Mallard (specifically) and the NRM more generally
Discussion
I know there is currently a thread running on A4’s somewhere round here – but I have a sort of wider question based around the (broadly speaking, excellent) National Railway Museum.
I went up to sunny York this weekend with my old man as his birthday present, as I had bought a couple of tickets to go mooching across the north to Carlisle behind the Flying Scotsman (which is very spry, for an older fellow).
(We noted the day after, that whilst Scotsman was on the premises, it was tucked away in a corner, with parts of it visible through a window. I appreciate there will be a degree of fettling after a run, especially if it has been re-shedded very late the previous evening. However, you’d have thought given it was the school holidays, the imperative would be to get it back to display ASAP. – or at least do any fettling in view of people in its bay (it seems to be kept away from the other children…). I’m sure there is an excellent reason I haven’t thought of (they aren’t mugs after all), but just a thought!
The day after we went to the NRM, and as I say it would broadly excellent – the re-clad Duchess of Hamilton being a personal highlight.
It was very interesting to wander onto the viewing platform above the workshop and see Sir Nigel Gresley stripped down to its components – I will put some pictures up if I get some time later.
This – in combination with a discussion with someone who collared me – made me wonder something.
Why is Mallard currently static.
Now, I know you cannot necessarily put too much stock into what blokes who accost you in museums say – but this is the yarn I was spun….
• Mallard is in fundamentally good condition
• It is capable of being steamed
• They never do because they are s
t scared of breaking it, as it is unique and important.
But - My understanding of its condition is - and has always been:
• Stood idle for around 25 years (never great for a machine’s conditions, no matter how good the conditions it is kept in
• Boiler certificates etc long since expired
• Therefore, in order to get it to steam, it is in need of a relatively significant overhaul
My problem with the logic of the yarn I was spun was firstly, the slightly counter intuitive (to me) notion that it is in A1 condition after having not been moved in so long. Secondly, the idea that the only reason it isn’t moved is because they are scared of breaking it - because short of the failure being ‘hole in the side of the boiler’ significant, surely it doesn’t make a difference whether there has been a component failure and it won’t work properly because as it is you are refusing to bring it to steam anyway…
I was once given another argument that as it's unique and there are 3 other A4s currently operational (when not in overhaul) and as such its mainline presence isn’t needed and the original record breaker should be preserved.
However, it was in mainline service for 20 years post record and would have covered a very significant number of miles, surely anything that needed changing would have been changed. If authenticity of the componentry is the issue, surely that ship has sailed? Besides, no one seems to have been so precious about Flying Scotsman.
To me, the only even remotely plausible answer is cost. I know SNG is currently undergoing overhaul there – but I presume someone is paying them! Whilst NRM spent £millions on Scotsman, I think they had no choice really, given the public clamour - and there was also third party funding.
(In fairness they were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t with regards to Scotsman – as, as far as I can see they were basically strong armed into buying the thing regardless of the economic consequences. Hence the packed schedule – it has to pay for itself.)
So, a combination of the cost being significant, and also probably the economic consequences of losing it as an exhibit for 2 years (and the rest), just makes much more sense.
I mean that’s all guessing really. Does anyone have any insight?
I went up to sunny York this weekend with my old man as his birthday present, as I had bought a couple of tickets to go mooching across the north to Carlisle behind the Flying Scotsman (which is very spry, for an older fellow).
(We noted the day after, that whilst Scotsman was on the premises, it was tucked away in a corner, with parts of it visible through a window. I appreciate there will be a degree of fettling after a run, especially if it has been re-shedded very late the previous evening. However, you’d have thought given it was the school holidays, the imperative would be to get it back to display ASAP. – or at least do any fettling in view of people in its bay (it seems to be kept away from the other children…). I’m sure there is an excellent reason I haven’t thought of (they aren’t mugs after all), but just a thought!
The day after we went to the NRM, and as I say it would broadly excellent – the re-clad Duchess of Hamilton being a personal highlight.
