Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Davo, Mar 22, 2019.
Sorry, no savvy. Explanation please!
It has been pointed out previously (in some other thread) that providing GA with a new cylinder block would allow the original block (which is historically significant) to be displayed for all to see.
Which is what I always thought was a good idea if it opens the possibility of a working future.
Yes I'm an LNER fan of course but support the LMS society more seen as though they have most amount of locos for mainline use. I'm a W. Yorkie lad where L.M.S. and L.N.E.R. runs through.
Since the NRM is a public sector organisation, they have to follow the relevant procurement rules. So it isn't a question of "see if Riley agrees to act as a custodian", but rather, hold a formal procurement exercise, against which that company (or any other) may choose to bid. You are looking at an overhaul contract that could run to 7 figures and a separate operating contract that, depending how it is framed, could well be similar over the lifetime in service.
New cylinders might not be required if the old ones are repairable. @Anthony Coulls has said in the past, on NP, the NRM may be open to either possibility but it can only be determined when the loco is dismantled and surveyed.
I think the reference is towards 60854 which was fitted with a copper capped chimney at Doncaster by a Swindon trained CME.
Was sent to Swindon about 1953 for sorting out the draughting which had been impaired with the fitting of screens as part of the self-cleaning smokebox equipment. I've got a photo of it blasting past Swindon Works in A. C. Durrant's book with 20-odd coaches in tow.
Which is where the copper capped chimney was fitted. It didn't last long after it returned to the Eastern!
could have been worse, imagine if the banjo dome had been given a brass cover also
Are you sure that's the case? Cook says he had one fitted, but doesn't state it was done at Swindon. It was removed on orders from the Kremlin (Riddles' office at Marylebone Rd) . Cook was NE & E CME at the time, and I'm sure Doncaster were well capable of making their own copper cap.
Correct, copper cap fitted at Doncaster during K. J. Cook's tenure there.
That's a new one to me! I knew of the Swindon fitment, but I'm surprised there wasn't a Down Tools at Doncaster!
Yes, but...! The NRM has declared in the past that, because it is a museum rather than a heritage railways, it wants to maintain its engines as authentically as possible. That means that, even where they decide to replace parts to keep an engine running, ideally they would like those parts to be replaced using historically-correct materials and methods. I am not saying they wouldn't consider making an exception for Green Arrow, but it is something to bear in mind.
It would be lovely to see 4771 in steam again but I think that the plan is equally interesting for the locos it does not mention! No Duchess of Hamilton or City of Truro, for example, even though they are both engines with a long history of being in steam. Nor the Midland Compound, though I remember Andrew Scott and Richard Gibbon, about 15 years ago, hinting that they would be happy to see her run again. Nice to see 1247 on the list though!
I wonder if the best situation for 4771 would be under the custodianship of the A1SLT. Admittedly their focus is on new builds, but there was a brief period where Mayflower was going to be under their custody (though that fell through), and it would fit with their proposed stable of locomotives. V2 and V4 double header anyone? As they look to set up their own base, a reasonable sized fleet is important if they plan to run regular services with their new carriage take etc. Maybe it's one too many things on their plate, but the idea of Darlington running essentially and LNER hub in the way Tysley has specialised (with some exceptions) in GWR is certainly very appealing!
The A1 Trust is no Tyseley and no I don’t think that’s a good idea at all.
Perhaps you're right - and it's certainly true that Tysley is an outfit with more years experience and certainly working on a larger scale than the A1 trust. Obviously Tysley are a TOC now, whereas the A1SLT don't (at least for now) harbour such ambitions. I'd certainly like to hear your thoughts as to why not though!
They're certainly no Tysley... yet, but then Tysley had to start somewhere, and the A1SLT certainly have ambitions to operate their own main line hub - perhaps not as grand or expansive as Tysley but of a similar ilk at least.
Let me add that I have zero connection with either organisation, positive or negative and am merely an armchair recent graduate who has very limited disposable income to contribute to either. I have great respect for Tysley wouldn't want to "bash" them at all.
To my mind the A1 trust has three significant advantages.
1. They have an excellent ability to raise money fast. Green Arrow wouldn't be a cheap job to get running, and I cannot think of any quicker way outside of a wealthy donor of getting her back in steam.
2. They have a good knowledge of creating new parts. That monobloc either needs replacing like for like or a new solution (3 cylinders as per other V2s perhaps?). Either way, by 2021 they are likely to be the world leaders on monobloc design and creation given 2007's completion date. They may have valuable input re casting vs fabrication, although this may obviously be advice they could give to another organisation if someone else managed the loco.
3. As an 'LNER organisation' they are likely to have a greater commonality of parts etc which should make overhauls cheaper and faster. For example in repair of Tornado after its latest hiccup I believe a part was borrowed from 2007. The V2 would only help add to this parts pool.
Again, happy to hear other thoughts and opinions. Perhaps in a little more detail though! This is all speculation, and of course the trust may not want her. Just putting the case forward though!
The NRM might not like that idea so much though!
You're right that there is the originality issue to take into account. However presumably the NRM has to take a degree of pragmatism on its operational locomotives that at least some of their parts must need replacement. I was less imagining the grafting of historic parts from the V2 into say the K3, but more the thought that the trust may well have patterns or spares on the shelf in the event of a part requiring replacement, obviously with the NRM's consent where necessary. Hope that makes sense.
Does anyone know if the V2 shared the exact monobloc with any other classes. I will enjoy seeing the P2, but they should of course have built the Garratt. Will ride the P2 asap in case it goes like 9Fs - off the mainline. But if a V2 shares the U2 monobloc- it's madness
Separate names with a comma.