Which locomotive would you most like to see return to steam?

Agree on the Bressingham stuff. It would be lovely to see the E4 at Sheringham, and 'William Francis' on Foxfield Bank must be one of the Holy Grails of industrial railway preservation.

 

Crikey; so many to ponder. Thundersley would be nice, and probably quite useful too.

 

I remember reading reports, in one of the mags, of Thundersley's cosmetic restoration at Bressingham, a good few years ago now. The report mentioned that asbestos lagging had to be removed but was not replaced since it was said the loco would "never" steam again. I remember wondering why.

 

Probably because its stuffed in The hole that is Bressingham. Look how long it took to get 70013 out of there.

 

Why bash Bressingham? It's just as safe as the Engine House on the SVR. This kind of thread always seems to degenerate into 'lets steam everything we've never seen'.

Let me suggest the opposite - lets NOT steam those one-offs like the E4 and the Spinner that were deliberatly restored to original condition as museum pieces at a time when many genuine original parts were available, because if we do, much of their historical value will be lost. Bear in mind that there was no intention for these to ever steam again, and it is likely that many original parts would have to be replaced to even get them back to working order by the standards of the time they went to the museum, let alone meeting modern regulations if, for example they need new boilers.

Lets stick to things that actually have steamed in preservation (remember I'm taliking museum pieces again) or those that are not especially original or unique. And from time to time remember they may well have to be retired or lose their value also. Thundersley is proabaly a case in point, or Lion.

 

I agree that Bressingham provides publically accessible, safe and secure undercover accommodation, and therefore does not deserve to be 'bashed'.

I also see your point about historical integrity, and that some engines would lose a degree of historic value if dismantled for overhaul - Lode Star is a good case in that it is a time capsule of a special BR works job and therefore has an intrinsic value that goes beyond being 'just' a locomotive. Also engines like the original 'Rocket' (a very extreme case!), where far too much material would have to be replaced for it to be fit for operation.

However just because an engine is the only one remaining and hasn't steamed for a number of years, we shouldn't necessarily get too precious. Many of these earlier engines such as Lion, Hardwicke, and 'Spinner' 670, to give a few examples, have steamed in preservation before, indeed these ones as recently as the 1980s. Unless they require major component repair/replacement, I don't see any reason why they (and other engines of their ilk) shouldn't be considered candidates for steaming.

 

For myself I am simply saying that it would be nice to see more of the Bressingham fleet steamed, and not necessarily that they should not remain based at Bressingham.

 

I was specifically talking about locos that a) had a 'museum standard' resto job at the time of withdrawal and b) had not been steamed since. They, in my opinion, should be left as is for future generations.

By my crieria Hardwicke, for example, would be a candidate for steaming as it has run in restoration before, and several others which are not 'original' or 'restored to original' would be candidates. But it depends on what would have to be replaced - if a new boiler is required then maybe it would be better to build a replica for demonstration purposes? With the original loco to work from surely it would be an easier project than recreating a lost class.

Of locos that haven't been steamed, I thought Columbine was one of the best suggestions, since it isn't original and isn't the first loco built at Crewe (as it was thought to be). Cornwall might be another from the same period. And of the Bressingham collection, maybe 2500? It isn't really all that special except to us enthusiasts, and it could be replaced in the collection by a cosmetically restored BR standard 2-6-4T (preferably one with LT&S associations).

Has the Spinner steamed? I thought it had some non-working parts, including a wooden chimney.

 

I'm writing the article...

The Spinner steamed in 1979-80 with a new chimney. I remember it at Rainhill.

 

I know that it has been suggested earlier, but the unique Mersey Railway 0-6-4T 'Cecil Raikes' must be one of the priorities for returning to steam for the following reasons :-

There is no other standard gauge 0-6-4 in the U.K.
It would be one of only a couple of condensing locos in the U.K.
Virtually all parts are in hand.
It has an open cab roof (front & rear spectacle plates only) which is pretty unique.
It is actually a National Collection loco.
There are still Mersey Railway coach bodies in existance enabling a complete 1886 underground steam train to be re-created.

