GAUGE THE ISSUE: It's Only Metal, Isn't It? (Originality)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ต.ค. 2019
- PLEASE NOTE: We are aware of footage of 'Merddin Emrys' being used during sections where 'Earl Of Merioneth' comes up in conversation. This is due to lack of commercially available footage of the locomotive in operation during the late 70s/early 80s; this being the period that the locomotive ran during its first ticket
NRM STATEMENT REGARDING ROLLING STOCK CONSIDERED FOR OVERHAUL 2021-2034:
www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk...
DISCLAIMER:
Any views or opinions expressed in this video are those of Chris Eden-Green. These are made without intention of offending anyone.
Order your copy of 'Steam Locos In Profile" on DVD & Digital Download HERE:
www.e-gmedia.co.uk/shop
Click here to Like 'Steam Locos In Profile' on Facebook:
/ slipsegmedia
This is a video critique. All images and footage are referenced under Section 107 "fair use" guidelines.
Talyllyn Railway: Through The Years is copyright of Oakwood Video Library.
Bluebird: The Afterlife is copyright of Sky News.
The Titfield Thunderbolt is copyright of Ealing Studios.
The History Of Britain's Railways is copyright of Ian Allen.
Cinderella (2015), Beauty & The Beast (1991, 2017) and Aladdin (1992, 2019) are copyright of Disney.
Only Fools & Horses is copyright of the BBC.
The Ffestiniog Railway is copyright of Heritage Video.
All material is referenced under the US Copyright Act within Section 107's "fair use" guidelines.
Most of the images are from Wikipedia and licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 and 3.0, OR are in the Public Domain. All Third Party content is referenced under the US Copyright Act within Section 107's "fair use" guidelines. - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![เจ้าผู้เดียว - ดิด คิตตี้ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q0NLCYKBOTo/mqdefault.jpg)
Speaking as an American, I find the issue of “pure originality” to be somewhat of a pedantic issue. For locomotive that have ran, parts get worn and need replacing, I’m very open to fabricating new ones to get the job done. With regards to the Nickel Plate Road 2-8-4 Berkshires, the examples that have never run carry only minor differences to 765, the modern star, if you know where to look for them. Updated cab signaling, brakes, and MU hoses add very minor things, but it’s still a very very minor thing. If you want or have a steam locomotive running, give it “whatever it takes” approach to keeping it going. If it still looks the same, or 99.999% the same, so be it.
Im the same as an Aussie.Locos need to be used,we have lots of "original" sole examples of locomotives sitting stuffed and mounted with no lubrication and eternally cold boilers, rusting away until NOTHING will be left! I truly believe they would fair better being USED! Original is nice but seriously there's a time when originality becomes RUST and all value is GONE! Same thing applies to vintage firearms,lots of people wont touch anything for fear of losing originality, they call rust patina and dread the idea of refinishing, even if it preserves the item for future generations to enjoy! The locos i referred to are all in one museum, in the past there have been offers to repair at least one of them (for its probably 50th birthday some decades ago if iirc) to at least allow it to be steamed,even if it wasn't going to be moved and only a low pressure to at least get her warm and blow the whistle,they wouldn't have bar of it, they just want to leave it all there to be ruined beyond repair.I hope given time the older guys that maintain this mind set move on and we get some of them back in steam again.We don't even have an operational (broad gauge,we have a number of narrow gauge) tank engine in this state while the museum has a fair number in its collection,there's only one tan engine is possession of preservation and i think its honestly that far gone she wont run again and even if she did, her axle-load would murder the track :(
Our premier narrow gauge railway here (also called Puffing Billy, but not the UK one!) run very old Baldwin designed tank engines, very little of them is left original, with many parts such as frames, fully welded boilers,new cylinders and seam chests and improved front end designs fitted.They run every day and these things have to happen or NOTHING runs! Some people just don't get it...
N&W 611 is at the point where she needs parts replaced IMO, but they won't do it because it will cost to much money, even tho she is literally owned by the largest railroad on the east coast.
In fact, the stuff you can't save, melt it down and use that to build the new parts
and the parts that have historical significants, just put it in a museum
I'd buy you a drink if I wasn't across the Atlantic. This is one of the most amazing insights I've ever seen, and I quite agree.
