Is a real Bulldog possible ?

I have been toying with this concept for several years in a typical "armchair enthusiast" sort of way and would really like some more knowledgeable input to put my mind at rest ! Very recently someone mentioned this in passing and helpfully added that the Dukedog was originally Bulldog number 3427 . Would it be a major exercise to "restore" this locomotive with a borrowed Standard 2 boiler ? If this is at all feasible I have in mind perhaps using the so-far unrestored boiler from say 5668 for 10 years before recertifying it again and handing it back to the owner . During the latter part of the Bulldog's certificate the Dukedog boiler might be overhauled to return it to a Dukedog . I am sure the engineering is not that simple but the thought occurs to me that the Bluebell might find it useful to have a Bulldog ( with a little more T.E and adhesive weight ) over its extended line . It's just that this would not be a new build , it would be a genuine Bulldog , something I have never seen. Did 3427 have a name ? If not , what should it be called ?
Any help would be appreciated.

 

See http://www.national-preservation.com/threads/bluebell-motive-power.33437/page-17#post-540633

Tom

 

Anythings possible with enough £££, time and swearing, is it worthwhile is another matter entirely, personally I don't see the need for what's effectively a small wheeled City of Truro.

If you were desperate for a double framer, I'd suggest an Aberdare 2-6-0 would have more merit.

 

It's great that there will be a Duke and a Bulldog operating soon but what about the very last surviving Dukedog? It will be lost forever. If there were more than one of these in preservation then I would be very happy about this move but with only one? Not so sure :/

You got me, it was April the 1st. Hahaha.

 

Thanks Tom for that , I wasn't aware of the spoof , it does also cast doubt on the identity of the Bulldog frames ! However " Many a true word has been said in jest " so I still would be interested in the practicalities of this Bulldog resurrection . On the face of it the chassis exists , currently awaiting overhaul and there appear to be more unrestored Standard 2 boilers than I first thought . Very few completely new components would appear to be necessary and the transformation could be reversed at any time in the future so nothing is "lost" . Are there any other chances of a missing much loved class of engine being resurrected in this way ?

 

ugly is as ugly does, and I'm sure they were a fine loco in it's day. However , that's a red herring. There is no pressing reason why the dukedog shouldn't be rebuilt to original as far as I can see.

 

Except perhaps the owners are quite happy with the loco in its current form and see no pressing reason for change?

Tom

 

..and to be fair, anyone really wanting a new standard gauge double-framer would be investigating the cost of building one from scratch, but perhaps using an existing boiler - this is certainly the trend at the moment. If I had the money, I'd be providing free accommodation for all the discarded loco frames, wheels, cylinders etc to safeguard them for the future. I'm all for rebuilds (particularly ex-GWR, thanks to standardisation) but I worry about all the leftover bits. Oh, and I still want to resurrect 3612, but that's just my dream. Meanwhile I'll keep paying a tenner a month towards Betton Grange

 

Here, here. There's enough cut and shut going on in the GWR world without adding another to the seemingly endless list of "Frankenstein locos."

 

But this would be removing one from the list of "Frankenstein locos", not adding to it...

I wonder how much more it would cost to build a new Dukedog boiler (20 boilers to a slightly revised design were built for the Dukedogs 1938-48 and I *guess* that 9017 will now have one of those) than it would to restore a derelict Std 2 boiler and do all the extra pipework and all the other new components that would be necessary? Incidentally RCTS states that the new boilers were designed to work at 200psi, even though they were never fitted with safety valves to work at that pressure, so that would be one way to get a little power increment!

Tom, I don't think there's any great doubt about the identity of the frames 9017 carries: I think you'll find that two numbers are listed in the thread because the Bulldogs and Dukes were renumbered in 1908.

 

While any conversion might well be reversible, why would you want to lose the sole surviving Dukedog ?, all the other "cut n shuts" use components from classes that have a number of examples in preservation, 9017 should be left well alone on the basis it's not another Prairie or Hall.

 

because the original loco is more important than the later conversion perhaps? Simply on the basis of number of units built that is the case without pointing to the shortage of pre-Churchward locos. If it is a given that the chassis could be used with either boiler, then were it mine, I would quite like to have both configurations available in ten-yearly periods.

 

this +1

 

Just swapping one for another. If you want to butcher another loco then go ahead but I think you may have to purchase 9017 from her current owners first. Perhaps having the guts to start from scratch as per the A1, Patriot, Clan groups etc. would be a good idea or maybe even finishing the Saint first.

 

but we aren't talking about a new loco, we are talking about restoring a loco to it's original condition.

 

Not for sale, as per the bequest that saw her come to the Bluebell in the first place!

Tom

 

Why? Companies did conversions and rebuilds all the time - are the rebuilds somehow less important than the original locos? The rebuilds actually tell an important story about how the original railway companies recycled components to reflect changing operating conditions.There was a similar attitude held by the BTC in the 1950s / 1960s that saw several historic locos scrapped because somehow they weren't "original" (A Stirling B1 for starters, but there were others).

If originality is important, I suppose we can rebuild all the Terriers with new Stroudley boilers (and junk the extended IoW bunkers some of them carry) - oh, and take away the brakes and add wooden brake shoes; replace No 65's Wainwright boiler and cab with an absolute dog of a Stirling domeless boiler and round-top cab; rebuild the MHR U boat as a K class tank engine - the list goes on.

Tom

 

Quite. Is returning 9017 to her original boiler really that different to returning 6023 to her original configuration with the single chimney, or restreamlining the Duchess, or even rebuilding a Terrier back to A1 specification?
Personally I'm not advocating rebuilding 9017 as a Bulldog, I'm just highlighting the inconsistencies in the argument. With the maintenance methods Swindon used every preserved GWR locomotive is a "Frankenstein" to a greater or lesser extent, and I can identify at least 9 preserved GWR engines that were substantially built from parts obtained when other locos were scrapped before their time. 9017 is the best/worst example, being an amalgam of two parts donors.

If originality *is* important, then there's no argument against rebuilding the Dukedog with her original boiler design. If originality *is not* important, then there's no argument against 6880 and the other "kit of parts" rebuilds. If you don't like "Frankenstein" rebuilds then logically you must hate 9017, which is one of the best/worst examples.

The strongest argument against rebuilding 9017* as a Bulldog is surely that as a Dukedog she has been part of the Bluebell scene almost from the very beginning and it would be a crying shame to lose that preservation history, but that's got nothing to do with historical authenticity or anything else, its just an emotional argument.

*other of course than the clincher - the owners don't want to

 

And long may she stay at the Bluebell in her current form.