This would surely be a prime candidate for H.L.F. funding.
I have in my collection a hand-written specification for these locos which was issued to Beyer Peacock for tendering purposes.
Also in my collection is a full spec. for the coaches , which is typed & has line drawings of what was required. This is detailed down to the colour of carpet in the first class compartments.
I also own one of the worksplates from 'Cecil Raikes' (acquired legally I might add !)

Bob.

 

I would be interested in what you mean by "original parts"? No loco will have all the parts that it was built with. Some might have their frames, wheel castings, motion etc. (ie. things that don't wear out) but these would probably last another 100 or so years in preservation anyway.

 

This is becoming much like the debate that I was quite involved in on the Mallard 75 thread.

It is all of course about balance, and finance. Some engines should I think not steam again, due to their historical value in the state that they are in, such as Lode Star, or indeed what remains of Rocket (!), or because there are other members of the class operating (so for example I think Mallard, Winston Churchill and City of Birmingham should not be steamed).

Most others are fair game, dependent upon the amount of parts that would need to be replaced. Their usefulness and earning capacity in preservation should also be considered - 2500 would be much more useful than the Spinner, for example.

We should remember that, whilst the importance of the steam locomotive must not be underestimated in our national history and in international history, many engines are not that historically important, in the big picture. To a non-enthusiast, the Spinner, Stirling Single and Columbine are much of a muchness, except the colours. It is only inside the fraternity that we attach such historical significance to this or that locomotive. We don't really take much of an interest these days in the development of the Stagecoach, and the improvements, developments and differences that occur through the history of such coaches, we just know they existed and were important at the time. In 500 years Rocket, Locomotion, Mallard etc. will be wonderful evocations of the birth of the Industrial age, but will, say, Cheltenham, Earl of Berkeley, the NER M 4-4-0 and the Midland Compound be considered so important?

 

2500 has been at York for going on ten years. As to the two LNWR singles, whether she steams again or not - and with an engine of that age and size it would probably make more sense to build a replica - it would be lovely to see 'Columbine' rescued from her current very sad tenderless imprisonment at Kensington (she looks miserable there, especially given how neatly she used to compliment Queen Adelaide's coach at York), and wasn't 'Cornwall' taken to the SVR for examination with a view to overhaul in the early 80s?

The locos at Bressingham are generally well looked after and their two working standard gauge locos get plenty of chances to stretch their legs off site. The condition of some of the stuff (especially 'Hodbarrow') at Armley Mills, on the other hand...

 

She was. There are rumours that the Boiler Inspector's hammer went straight through the boiler, but I do not know if that is true or not.

 

I think every locomotive ( within reason "origional rocket" ) deserves to steam

And why not...

They were not built to sit in museums

I fully appreicate what we have now and take my hat off to the owners, owning groups, societies etc who keep running what we see and ride behind

But wouldnt it be fun to see something unique, pregrouping etc in steam making all the noise, sounds and creating a presence that only and Locomotive in steam can do

Just my thoughts

 

I'm quite surprised that nobody has mentioned 1442.

 

True, but nor were all the things that sit in museums. They are after all our heritage, the world has changed and steam locomotives are a part of our history, and not a part of today. Whenever a steam engine runs on a preserved line or on the mainline, and what an achievement that is, it is evoking our heritage.

Definitely! SOME engines shouldn't steam again, MOST can.

 

If every locomotive is run, overhauled, parts replaced.. new wheels, new frames, new boilers etc etc..
then there's nothing original left.
That is not preservation or conservation.. it's entertainment and re-use for pleasure.. disguised as preservation pure and simple.
However between that and nothing... everyone wants a bit of that.

it's upto the guardians to determine what gets "preserved" and what is not.
Then future generations can only judge on the knowledge of preservation... not real history.

we're a long way from losing everything, but every river starts at a spring.

Some should be preserved... not restored.

 

Well said! After all, it is worth bearing in mind how much of some of the older locomotives would need to be replaced. Also, when I started this tread I meant in terms of locomotives that have previously steamed in preservation and might be likely to again some time.