An Americans thoughts: Like you said Chris. Steam locomotives were built to work, one reason why I enjoy Steam Locomotives so much.. from the littlest mining loco up to Union Pacifics Class 4000(the Big Boy, saw her this past Tuesday.. She's utterly gorgeous) yes some things will wear out and need to be replaced, to me of the replacement parts are from original plans it's perfectly reasonable to use them. An example is Currently the Union Pacific is on a tour of the American southwest with Steam engine 4014, all her bearings have been replaced, new boiler lining and tubes and a new firebox(conversion from a coal burner to oil burner, safer and more efficient) but she still has the power and majesty of her class. If it's apart of history and none are runners? Get one and make it run. Don't let a part of history sit in a shed lifeless. Run it and let it breathe.
Exactly.
And you opened a can of worms yourself. Don't call Big Boys female. They're too brutish and masculine for that.
To clarify, 4014 got new tubes, lagging, and new burners. It didn't get a new fire box, and it has not gotten a new boiler lining. It did still get a lot of new boiler stays though.
NW 611 isn't owned by NS, its owned by the museum in Roanoke. So if it were damaged it would just return to the display shed it was in until it was rebuilt last time.
Also I don't think last American streamliner is a fitting term for it since SP 4449 also runs in streamlining with its skirting. I also think there's a C&O streamline stuffed and mounted somewhere, and the T1 replica will bring another streamliner back to life.
@Robert McGuire yeah that T1 replica that you say that is a pipe dream. They already have a tender for it and have bits of the boiler already on order. It's happening whether you like it or not.
Another American's thoughts: Not far from my residence is the Railroad Museum Of Pennsylvania. Back in the 1980's, the Strasburg Railroad located directly across the street, acquired a lease on two former Pennsylvania Railroad locomotives to restore them to service for excursions. After a few years, it was determined that the fireboxes on these engines needed a lot of work and that much of the original material would need to be cut out and replaced. Rather than carry out the repairs, it was decided the engines were better left as original as possible, considering they are on the register of national historic landmarks here in the USA. They were returned to the museum where they remain to this day.
Now, my personal opinion is this: during their running lives, much of the same repairs that would have been carried out had they decided to keep the engines in service were carried out on a regular basis. That being said, odds are that very little (if anything) of the engines are "factory original" when they were put into preservation, especially considering that they were kept in service for as long as possible. Being engines from an older time, they were retrofitted with ModComs for steamers, such as superheaters and electric headlights from oil lamps (where applicable, not necessarily to these engines in particular). Aside from that, how many times was they boiler replaced during their working lives, too? What a bout the fireboxes? Three times? Maybe four? Who knows if the documents and records of such mechanical workings even exist anymore?
Which brings me to the conclusion that, it's not necessarily the originality of the locomotive (or any other machine, for that matter) that matters. It's what it stands for, and what it inspires in people to preserve the historical workings and mechanical skills and practices involved with keeping them working as they should. Personally, this applies to new builds for me as well.
Was going to comment on this but I see someone beat me to it!
Does a 15 minute piece on how the ship of Thesis problem affects rail preservation with actually mentioning the ship. Kudos.
Ship of Theseus
@@Sohave Triggers broom
I feel that restoring locomotives to working order, is still preservation. Parts may grow old and tired, but the soul of the engine lives on. Stepney, for example, was rebuilt to an A1-X long ago, and is still the same engine.
I mean, those new parts are just an addition to the same storied history, right?
I agree, and if steam never died those engines would still have gone through overhauls which replaced parts, but like you said the soul lives on
There is a solution to the replica locomotive issue:
Make the replica, but give it a different name and number. It's respectful to the original, gives you a taste of the original, but has it's own identity and therefore character!
E.G. the Rocket replica should've been called Firecracker or something similar.
People who like railways will love it for what it is, knowing that it was built to give a representation of something else; the original. You need only look at Tornado...
I like this idea, but it works better for locomotive types of which there were more than one. There was only one Rocket, but for something like Tornado, where there were a bunch of Peppercorn A1s, or that new PRR T1 some madlads are trying to build, there's much more room for a name and number change.
@@LNERfan there was technically more than one rocket, Stephenson made a second one called "northumbrian"
@@thomashambly3718 Oh, neat! I didn't know about that.
@@LNERfan There were in fact seven other Rocket 0-2-2 variants. With names like Wildfire (later Meteor), Comet and Phoenix.