It was very interesting to wander onto the viewing platform above the workshop and see Sir Nigel Gresley stripped down to its components – I will put some pictures up if I get some time later.
This – in combination with a discussion with someone who collared me – made me wonder something.
Why is Mallard currently static.
Now, I know you cannot necessarily put too much stock into what blokes who accost you in museums say – but this is the yarn I was spun….
• Mallard is in fundamentally good condition
• It is capable of being steamed
• They never do because they are s
t scared of breaking it, as it is unique and important.But - My understanding of its condition is - and has always been:
• Stood idle for around 25 years (never great for a machine’s conditions, no matter how good the conditions it is kept in
• Boiler certificates etc long since expired
• Therefore, in order to get it to steam, it is in need of a relatively significant overhaul
My problem with the logic of the yarn I was spun was firstly, the slightly counter intuitive (to me) notion that it is in A1 condition after having not been moved in so long. Secondly, the idea that the only reason it isn’t moved is because they are scared of breaking it - because short of the failure being ‘hole in the side of the boiler’ significant, surely it doesn’t make a difference whether there has been a component failure and it won’t work properly because as it is you are refusing to bring it to steam anyway…
I was once given another argument that as it's unique and there are 3 other A4s currently operational (when not in overhaul) and as such its mainline presence isn’t needed and the original record breaker should be preserved.
However, it was in mainline service for 20 years post record and would have covered a very significant number of miles, surely anything that needed changing would have been changed. If authenticity of the componentry is the issue, surely that ship has sailed? Besides, no one seems to have been so precious about Flying Scotsman.
To me, the only even remotely plausible answer is cost. I know SNG is currently undergoing overhaul there – but I presume someone is paying them! Whilst NRM spent £millions on Scotsman, I think they had no choice really, given the public clamour - and there was also third party funding.
(In fairness they were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t with regards to Scotsman – as, as far as I can see they were basically strong armed into buying the thing regardless of the economic consequences. Hence the packed schedule – it has to pay for itself.)
So, a combination of the cost being significant, and also probably the economic consequences of losing it as an exhibit for 2 years (and the rest), just makes much more sense.
I mean that’s all guessing really. Does anyone have any insight?
Edited by Vocal Minority on Tuesday 16th August 12:41
No it's absolutely fine, here it is only 2 years ago pushing a class 56 whilst pulling a Deltic at the same time - https://youtu.be/sq5Hh-jVimk?t=33
FourWheelDrift said:
No it's absolutely fine, here it is only 2 years ago pushing a class 56 whilst pulling a Deltic at the same time - https://youtu.be/sq5Hh-jVimk?t=33
No, that's a video of a 56 PULLING it and a deltic !tight5 said:
FourWheelDrift said:
No it's absolutely fine, here it is only 2 years ago pushing a class 56 whilst pulling a Deltic at the same time - https://youtu.be/sq5Hh-jVimk?t=33
No, that's a video of a 56 PULLING it and a deltic !I think the reality is a combination of 2 of your points, i.e. the number or A4's currently in working order and cost.
Mallard is a big draw exhibit for the museum, so any time away from the great hall is going to leave at least some visitors disappointed (as indeed you experienced with Scotsman). There's enough other A4's in steam to fulfil demand so why flood the market, and therefore suffer the expense of maintaining it in mainline order? Those funds are then available to be used for other exhibts where there are no other examples, such as re-cladding the Duchess of Hamilton or putting/keeping Scotsman into the public domain. While I'd love to see Mallard back on the mainline (I saw it run in 1988 for the 50th celebrations) I'm happy with the current scenario.
