E1 for the IOWSR and 46447 to go on loan to ESR

Re: Tyseley Single Wheeler?? Is the Bloomer running?

Oh dear, mention something against the grain and it gets jumped on! Currently I don't have the time to sit down and carefully word a new thread on this subject and this was just what I didn't want to happen. Will I loose sleep over a Marshized E1 in IOW livery, NO but there could be far reaching consequences for the preservation movement as a whole which I want to explain my concerns over when I have time. BTW can anyone confirm that there is further information out there other than the engine will be restored to IOW livery as W2? and PLEASE remember, this is a free country, i am entitled to my own views just as you are yours. But lets not take this any further at this stage as this thread is about the Bloomer.

 

Avonside1972 In the Tyseley Single Wheeler?? Is the Bloomer running? Thread asks

"Will I loose sleep over a Marshized E1 in IOW livery, NO but there could be far reaching consequences for the preservation movement as a whole which I want to explain my concerns over when I have time. BTW can anyone confirm that there is further information out there other than the engine will be restored to IOW livery as W2?"


It will become W2 Yarmouth and will carry any of the liveries that the E1s carried on the Isle of Wight. I will do my best to supply any further information that you require. Send me a PM if you like.

 

Any news on whether she will retain her vaccuum brakes, essential for most mainline preserved lines which may wish to borrow her?

Speaking of future IOW engines, I like the sound of the new-build Beyer-Peacock tank which they were reported as planning to construct, in a past issue of Heritage Railway.

Chris

 

Hasn't this already been asked, and answered? I think the answer was that they havn't decided yet, its possible that the pipework might remain when she is restored , but blanked off ,Its fortunate that Brighton engines use the westinghouse for engine brake , so dual braking the E1 isn't impossible

 

Re: Tyseley Single Wheeler?? Is the Bloomer running?

What consequences, other than beneficial ones? Something which is of limited utility to its location or whose owner cannot afford expensive repairs is far better transferred to somewhere else where it will be of use and there are funds for its repair. Otherwise it is fated to be an addition to the "linear scrap yards" which disfigure far too many "preservation" locations.

Great credit goes both to Haven Street and Cranmore for their open mindedness.

PH

 

Re: Tyseley Single Wheeler?? Is the Bloomer running?

This deal was very sensible - we end up in due course with two locos back in action, thanks to co-operation within the preservation movement.

Anyway, both the IoWR and the ESR can expect visits to see the newly restored locos, with benefits at the booking offices!

 

It is good the loco will now be restored and used but it is perhaps a pity it will lose its own identity.

I suppose it raises the question of the meaning of authenticity. An E1 numbered W2 with a Marsh boiler will appear authentic to the railway but will be inauthentic to this locomotive. Restoring it with a Stroudley boiler and as B110 Burgundy would be authentic to the loco but would compromise the understandable aim of the railway to present it as an 'island' locomotive.

Since it is inevitable that authenticity must be compromised in some way is there no possibility of a compromise solution? If the loco was restored with a Stroudley boiler it could be given a new IOW name and number (i.e. an identity B110 might have been given if it had been sent to the island and retained a Stroudley boiler). The disadvantage of a Marsh boiler is that this particular machine never carried one. This wouldn't matter much if there were lots of them around but this happens to be the only surviving E1 and therefore has a unique history.

Whether it is restored with a Marsh or a Stroudley boiler it will always be possible, if the railway is willing, to paint it some of the time in 'mainland' liveries especially if this coincides with possible mainland visits.

 

Personally, I'd like the E1 to stay as she is, but restored to working order. She looks great in BR livery.

However, as I didn't win the lottery, it will be a matter of 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'. Either way, I look forward to seeing her in action again.

 

If you take the view that we are all custodians of our heritage for future generations rather than "owners", then the Marsh boiler doesn't upset me, even though technically it is incorrect for that specific engine. After all, E tanks were rebuilt with Marsh boilers in their original life, and there is nothing being done now that would preclude a Stroudley boiler being recreated and fitted, along with reversion to full Stroudley identity, at some point in the future - nor a new Bagnall boiler to recreate her industrial form for that matter, if some future custodian took the view that that was what was desirable. The Marsh boiler simply gives a new lease of life to an engine for the next 20, 30, 40 years.

Playing "what ifs": I think it is unlikely that 110 would ever have been sent to the Island with a Stroudley boiler. When the locos were sent, the SR naturally enough wanted them to be as standard as possible, and that meant all having the same boiler. So hypothetically, had 110 not been sold out of service to CRC but had remained in SR service, it is likely that her fate would have been (1) scrapping fairly quickly (the boiler was worn out, after all) or (2) rebuilding as an E1 with Marsh boiler. Certainly, had she been selected for the Island, that rebuilding would have happened first. So even if we are playing "what ifs", Stroudley boiler + Island identity seems an unlikely combination. I think if you want one (the Island identity), you have to have the other (a Marsh boiler).

Tom

 

One has to define what authenticity is before one can pontificate about it in a particular case.

 

Well, go on Jamie - define and then pontificate

Tom

 

The original posting now reads "hypothesise" rather than "pontificate".

PH

 

I agree. And there may be a conflict between a desire to be authentic to the history of the railway or authentic to the history of this particular locomotive.

 

That's a good point, and one that often gets forgotten. In my opinion, a "holistic" authenticity is something that the IoWSR do very well.