Given that there's several terriers, you could build a new one and keep the tooling to make spare parts not only for it, bu the rest of the Terriers.
I still hate that they’re worried about how much original is left! I was told no matter how many parts you replace, it’s still the engine!
Yeah and think about engines that are in good condition but never ran steamed since preservation!
Yes and no, if you replace small bits over time, then yes, it's the same engine. But take 4470 Great Northern, for instance. Thompson rebuilt that loco and very little of the original was kept, you would be stretched to call that loco the same loco pre and post rebuild. Flying Scotsman however is still Flying Scotsman, even if only like 30% of the loco is original. Flying Scotsman has been repaired, rebuilt, and refurbished over the period of 90 odd years, while not a lot of the original 1923 engine remains, what does remain is historically significant in it's own regard, because of the 1928 non stop run, the 1934 100mph run, the 1966 non stop run, her visit to America in 1968/69, her visit to Australia in 1988, etc, etc. For each part of Scotty that has been replaced, there is a new story to go with it. Great Northern wasn't the same engine, but Flying Scotsman is the same engine.
It's a case by case basis for every locomotive, where the value of what parts are being replaced needs to be determined, and how much is being replaced at any one time needs to also be determined. If you "restored" the original Rocket to working condition, you would have essentially nothing of the original locomotive left over, at which point, have you actually restored it, or have you just destroyed a priceless museum piece and replaced it with a replica?
Ya can't paint with broad strokes in this topic is what I'm trying to say.
Nobody ever agrees with me. All engines have had many parts replaced during the old days and most that have been saved from scrapyards have had many replaced. Now two more LNER engines are being conserved forever being Union of South Africa and The Great Marquess. They’ll both never steam again
I do not disagree with anything you have said there
It's sad that #9 and The Great Marquess are going away, especially because of how few LNER locos we have.
Yes, locos have parts replaced, I brought that up in my comment...
How does your comment that address anything I said? Why are you complaining about people disagreeing with you? I'm the only person that took contention with your comment and that was literally only because you painted with such a broad brush that it was begging for correction. Please read my comment and outline what you disagree with (if you disagree with anything), or stop complaining over literally nothing...
I literally meant when I bring up which engines I feel need to be restored, someone replies to me telling me they think the engines are fine just the way they are on display. I’m not complaining
I’m still gonna call it the national railway museum
@Sakkra101 why was the name changed??
@@johndonaldson3619 The Woke brigade at work again!!!!
A replica sounds smells and inspires the spirit just the same as the (so called) original
Build as many as you can and run them as often as you can.
Who would say No to a completely new Avro Vulcan thundering down the runway at every air display for the next 40 years … though probably impossible … No-one would say No!
Not impossible, merely improbable. They said tornado could never be built.
I would love to see an hour version full of tangents and an even deeper discussion, podcast style.
These videos are very good.
It's an interesting conversation to have, and one I think we, as a railway community need to have.
I think the originality argument is a sound one, but I don't think it's enough. Of coarse seeing the real Mallard running again would be awesome! However, would seeing a new build replica really be any less "wow". Same applies with other locos I guess. And what is originality, when it comes to steam locos??
Flying Scotsman had loads of parts replaced long before the steam ban, and people still class that as "original". All other engines would have been the same. How many parts would need to be replaced before the loco can't be original anymore? Also, a lot of the stations and other railway infrastructure, isn't original either.
Should this be included in the conversation?....
What ever happens, we can't please everyone. But if we can all accept that, and work with what we have/can do/can afford, then surely we can all enjoy our steam railways in some capacity for a long time yet. :-)
This is a great time to enjoy our heritage railways. So lets do that and support what we have!! :-D
You can put the footage on tape, you can put the sound in a file, but you can’t put the experience in a bottle.
I like that. :-)
We can also chose to look at these machines in a more organic way. An old slightly incorrect saying about the Human body goes that it replaces itself every 7, years. While it is incorrect for large parts of the body, it is true that some parts has a very short lifespan and some of its cells are replaced frequently. Because of the harsh environment inside your stomach the cells lining the inside of your stomach generally only lasts about 4 days before they expire and are replaced. Yet you are still the same you after a week despite the new inside of your digestive system.
