diesels and electrics and we never seem get any programmes about them.

Get yourself over to You Tube, there's hours and hours of stuff on diesels, some of it rather good.

As for Robson, I thought he was very over familiar with Alan Pegler's daughter. That shouldn't surprise us given what's been written about him in the press in the last couple of weeks!