The other important point is what, if anything, is being lost by fitting a Marsh-pattern boiler. The history of the loco says that, if it has to have a new boiler, it should be Stroudley or Bagnall pattern. But provided nothing irreversible is being done that precludes such a boiler being recreated at some indeterminate point in the future, I don't see a problem if, for a period, it runs with a Marsh pattern boiler that is authentic for the class in general, but not that engine in particular.

Tom

 

That's odd...I wrote hypothesise, then decided it was the wrong word and went with pontificate...but somehow I've ended up back where I started!

Well, authenticity? I don't think you can define it. There are so many options, and each man will subscribe to his own:

1) The loco is authentic in whatever state you put it, as it is authentic to that point in time.
2) The loco is authentic when restored to as close to 'as-built' condition as possible, with all replacement of parts that would entail.
3) The loco is authentic the moment it comes out of non-heritage service. Any change to it after that compromises authenticity.
4) The loco is authentic if out-shopped representing a given point in its history.
4a) The loco is authentic if out-shopped representing a given point in its history, although small detail differences are acceptable.
5) The loco is authentic if out-shopped representing a given point in its class history - so for example, it is acceptable for 1501 to carry BR lined black as two of its classmates did, although 1501 itself never did.
5a) The loco is authentic if out-shopped representing a given point in its class history, so long as that is tolerably close to the actual locos condition - so for example you could turn 30777 as another Scotch Arthur, but not as a Urie Arthur.
6) The loco is authentic only so long as it retains its identity.
7) The loco is authentic only IN STEAM. ENGINES WAS BUILT FOR WORKING!!!

And that is before you start taking into account what is and isn't authentic to the setting the loco is in.

So my point is: authenticity is a subjective, ephemeral and ever-changing concept. No two people will see it in the same way. So defining something's value by its authenticity becomes a pointless exercise.

Instead, one must consider other factors. Here are a few 'back of an envelope' thoughts. Not meant to be complete by any means.

1) The locomotives historical value. Is it the Rocket, or Sans Pareil, or similar? Is it the last survivor of a class? Is it particularly representative of an unusual, even unique feature? Are there other locomotives out there that tell a similar story? What is happening to those locomotives?

2) What condition is the locomotive in? Does it need all, a majority, some or a few of its components replaced? Are the parts requiring replacement large? Historically important in themselves? Are they consumables, which you can almost write off as being of miniscule historic interest - such as a bearing, or spring?

3) What are the options for the future of the locomotive? If considered historically valuable enough for static display, is somewhere or someone prepared to finance that? Or does the locomotive face a more certain future as a runner?

4) What skills and finance can you bring to bear on the locomotive? Have you the skill and finance to hot-rivet the replacement tank? Or will you do a welded one with dummy rivets? What are the possibilities for reversing any changes you make?

These are not questions I have thought up specifically regarding the E1. They stand for all locomotives. Maybe there are some out there running which would be better off in a museum, if that were financially possible. Maybe, there are some in museums that could be run.

 

You asked for pontification, and by jingo you got it!

 

I think as parts on existing locos get increasingly worn out, there will be more and more such questions to ask, particularly when it comes to re-boilering etc?

For example, let's suppose that the Drummond T9 got to a state where the current boiler was beyond existing repair, but it could be kept running with a new boiler (just in the same way that the IoW is steadily building new boilers for its Stroudley fleet). Would it be acceptable to build a non-superheated replacement boiler, along with smokebox wing plates and firebox cross water tubes and return the T9 to its LSWR form? Aesthetically, that would probably be unpopular at the moment right now while enthusiast circles are dominated by people who want to recreate the 1950s; but who knows - maybe in twenty or thirty years time that would be a popular thing to do?

OK, a bit more radical: let's assume one of the Beattie Well Tanks needed major frame surgery to keep it running. Would it be acceptable to take off the steel buffer beams (which are modern replacements anyway) and "unrebuild" the loco to it's pre-Maunsell rebuild form, i.e. as running pre 1930s?

More radical: would you unrebuild the SECR Stirling O1 with Stirling domeless boiler and round-top cab as a Stirling O?

Even more radical: Suppose the boiler on the Dukedog was knackered but the underframes OK. Would it be OK to construct a new boiler of different form and recreate a Bulldog?

Tom

 

Not having a degree in philosophy from Oxford University, I have some difficulty in following recent posts.

However, I suppose the issue is what would the shed foreman have recommended should be done to keep the E1 as an effective member of the allocation at Ryde St Johns?

 

Personally I'm just pleased that the lads at Cranmore and the IOW are putting the money and effort into restoring these two long neglected locos. Ray.

 

The general programme for E tanks going to the Island was:

1) Fit a Marsh boiler if the loco didn't already have one
2) Fit a Drummond pattern chimney - that was just an Eastleigh thing
3) Remove vacuum brakes if it had them fitted, and leave it as air brake only (this was a cost saving measure - the salvaged components were used on other locos, since vacuum brakes would never be needed on the Island)
4) Fit injectors if it didn't already have them and remove the crosshead pumps
5) Remove condensing gear if it already had it (in conjunction with 4)
6) Any other mechanical repairs as needed
7) Fit coal rails if it didn't already have them - later on, the Ryde St John's foreman added backing plates.
8) Paint in lined olive green livery and give a number in the Island (W) series

If you applied the same logic to 110, playing the role of hypothetical Eastleigh shop foreman(*), you'd have to do 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8; and probably 3 would be most controversial with most modern enthusiasts as it would make it harder for the loco to have holidays on the mainland. But ultimately that's a decision for the IoWSR.

(*) From memory the work to refurbish the locos was done at Eastleigh, not Brighton

Tom