When people changes the break pads of a preserved piece of roll stock they think little of it because it is considered an expendable item, but in the long term so is all the other moving parts.
If we want to preserve the accurate condition of an engine at a certain time of history we should put it on display, but I suggest to look at a driving engine as an organism instead. People still recognize some old giant turtle at the zoo as the one they met as a child and have pictures off, despite the fact that most of its skin, muscle and organ tissue has replaced itself since then. You are still your mothers child or your lovers spruce despite having gone through some organs. And as long as the idea and design is not compromised to any notable extend, the steam engines will still remain the same organism with the same personality if I dare speak so organically about them.
I actually quite like this analogy, and it's how I feel too. Kudos for putting into words so well.
ok hear me out:
Everytime a part from the original is replaced, save the original part.
Once all the original parts are replaced, make the locomotive out of them.
You now have the original locomotive, and a brand new one
One for display, one for operation
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. The RR Museum of PA used to lease PRR steam locomotives 1223 and 7002 to the next door Strasburg Railroad but both engines had to be taken out of service in 1989 due to changes in safety regulations. To keep the engines running, Strasburg would have to build a new firebox for both engines. However the museum refused to let them do that for fear of destroying the "historical fabric" of the engines. In fact, 7002 isn't even the real 7002. She's a replica made from a later engine of the same class, dressed to look like the original engine which had already been scrapped. On that note, we should be thankful they're still in excellent cosmetic condition.
And another thing:
The PRR K4 #1361 is finally getting restored to operating condition after sitting around in pieces for nearly thirty years after its excursion career abruptly ended due to mechanical failure. She's reportedly getting roller bearings on at least her driving axles, and a new boiler that complies with current FRA regulations. Heck, even her tender already *has* roller bearings. Once she's put back together, I doubt anyone will notice these upgrades. All they'll see is what she looked like in her heyday.
I volunteer at the museum and I somewhat agree yet respectfully disagree with you. In terms of 7002 and 1223, they’re historically significant. Even the fake 7002 is significant as the PRR dressed her up like 7002, not the museum. After all, it is the museums decision. I want to see them running, but being sole survivors, I don’t think it’ll happen. And honestly, I do want 1361 to not have roller bearings. Because that was a Pennsy experiment that was not applied to the whole class. To me personally, and again, most may not share it, I want a K4s to be original to the class. I’m fine with the welded boiler (you won’t be able to tell through the jacketting) but I don’t want roller rod bearings (the wheel bearings, I can accept). Please understand I am not trying to invalidate your opinion, I am merely trying to have an intelligent exchange of ideas
@@KPen3750 Assuming you know 3750 (the K4 at the museum in question) still doesn't have roller bearings, you still have that. Meanwhile, 1361 needs those modifications out of necessity if it's to return to the high iron.
In short, we will have one of each.
*I see this as an absolute win!*
@@jakeandzack5763 That is true. 3750 doesn’t have the rollers. It just seems weird because there are other main line engines that don’t have roller bearings. I could be totally wrong with that statement, but if others don’t use them and weren’t converted, why does 1361 NEED to be converted. Plane bearings can work well, but you need proper care when using them.
@@jakeandzack5763 I guess what I mean by this is a point of "well they don't need them, why do I?" I understand it had a catastrophic mechanical failure, but what was at fault, speaking as a future mechanical engineer. Was it lack of lubrication? Improper lubricating oil/grease? Was there an undetected fault within the bearing itself? I can't find any information other than "Catastrophic failure"
I am glad you brought this up and talked about it in a tasteful way. This is an argument that gets quite vicious. My stance on it is rather hardline to refurbish and run the originals. Your point about the originals carrying more spirit and meaning for the human psyche. During my time in India I helped put new bearings in the 160+ year old broad gauge English single "Fairy Queen" and then ran it on the main line with the shed crew to test it. Racing against a local train pulled by an electric locomotive on something that is over a century and a half old will never be the same as doing that on a replica of the same machine. Never.
Putting a steam locomotive on static display is the equivalent to propping up a corpse.
-Paul Merriman (Founding president of the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum).
Just melt down the original "scrap" parts along with adding the quantity of required new metal, cast it and you won't have a "new" cast... you'll have the original "re-cast". This solves it doesn't it?