Olly
Mallard is a big draw exhibit for the museum, so any time away from the great hall is going to leave at least some visitors disappointed (as indeed you experienced with Scotsman). There's enough other A4's in steam to fulfil demand so why flood the market, and therefore suffer the expense of maintaining it in mainline order? Those funds are then available to be used for other exhibts where there are no other examples, such as re-cladding the Duchess of Hamilton or putting/keeping Scotsman into the public domain. While I'd love to see Mallard back on the mainline (I saw it run in 1988 for the 50th celebrations) I'm happy with the current scenario.
Olly
It's a combination of the cost and lack of need to do so.
As you mention, it's a popular exhibit that no doubt is a big draw in bringing people to the museum, and given that the other remaining A4s in the country are all mainline operational, there's little to no point in getting it going again just for the sake of seeing it move again.
There's limited funds for restoring and overhauling locos, and they think it's better to spend those funds on rarer examples. For example, of the 7 loco's that are currently operational, 4 are the only examples left in existence, and 1 is a small tank engine that costs significantly less to keep going and is for pottering about the Shildon site.
Plus, with Flying Scotsman out and about now, and Blue Peter being restored to mainline condition, there's 5 LNER pacifics on (or soon to be back on) the rail network, making it rather superfluous for Mallard to be there. As opposed to there only being Britannia and Oliver Cromwell as BR built examples (Duke of Gloucester is still in limbo afaik). Or Duchess of Sutherland and soon Princess Elizabeth for LMS examples of pacifics.
Regarding Flying Scotsman, I've noticed that all mainline Operational locos that visit or are based there are always stabled out of sight of the main museum for whatever reason.
As you mention, it's a popular exhibit that no doubt is a big draw in bringing people to the museum, and given that the other remaining A4s in the country are all mainline operational, there's little to no point in getting it going again just for the sake of seeing it move again.
There's limited funds for restoring and overhauling locos, and they think it's better to spend those funds on rarer examples. For example, of the 7 loco's that are currently operational, 4 are the only examples left in existence, and 1 is a small tank engine that costs significantly less to keep going and is for pottering about the Shildon site.
Plus, with Flying Scotsman out and about now, and Blue Peter being restored to mainline condition, there's 5 LNER pacifics on (or soon to be back on) the rail network, making it rather superfluous for Mallard to be there. As opposed to there only being Britannia and Oliver Cromwell as BR built examples (Duke of Gloucester is still in limbo afaik). Or Duchess of Sutherland and soon Princess Elizabeth for LMS examples of pacifics.
Regarding Flying Scotsman, I've noticed that all mainline Operational locos that visit or are based there are always stabled out of sight of the main museum for whatever reason.
Yertis said:
Sort of related – can anyone explain why 9Fs are banned from the mainline? ISTR I read ages ago it was to do with flangeless centre drivers and pointwork – if this is the case, has the design of pointwork chenged in some way?
As I understand it, modern pointwork has raised checkrails (i.e. the top of the checkrail is above flush with the running rail) and it is this that causes a concern. I'm happy to be corrected though.A similar question to the above but about mallard. In the comments of the video of Mallard 'pushing and pulling', it cites one of the reasons it wouldn't run on a mainline as it needs to be lowered. Does that mean that more modern locos are lower, why would the loading gauge be lower than in the past? Or is it because if electrification wires being a bit close. Or is the guy a charge of these things is a veebub scene guy and if it's not stanced it not coming out? 
SNG is normally up at Grosmont on the NYMR. I wondered where it had gone to last time I was up there for their Flying Scotsman week.
Even all other components permitting, the boiler on Mallard would be likely to need a load of work to get it a certificate, and keeping engines in a usable condition sadly isn't part of what the NRM is there for. But if it was I suspect it would have to keep a far smaller number of engines or charge monumental entry fees.
Even all other components permitting, the boiler on Mallard would be likely to need a load of work to get it a certificate, and keeping engines in a usable condition sadly isn't part of what the NRM is there for. But if it was I suspect it would have to keep a far smaller number of engines or charge monumental entry fees.
gazzarose said:
A similar question to the above but about mallard. In the comments of the video of Mallard 'pushing and pulling', it cites one of the reasons it wouldn't run on a mainline as it needs to be lowered. Does that mean that more modern locos are lower, why would the loading gauge be lower than in the past? Or is it because if electrification wires being a bit close. Or is the guy a charge of these things is a veebub scene guy and if it's not stanced it not coming out?
