I think there was the flying idea the Scotsman was going to pull a train with Olympic torch onboard, but that concept was pulled because of the work needed on the Scot.
I don't recall if a sub steamer was used or what happenned, I didnt watch it all or the Olympics much anyways. Safety first, lets let the Scot get in shape properly, Olympics or no.

I recall chasing the Scot as a kid when it was running around the US years ago, I don't think I have any film shot, but I'll have to recheck.

Let the PRR Pacific guys do their job the way its needed, it may happen someday. If your in a fix, buy a model... 8-P

Anyone have or know where I could find film of the Scotsman in the US? I've looked around and I only have found one rather cruddy video on Youtube.

46115 Royal Scot, Scots Guardsman did the honours on the leg that Flying Scotsman was supposed to do. York to Shildon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1K_ciBZhhA

The torch was carried on many steam railways across the UK.

Mike Pannell

So, they couldn't use the Scotsman, so they used the Scots GUARDSman. Hahahahah

According to the coverage I read, it went back and forth. 4472 WAS slated for at least one main-line run with the Torch, then if I understand it right the "new" 60163 Tornado was scheduled in its place after the restoration delays, and then finally after some scheduling snafu 46115 ended up doing that run. It's not all that bad--as I recall 46115 had been under repair/overhaul for quite some time before this run, and having her debut in the spotlight gives her a chance to shine in a way that would have been overshadowed by yet another run with 4472 or 60163. (Imagine, say, Pere Marquette 1225, Milwaukee 261, or NKP 587 having to fill in for an expected NKP 765 at an NRHS convention.)

Well it looks as though Scotsman won't be returning until around 2015. There has been a new press release today by the National Railway Museum, link here:-

http://www.nrm.org.uk/AboutUs/PressOffi ... 08%20March

The full report is available here as a PDF, though some has been blanked for comercial reasons:-

http://www.nrm.org.uk/aboutus/~/media/F ... Report.pdf

There was also a previous report by Bob Meanley from Tyseley loco works in October 2012:-

http://www.nrm.org.uk/aboutus/~/media/F ... otsman.pdf

The main thing is that it is proposed to return in mainline condition as there have been rumours over here that it could have been stuffed and mounted due to the ever increasing costs of the overhaul.

All I can say is "Wow"

TH

Ok...I'm going to ask a curious question....Why weren't the cylinders inspected while the locomotive was in a thousand pieces a couple years ago? The boiler was off the frame then so access to the middle cylinder should not have been an issue., and the frame should have been looked at then. Not trying to start a fight, just want some answers...

In spite of the allegation that the loco was "in a thousand pieces" a couple of years ago, that still doesn't mean they either had the boiler off or that the centre cylinder was in a position to be inspected. Remember that a three-cylinder loco is still a lot more complicated than a two-cylinder one, with internal rods running a cranked centre axle.

And with any loco like this, you still only need one "oops" of a lubricator running dry, a loco towed improperly, etc. for some damage or improper wear to occur. We've had a couple steamers stateside more or less "permanently" sidelined by such mistakes.

That is no allegation. I was in York at the Museum where she was being worked on and she was literally in a thousand pieces. The only thing to let a layman know there was a locomotive in there was her name badge.

Sandy,

I'm pretty sure her boiler was off when she was in the NRM workshops. I need to dig through my issues of Steam Railway to see.

Granted, it's not an easy issue to spot, but I find it hard to believe they didn't measure the cylinders.

This isn't only technical, there's management strategies at work here too.......

I have so special knowledge, but I have seen project definitions change when projections demonstrate a finaicial or logistical convenience for doing more intensive repairs than are absolutely required by condemning limits being closely approached......this could be one of those cases. I've also seen different very competent people develop different scopes of work based in their individual ideas about priorities. I'm not going to second guess them here; something in their project-management mind has clearly been changed in favor of taking a more intensive approach right now. That will only bode well for the future robustness and reliability in the long term operating phase to come.

Best wishes to them.

Dave