Ooh i've never heard this take before and i think it's quite intriguing
It's interesting that the Ffestiniog won't overhaul Earl of Merioneth as they think too many parts need replacing, but they're restoring Welsh Pony, which hasn't ran in over 70 years, spent several years on display in the sea air, and has needed to have much of it's parts, including the frames, replaced. Nothing wrong with restoring Welsh Pony, indeed I look forward to seeing her running again, but I think their policies are a little contradictory.
The classic case in my opinion, dates back to the 30's. When the original A1/A3 Grand Parade was written off in the crash at Castle Carey between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The remains were brought back to Doncaster, where it was given a "paper" rebuild using parts from the spare spool. With the remains having any salvageable parts removed, repaired and put into the spares pool and what was left quietly scrapped. Pretty well the only parts from the original engine been put on the new being the works plates and nameplates.....
From my professional experience in railroad preservation, imma throw in my two cents (for what it’s worth).
At the Tennessee Valley, we have six steam locomotives, built between 1891 and 1952.
Central of Georgia 349 (4-4-0, 1891), considered to small for what we do, having not ran since the 1950’s and is currently on display at the Erlanger Children’s Hospital in Chattanooga.
Southern 630 (2-8-0, 1904), built saturated with flat valves and Stephenson valve gear. Superheated and converted to Southern valve gear in 1917. The engine operated nearly constantly until 1989 when retired. Rebuilt over a period of 10 years from 2001 to 2011 at a cost of around $700,000. When rebuilt, the engine had its original 6SL brake system replaced with a modern 26L system, and also received a larger tender that came from stablemate 4501. Also had frame repairs in 7 places.
Southern 4501 (2-8-2, 1911), the very first mikado purchased by the Southern, built to run at 175 psi, now running at 205 psi. 6SL brake replaced with a 26L, has a larger tender off of a 2-10-2, and has had a stoker off of our CN 5288 added as well as a new Hodges trailing truck and Chinese copy of a Worthington SA Feedwater Hester. Rebuilt from 2011 to 2014 at a cost of $1,500,000, and until this rebuild, was the only SOU 2-8-2 to have never received a stoker and/or feedwater heater.
Canadian National 5288 (4-6-2, 1918), acquired from Steamtown NHS in 2001 to be rebuilt as a Southern Railway engine. Plans were scrubbed and it is now a static display and parts donor.
Kentucky and Tennessee 10 (2-8-2, 1920), operated in revenue service until 1967, when removed for a major overhaul that has never been completed. The engine is currently stored out of service in pieces.
US Army 610 (2-8-0, 1952), a one-off model called a S-160A or simply a “Class A”. Supposed to be the prototype for a second generation of S160’s built during the Korean conflict, and was the final steam locomotive manufactured for domestic use by a commercial builder in the United States. Restored from 1987 to 1990, at which time it was equipped with a taller cab and smokestack, giving it the general appearance of a Louisville & Nashville 2-8-0. She operated until 2010. Currently awaiting an overhaul.
This is my take, and it’s got a bit of biology so bare with me.
In the human body there’s billions of cells, think of it as like billions of parts, a very complicated machine, like other machines parts break, or age, and in the human body certain cells age or break very quickly.
Over your life span every cell that made you, you would have been replaced, some replaced over and over.
So the question then is what makes you you, because it isn’t the physical, your body isn’t what makes you, you because your body replaces itself.
there’s 2 things that identify you, your name, something given to you at birth that will stay with you for the rest of your life, or your DNA, which are the blueprints of what you are, which is given to you at conception. Informing how you will be built, and how you will look.
Applying this to the issue of heritage vehicles, we can say confidently that it isn’t the parts that make the train the train, the parts are just the cells, they can break and can be replaced, maybe we could display some parts when they break to leave as a memory, but what makes a train the train has to be either its name, (number plate) or it’s blueprints.
So, which one do we accept, well if we accept the blueprints we’d have to accept replicas as being the same as the real thing, which means we’d accept a clone of ourselves as also the real us.
It’s safe to say that a lot of us would consider an identical clone genetically as not the real us, so with that in mind, what makes a steam locomotive, the steam locomotive is its class and number.
Now while humans die and stop getting our parts replaced, steam locomotives can live forever, and as long as it’s possible, they should.
Seeing an Egyptian mummy isn’t as cool as talking to a real ancient Egyptian, while we can’t bring history to life with the Egyptians, we can bring history to life with the locomotive.
