7027 Thornbury Castle

The Grange and County 4-4-0 are independent groups-nothing to do with the GWS (although the County did 'spin out' from the GWS)

 

That would be true if the boiler only needed repair. If most of the boiler needed to be replaced (as it has been for the County project), how much additional cost and paperwork would have been needed to replace all of it to (as near as possible) the same design for the 8f?

 

Nothing against 8Fs at all, quite the opposite but we have to be realistic, we have a number of 8Fs already and the chances of 8518 ever being restored were slim but there is a whole one with a unique service history stuffed and mounted, 48773

 

That’s ridiculous, not what I was saying at all

 

If the boiler had stayed on the 8F and the loco restored, then it would have been a straightforward restoration like the 100 odd Barry locos before it. It wouldn't matter (apart from cost!), how much needed to be replaced, as long as some original material was kept then grandfather rights would apply.
The GWS could then have done things properly and got the various approvals to build a 280/250psi boiler, I doubt it would've cost them very much more with all the reworking they've had to do to the 8F boiler

 

Doesn't every loco have a unique service history? There's no reason to think that a group of people interested in restoring 8518 would move on to 48773 if the former was cut up.
You don't know that the chances were slim as it was never offered for sale. 48173 languished for a long time but is now being actively restored.
I don't understand the attitude of "we've already got a few of these preserved, let's chop up any other examples" What's wrong with keeping them for the future or as static exhibits. Once it's gone it's gone forever.

 

..... but you wouldn't make the new firebox/wrapper the "same" as the 8F. The 8F boiler was stayed for 225psi whilst the County's was for 280psi (later reduced to 250) and herein lies the weakness in 1014 - its WP will still only be 225. IMO using the already well worn 8F boiler parts was false economy. Sorry if it offends anyone but 1014 will only ever be an impotent pastiche of a County.
Ray.

 

The sorry tale of 44901 springs to mind.
They go to a gala, raise a few pounds, but not a few £100000.
People used to but these hulks for scrap, and then spend a fortune of time and money. Now they wany£250000 for a hulk and finite limits of enthusiasm have been reached.

 

another one which will probably end up in the parts bin

 

Except that in this case your main argument for its preservation rest on its origin. Also, now you are claiming that certain aspects of its identity are certain not to have changed...

 

Do grandfather rights really apply if you replace nearly all of a boiler? If so, why not if you replace the whole of it with new material but keeping the same design?

You have misunderstood me. My query about the respective costs of replacing most of the boiler or building a completely new one to the same design was for the putative restoration of the 8f. I agree with you about the 225 psi "County".

 

Yes, the current situation is that if you keep any pressure bearing part of a boiler, it's a rebuild not a new build.
Anything used for a pressure bearing part of new build boiler must have a material certificate from the original steel mill. I (and others) have had this out with the inspection authority which does most of the new build certification for the heritage market - you can't get a sample of the existing material lab tested, it's got to be a mill certificate.

We then said something along the lines of "so if we've got old bits included, and you won't let us use them as part of a new boiler, it's got to be a rebuild of an old one" and they reluctantly agreed that therefore it is.

If you don't have any old bits, then it is a new boiler, and must be UKCA marked. This isn't by any means impossible, but it's quite a lot of work (you've got to do a full set of design drawings and calculations) and effectively ties you to working with one (notoriously hard to work with) notified body for the inspections.

I generally encourage clients to think very carefully about their existing boiler and consider if they really need a new one when they ask me about it!

 

Sorry John but just because it’s not your beloved 35028 or 45596, it does not mean a loco isn’t worthy of preservation in one form or another. Using the “it’s just another (insert loco class of choice)” to justify breaking up a loco would condemn many locos to the scrap yard.

 

Isn't there a percentage figure that classes the boiler as a repaired boiler?

 

Incidentally although not counted in their locomotive stock as one of their own O6s, the LNER did report on their building and they were ALL classified internally as class O6.

No, and with respect I’m not going to respond further to someone clearly angling for an argument on the internet. Go back and read my contributions to the thread and have a rethink.

 

.......................and the irony of Bullied worship when .....remind me just how many of these are still around despite their patent unsuitability for 25mph operations.

 

I think you should be careful about insinuating that others are guilty of making petty or trivialising arguments. I give this one in evidence:

"a Doncaster built 8F, even if not original to its Doncaster building, will still have some unique features (look at the running plates and riveting for example)" Rivet counting ad absurdum? What would it tell us about Doncaster practices compared to those of other builders?

 

Personally I'm not bothered about which works built it, it's an 8F, one of my favourite locos, which did the work which paid the railways bills

 

That’s literally the point I have been making. What can [could] it tell us?

Different techniques at different works, different applications of works procedures, maybe entirely different approaches to the same problem on the same design and appreciating the how and why.

It’s not trivial to suggest that we can learn something from comparative studies of the same locomotives built at different works by different railway companies. It’s entirely the point of the exercise, what can we learn from it and how can we curate it?

Honestly, the “gotcha” line of attack is thoroughly wearying!

 

There was, but that was in the era when you could salvage the good bits from the old one and fit them to a new boiler.
Since (comparatively recently - the rules on what's allowed for new build boilers get ever tighter) it's become impossible to use old bits on a new boiler, the ruling has become "if there are old bits, it's an old boiler".
I'm not sure what happens if you use bits of one existing boiler to create two rebuilds both using parts of the old one, other than that the inspection authority's head explodes...