Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by D6332found, Oct 9, 2017.
That's concerning. So which GWR tanks handle the smoothest?
As I recall 0-6-2Ts and 2-8-0Ts are the main offenders, not noticed it on anything else.
I know some lines ban these types from their dining trains due to concerns over folk spilling food and drink.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Very much concur with that. A facsimilie GW County, 47xx, Saint etc whilst being huge tribute to the determination of the few really are vanity projects in my view. The donors could have been restored with a fraction of the resources in most cases and very usefully with several examples. The hybrids mentioned to me have very little value compared to most of the sacrificed locos.
but it's down to the time and money the people doing it want to spend. It isn't up to us to criticise, it's their ball, they call the game. (PS Tornado would be the biggest vanity project of them all I imagine?)
Except that the A1 Trust didn't butcher any existing locos to create a Frankenstein's monster-esque approximation of an A1
Not denigrating their efforts and I respect their freedom to choose, it is simply regrettable to me, that is all. Virtually every railway project is a collective of personal indulgence and nothing wrong with that. I am just saddened that certain aspirations, despite being commendably ambitious, had destructive origins within the context of an otherwise conservation orientated pursuit.
at the end of theday, all they have destroyed is a number, an identity.The GWR locos are a collection of standard parts any one of which on any number of the preserved locos may have done previous service on another loco.
I do think Didcot has scored an own goal though having the 2-8-0T destined to provide parts for other rebuilds on display, although I guess Maindy Hall was similarly present under it's own id for many years.
( I have to admit I'm not entirely comfortable about the 8F being a donor for a GWR replica).
Actually Wales retained several different locomotives thanks to the GWR flogging them off for standardisation. The Taff Vale 0-6-2Ts would not have survived the 1950s with BR. I've listed others in another thread.
Wouldn't it be better to blame all the people who chose to restore different 8Fs and left that one to rot?
Hang on a moment. Wanting to recreate a County is 'completism', but wanting a complete set of 8Fs from Crewe, Ashford, Swindon, Glasgow and Doncaster isn't? So the differences between Crewe and Doncaster 8Fs are more significant than the differences between a Manor and a Grange? I understand and agree with the 'preservation v replica' argument, but accusing the GWR replica builders of completism is just anti-Swindon bias.
And here we go again, peoples comments would warrant more consideration if they also spent as much energy and condemned the vultures who then stripped the carcass of the 8F after the boiler (which was eminently replaceable if someone so chose to restore it and I suspect was not even LNER built which is apparently why she was so important to many, thus making the frames the significant bit) was removed and then scrapped the unique frames? I would be jolly interested to hear peoples thoughts regarding 44901, where the boiler has also been departed from the locomotive, strangely people have been jolly quiet about that?
I assume that the odds to which you refer regarding 48518 surviving against are the period of c. 40 years it was at Barry and no one showed an interest in restoring it.
Crappy things happen, I am not exactly over the moon that my nominally favourite 28 (2873) has lost her boiler and thus is highly unlikely to steam again, thankfully in her case no one has taken the opportunity to strip her carcass clean to date so you never know.
Rest assured the fact that this debate gets raised time and time again has very little to do with the 8F.
28xx and 38xx can also be a bit lively from the front carriage if driven vigorously.....
In the spirit of things, there's nothing wrong with the goal: having a working example of every type and class of engine from a big railway company.
It's the method, the destruction of existing locos, some with unique irreplaceable attributes... that stinks.
You wouldn't scrap a Castle to recreate The Great Bear, would you?
It's the same "butchering problem" the Blaenavon boys are getting with 57xx 9629. Her parts were all taken off her for other pannier builds. Rather thoughtlessly too, as certain components never got even used. They were kept as unwanted spares. The process of buying/trading for those back, has delayed her restoration considerably.
I will say again, what were the irreplaceable attributes of the 8F, the frames which were potential the only surviving Doncaster element after 20 odd years service were scrapped long after the GWS had any involvement and away from the Vale of Glamorgan/Barry so possibly your ire should be directed at those who scrapped the frames?
As you could not find an unrestored castle with no one showing a jot of interest in restoring it, its rather an irrelevant question.
As did 99% of all Barry rescues post about 1970 as they were stripped by other groups whilst on site at Barry (hence every locomotive being covered in paint signs saying please don't remove parts). If we are going to berate all groups that have stripped parts from other locomotives there is going to be a hell of a lot of navel gazing going on.
I wasn't aware of this. What a shame.
Hardly the same thing though, is it? In 1970 those locos were in a scrapyard, and there for a very specific purpose. At any one time a number of these locos would be subject to preservation bids, but not all; it was not unreasonably assumed that these engines would all be cut up in the course of time. During my years at Barry, there was constant fear - and rumour - that 'Dai will start cutting next week / month / whatever,' but the fact that this would not actually happen was not apparent at the time. And there was little point allowing what were then thought to be irreplaceable components to go into the melting cauldron along with a loco which was not going to be saved anyway. Parts were taken from unreserved locos, but not - generally, there were some unscrupulous people - from locos in which a group had declared an interest. This is not the same situation as that discussed here: a loco that had been saved and was then forfeited for the benefit of a different one.
Some more details including a link to a photo of the frames of the 8F in this thread. https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/the-barry-10-or-6-in-this-instance.34429/
Suggests that the Boiler went to County Project. Wheels to (4)8624. Brake gear + Pony Wheel + Axleboxes to Patriot. Cylinders to Ian Riley?
Also notes that the black 5 was/is to be restored using a boiler from Turkey, could that boiler not have been used on this 8F and the one for the 5 left with that locomotive?
It's still a bit sad that the only product of Doncaster to reach Barry should have met the fate it has. I'm told all the parts on it had LNER stamped or cast into them.
Concerning 48518 I think we need to go back to the heyday of Barry when loco's other than one offs were chosen for their condition or were favourites of their purchaser.
IIRC there were five 8f's of which four were purchased over the years.
At some point all the remaining loco's were examined by BSLAG? and rated on condition. Still it remained, unloved and unwanted until it became part of the Barry 10, the absolute dregs of the yard.
I don't know what happened with my previous post,but to continue this discussion, it is interesting to note that when 61264 was purchased from Barry, much was made of it being the only LNER product to reach the yard, but when the railway Press pointed out the fact that the 8f was a Doncaster product, the interest from LNER groups was underwhelming to say the least. It appears that no-one was interested until it was gone.
Potential restores had over 45 years opportunity to purchase so can hardly complain now.
Separate names with a comma.