I think the main reason is the overhead wires for electrification - certainly the cab, chimney and safety valve covers on the mainline King(?s) are about 2-3" lower now - But I think they still have the original parts which can be put back for "originality" if needed.....In the early days of West Coast electrification BR had quite a few classes of steam engine barred from under the wires, a white diagonal stripe was painted across the cab below the window.
http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0000...
http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0000...
W124Bob said:
In the early days of West Coast electrification BR had quite a few classes of steam engine barred from under the wires, a white diagonal stripe was painted across the cab below the window.
http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0000...
Thank you, I've learnt something there.http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0000...
Yertis said:
Sort of related – can anyone explain why 9Fs are banned from the mainline? ISTR I read ages ago it was to do with flangeless centre drivers and pointwork – if this is the case, has the design of pointwork chenged in some way?
This is correct from what I've been told by various knowledgeable people when I've asked - since 1968 there have been alterations to the allowable heights of check rails (rails used to help guide wheels through a turn), such that they may now be up to 6.5mm higher than the running rail. The problem with 9fs is the flange less centre driving wheel running higher than the rest may encourage the following 2 wheelsets to ride up on sharp curves and then drop in an incorrect position, derailing the loco.gazzarose said:
A similar question to the above but about mallard. In the comments of the video of Mallard 'pushing and pulling', it cites one of the reasons it wouldn't run on a mainline as it needs to be lowered. Does that mean that more modern locos are lower, why would the loading gauge be lower than in the past? Or is it because if electrification wires being a bit close. Or is the guy a charge of these things is a veebub scene guy and if it's not stanced it not coming out?
In addition to the electrification wires, the way the railways are now ballasted has changed as well. Due to the higher speeds trains run at on the main routes, more ballast is utilised, raising the height of the track and thus reducing the loading gauge.I think the reason is some of all the above. It would need (considerable) money spending on it to re-certify everything - and as we know with Flying Scotsman, there are always nasty surprises hidden in there. Yes there is an element of wanting to preserve what is left of the unique original, and with the number of restored locos that are fit and healthy, there is less of a need to run such a valuable machine. With the best will in the world, these locos won't last forever and a decision has to be made at some point to retire them. Better to do that while they are still in reasonable order than to run them into the ground.
Talking of Scotsman, there are several reasons it is being run so much. The primary one is that the engineering company that did so much of the work on it, did it essentially for free. The quid-pro-quo being that they got the revenue from the first so-many years of tours. Another reason is simply because they can. Making hay while the sun shines.
Talking of Scotsman, there are several reasons it is being run so much. The primary one is that the engineering company that did so much of the work on it, did it essentially for free. The quid-pro-quo being that they got the revenue from the first so-many years of tours. Another reason is simply because they can. Making hay while the sun shines.
Belgarion said:
Yertis said:
Sort of related – can anyone explain why 9Fs are banned from the mainline? ISTR I read ages ago it was to do with flangeless centre drivers and pointwork – if this is the case, has the design of pointwork chenged in some way?
This is correct from what I've been told by various knowledgeable people when I've asked - since 1968 there have been alterations to the allowable heights of check rails (rails used to help guide wheels through a turn), such that they may now be up to 6.5mm higher than the running rail. The problem with 9fs is the flange less centre driving wheel running higher than the rest may encourage the following 2 wheelsets to ride up on sharp curves and then drop in an incorrect position, derailing the loco.- not enough love for the 9F's to put one on a line like this?
- it was a freight locomotive primarily (although I can see wiki says it did run passenger services)
- its too big/heavy for the corners on most/all of these railways.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff