XH558 gone tech
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Let's hope some of the moaners on here don't get quite as obsessed as some railway "fans".
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Pete Waterman owned Flying Scotsman he had it repainted from LNER green to BR Green - because that is how he remembered it running in revenue service.
He started to get death threats demaning he repaint it back. As a result - he sold it
He started to get death threats demaning he repaint it back. As a result - he sold it
He never owned 'Scotsman' but bought a share in it when McAlpine owned it to help him out. But he got out when he realised he couldn't do what needed to be done with the engine because Bill had promised there'd be no major changes. Which is a bit daft when you consider there isn't so much a single rivet remaining on 4472 that originates from when the engine was built.
He went on to say, when asked if he wished he owned it now:
"I tell you what. If I owned 'Scotsman' I'd do whatever needed to be done to the engine to make it good for a century, just like I did with the Super 'D'. My engine! My money! My restoration! A proper job! All these 'you can't change that because it's original' moaners would cut no ice at all with me."
Well, that's how he told it in a number of TV interviews at the time - and since.
And a quick search has just found this:-
What shade of green should the Flying Scotsman be painted in? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers
And a quick search has just found this:-
Waterman definitely owned it, I was watching a program just the other day with him talking about the hate mail he got for repainting Scotsman into BR green.
Last edited by Groundloop; 5th Sep 2013 at 14:48.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I say, he only ever part-owned it with Sir Robert McAlpine:
Who owned Flying Scotsman?
Built in 1923 for the London and North Eastern Railway, Flying Scotsman was by 1963 irrelevant to a modernising British Railways. The engine was sold to businessman Alan Pegler and then flew the flag for a rapidly disappearing age of steam before going to America to promote British exports.
In 1973 William McAlpine (later Sir William McAlpine) bought the engine and it returned to run tours in Britain, as well going on a tour of Australia in 1988-89.
In 1993 McAlpine combined forces with pop impresario Pete Waterman, who reportedly once said: ‘Any locomotive which has sufficient charisma that you can sell pieces of coal off the tender at two quid a time, has got to have something going for it.’ In 1996 the locomotive was sold to millionaire Tony Marchington, who by 1999 had returned it to main-line running.
In 2001 the engine was turned over to a public company, however their proposed ‘Flying Scotsman World’ never happened and by 2004 the engine was again for sale. This time a public appeal to purchase Flying Scotsman for the National Collection was successful and the aged star was ‘saved for the nation’.
And from the National Railway Museum's website:
Flying Scotsman was still famous, and was bought by railway preservationist Alan Pegler. He restored her to 1930s condition, and famously took it on a tour of the United States, for which it was fitted with a bell, headlamp and cowcatcher.
Financial issues meant that Pegler had to sell the engine to British businessman William McAlpine. Flying Scotsman came home and was repaired, and in 1988-9 it toured Australia, where at one point it recorded the longest ever non-stop run by a steam locomotive, travelling 422 miles.
By 1995, it was part-owned by record producer Pete Waterman, and was once more being overhauled. It was sold again to businessman Tony Marchington in 1996. Tony continued to run it on mainline railtours – but due to the high cost, it was back on sale a few years later.
Who owned Flying Scotsman?
Built in 1923 for the London and North Eastern Railway, Flying Scotsman was by 1963 irrelevant to a modernising British Railways. The engine was sold to businessman Alan Pegler and then flew the flag for a rapidly disappearing age of steam before going to America to promote British exports.
In 1973 William McAlpine (later Sir William McAlpine) bought the engine and it returned to run tours in Britain, as well going on a tour of Australia in 1988-89.
In 1993 McAlpine combined forces with pop impresario Pete Waterman, who reportedly once said: ‘Any locomotive which has sufficient charisma that you can sell pieces of coal off the tender at two quid a time, has got to have something going for it.’ In 1996 the locomotive was sold to millionaire Tony Marchington, who by 1999 had returned it to main-line running.
In 2001 the engine was turned over to a public company, however their proposed ‘Flying Scotsman World’ never happened and by 2004 the engine was again for sale. This time a public appeal to purchase Flying Scotsman for the National Collection was successful and the aged star was ‘saved for the nation’.
And from the National Railway Museum's website:
Flying Scotsman was still famous, and was bought by railway preservationist Alan Pegler. He restored her to 1930s condition, and famously took it on a tour of the United States, for which it was fitted with a bell, headlamp and cowcatcher.
Financial issues meant that Pegler had to sell the engine to British businessman William McAlpine. Flying Scotsman came home and was repaired, and in 1988-9 it toured Australia, where at one point it recorded the longest ever non-stop run by a steam locomotive, travelling 422 miles.
By 1995, it was part-owned by record producer Pete Waterman, and was once more being overhauled. It was sold again to businessman Tony Marchington in 1996. Tony continued to run it on mainline railtours – but due to the high cost, it was back on sale a few years later.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 5th Sep 2013 at 15:26.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite interesting to read the surprisingly pejorative terms being expressed by the protagonists of non-authentic aircraft finishes. I think I've spotted an interesting trait here 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite interesting to read the surprisingly pejorative terms being expressed by the protagonists of non-authentic aircraft finishes. I think I've spotted an interesting trait here
And no-one has used any 'pejorative terms' as far as I can see. Perhaps it's time they did as patience has its limits?
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 5th Sep 2013 at 18:27.
He started to get death threats demaning he repaint it back. As a result - he sold it.
Pete's not short of an opinion or two.(which makes him very entertaining company), so I find it surprising the death threats he received and were the reason for selling the locomotive, (apparently
), didn't come up in the discussions around his kitchen table he has with a group of like minded mates on many a Sunday. He (L&NWR) bought 50% of flying Scotsman Enterprises, an organisation at the time which ran all the BR steam specials. The engine was part of that 'package'.
You don't have to look far to find similar levels of 'muppetry' amongst the aviation enthusiast community either, its probably a 'bloke' thing.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And no-one has used any 'pejorative terms' as far as I can see. Perhaps it's time they did as patience has its limits?
Then perhaps you might invest a little more time in actually reading, instead of making fatuous comments? Patience? from whom? Have you actually looked what you've written?
Then perhaps you might invest a little more time in actually reading, instead of making fatuous comments? Patience? from whom? Have you actually looked what you've written?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
These allegedly pejorative terms..... Probably just dimwitted Joe Public again.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These allegedly pejorative terms..... Probably just dimwitted Joe Public again.
instead of making fatuous comments
WH904, I am sorry that you are too stupid to understand well argued points. Bye.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 5th Sep 2013 at 19:11.
I've just wasted ten minutes of my life trying to establish if the Vulcan might be serviceable for Leuchars (the only chance I'd ever get to see her) and I find myself reading arguments about railway engines. Sort yourselves out ! 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree wub, it's quite funny how "thread creep" takes hold. As you can see, a discussion leads to an argument, which is fine. Then people get childish (well, some do) and despite the posts carrying on, nobody actually says anything. Seems to be a common problem with forum discussions. Anyway take heart, I suspect XH558 will be back next year
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wub, don't fret.
The sidestep into railway land was introduced by a poster (not me) as a relevant parallel comparison to certain beardy individuals who don't contibute to running a heritage railway (or contribute to operating a heritage aeroplane) but who think it's fine to castigate those who do dig very deeply into their pockets so to do, but fail to follow beardy ideals in colour schemes, Thomas faces etc.
If said beardys put their money where their mouths are and got stuck in and operated or financed a railway / aeroplane, their views might have some relevance.
Back to XH 558.
The sidestep into railway land was introduced by a poster (not me) as a relevant parallel comparison to certain beardy individuals who don't contibute to running a heritage railway (or contribute to operating a heritage aeroplane) but who think it's fine to castigate those who do dig very deeply into their pockets so to do, but fail to follow beardy ideals in colour schemes, Thomas faces etc.
If said beardys put their money where their mouths are and got stuck in and operated or financed a railway / aeroplane, their views might have some relevance.
Back to XH 558.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 5th Sep 2013 at 21:35.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I can just steer the conversation away from planes, trains and paintschemes for a minute, a bit more news has emerged about the fuel leak in today's newsletter.
I'm doubtful that they'll make Southport and Dublin next weekend, I just suppose it depends how quickly they can get the bag fixed, returned and tested, but it'll be a close run thing that's for sure.
The rest of the newsletter goes on to state the current deficit in funding of £180,000 that needs to be made up by October 31st and on top of that a further £171,000 needs to be pledged by that time also to give them confidence to go ahead with the wing modifications.
That's a very tall order, even if they are able to fulfil the last remaining displays. I'm thinking Bruntinghthorpe or Elvington might have a shiny new Vulcan in their Christmas windsock at this rate.
Earlier this week, with further investigation, we traced the fuel leak seen on Sunday to No.5 Tank Starboard, not as indicated by the leak as being from No.7 Tank - the leaking fuel was tracking back in the aircraft’s structure and emerging under No.7 Tank.
We are currently getting ready to inspect No. 5 Tank fully, having drained and vented it, to assess the size of the problem. The tank will then be removed and sent to FPT Industries for further investigation and possible repair or remanufacture.
We don’t have a date for when the aircraft will be likely to be serviceable but we will update you just as soon as the engineers and OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) feedback the information.
We are currently getting ready to inspect No. 5 Tank fully, having drained and vented it, to assess the size of the problem. The tank will then be removed and sent to FPT Industries for further investigation and possible repair or remanufacture.
We don’t have a date for when the aircraft will be likely to be serviceable but we will update you just as soon as the engineers and OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) feedback the information.
I'm doubtful that they'll make Southport and Dublin next weekend, I just suppose it depends how quickly they can get the bag fixed, returned and tested, but it'll be a close run thing that's for sure.
The rest of the newsletter goes on to state the current deficit in funding of £180,000 that needs to be made up by October 31st and on top of that a further £171,000 needs to be pledged by that time also to give them confidence to go ahead with the wing modifications.
That's a very tall order, even if they are able to fulfil the last remaining displays. I'm thinking Bruntinghthorpe or Elvington might have a shiny new Vulcan in their Christmas windsock at this rate.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can never be too sure with the Vulcan people. They're very guarded about their true status, so I wouldn't be surprised if, at the last minute, they announce that they have enough money to scrape by. I'm not even sure what to think about the remaining display slots. On the one hand, it might be preferable to end the season now and strive to start afresh next year but on the other hand, maybe they think there's some value in being seen back in the air again before the winter. We'll just have to wait and see.
As far as one can determine, I assume the long-term plan is still to keep the Vulcan at Finningley when the flying does stop. I haven't seen any indication that any other museum or airfield has any interest in taking XH558 and I think the HLF has some impact in establishing the "educational facility" as promised. Personally I've never been a fan of the idea that XH558 will stay at Finningley though. Much as I have great affection for Finningley (I've spent so much time there), I can't see how the Vulcan would sustain enough interest if it is just sat in a hangar. The costs of maintaining a facility to display just one aircraft must be outweighed by the (small) numbers of people who would go to look. Their plans to acquire other aircraft have gone quiet (I never imagined they would get anything else to be honest) so I just can't see how Finningley would be a secure long-term home, given that it would surely not be accommodated there for free.
Duxford already have a Vulcan, and based on their track record, they'd doubtless dispose of one of the pair eventually, if they took XH558. Cosford have one (and they're no better when it comes to dumping aircraft they take a dislike to), so it does leave places like Elvington and Bruntingthorpe. It would be a tragedy if XH558 was left to rust outside, but I can't quite see where else it could go. I suppose that the latter venues could at least enable the aircraft to move under its own power, so maybe that's better than nothing.
I suppose the best outcome (not that I imagine it would happen) would be if the airport terminal at Doncaster could be revised to allow XH558 to go on display inside their facility. What a great exhibit that would be, reminding visitors of Finningley's illustrious past. I fear however, that XH558's long-term future will be rather less spectacular than that, though
As far as one can determine, I assume the long-term plan is still to keep the Vulcan at Finningley when the flying does stop. I haven't seen any indication that any other museum or airfield has any interest in taking XH558 and I think the HLF has some impact in establishing the "educational facility" as promised. Personally I've never been a fan of the idea that XH558 will stay at Finningley though. Much as I have great affection for Finningley (I've spent so much time there), I can't see how the Vulcan would sustain enough interest if it is just sat in a hangar. The costs of maintaining a facility to display just one aircraft must be outweighed by the (small) numbers of people who would go to look. Their plans to acquire other aircraft have gone quiet (I never imagined they would get anything else to be honest) so I just can't see how Finningley would be a secure long-term home, given that it would surely not be accommodated there for free.
Duxford already have a Vulcan, and based on their track record, they'd doubtless dispose of one of the pair eventually, if they took XH558. Cosford have one (and they're no better when it comes to dumping aircraft they take a dislike to), so it does leave places like Elvington and Bruntingthorpe. It would be a tragedy if XH558 was left to rust outside, but I can't quite see where else it could go. I suppose that the latter venues could at least enable the aircraft to move under its own power, so maybe that's better than nothing.
I suppose the best outcome (not that I imagine it would happen) would be if the airport terminal at Doncaster could be revised to allow XH558 to go on display inside their facility. What a great exhibit that would be, reminding visitors of Finningley's illustrious past. I fear however, that XH558's long-term future will be rather less spectacular than that, though
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an update on the fuel leak on their site. Apparently there are several leaks and they have decided to commission a new tank. The lead time is 16 weeks. So no further flying this season.
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/5...TANT-NEWS.html
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/5...TANT-NEWS.html