Great comparsion. I was gonna say that.
In my opinion, if the loco still looks like how it did originally, and carries the same name and/or running number, it is the same loco, no matter whether any original parts are still on it.
Personally, I don't see a problem with manufacturing new parts as long as the end result is the same: "The steam engine runs, and runs for a long time"
This thinking probably comes from my own experience with Southern 630 and 4501. During the original steam excursion era, the 4501 ended up in possession of a Central of Georgia J-1 2-10-2 tender and her original became Southern 630's until her retirement from Tennessee Valley Railroad in the early 90's. When 630 was finally restored fully in 2011 the museum had completely scratch built for her a new tender and a new cab with weather-proofing. If you look at 630 now and if you can find images of her in steam days on the Murphy Branch, you'll find that her original tender was tiny compared to the one she has now, and I've never heard anyone complain about it. When 4501 was restored they also got her a new cab plus some upgrades that she never got in service but her classmates did such as a feedwater heater (gotten from a Chinese engine but it's still a Worthington), and an automatic stoker. She and 630 also got roller bearings instead of friction ones and nobody complained still.
But 4501 still has a patched frame from her first decade of existence. Replacing it would mean that that story would be forgotten. Minor modifications, respectful to what her sisters had, or swapping tenders about is perfectly fine though. I'm pretty sure L&MR Lion's tender is from the 1930s.
i knew dolgoch and talyllyn weren't originals when we were shown 1's decrepit boiler at the top station, and their original frames in a slate truck stowed at wharf. but they still hold the appeal of the bygone era. i couldn't agree more with your statements; priceless as they are, original metals or not, they still have the soul of the originals. components with historical value, eg 1's siderods from an accident, and 4's giesel injector from the 60's are on display with many narrow gauge items; but as you said, to see the original stock running every single day, brings back my appeal to the little line - original or not.
At least in Australia, an engine's identity stays with the locomotive frame. Every other component can be replaced and it is still technically considered the same unit; if the number is swapped with another then it is recorded as, for example, D³ 639 (2nd). Applying that standard to 4472 would make it now approximately 1/3 replica, 2/3 original; when the remains of the frame are replaced it will be entirely a replica. (In the case of Garratts we use the central frame under the boiler.)
There was interestingly a former BHP loco in south australia a while ago that had new frames fabricated as part of restoring it, not sure where they stood on this being a new loco or not but an interesting case non the less.
Much like you mention garratts, presumably because of G42 having undergone similar work on the power units.
I set myself a (totally hypothetical, yet deeply heretical) thought experiment a while back, that I have been rattling around in my head for some time.
If castings were made from the original components of an engine, then the parts were melted down, any impurities removed, and topped up with new metal, then cast in the very same molds from the original component, would that be a more faithful restoration than building new parts and replacing the whole loco piecemeal?
After all, the 'new' component would feature a majority of the original molecules from the part as built.
Heretical but maybe workable
I don't know if that would fly from a metallurgical standpoint
Keep up the good work Chris. I really enjoy these really detailed videos.
Very well said, mate. I've wrestled with this idea for a few years and this video has put my mind at ease, at least, for the meanwhile.
Also, thank you for pronouncing Welsh names correctly!
As a side note. Stream certification is 10 for the mainline, and 15 for private in New Zealand
So many locos were extensively rebuilt during their working lives that it does seem silly not to continue repairing and rebuilding them... but, and it's a big but, some of those engines were rebuilt so long ago that even the "new" parts are now antique. In the U.S., the 1830's Stephenson-built John Bull was extensively rebuilt and repaired over its working life. It was being modified almost from day one of its working life. But now even the latest bits from the 1890s are seriously old, and historical in their own right, even if they do not accurately represent the locomotives appearance as built in the 1830s. In this case, the locomotive evolved slowly, and continuously for decades - and it is interesting to see how it was updated and repaired - as many very early imported English locomotives were. So there is a strong case for not steaming it again, and preservation as an example of how extremely early locomotives were modified for very long working lives.
On the other hand we have a locomotive like The General, which participated in an infamous historical event during the American Civil War. Unlike John Bull, The General was not slowly rebuilt with a few new pieces here and there. It was almost entirely rebuilt after the civil war, and again "restored" in the 1890s. Little, if any of the locomotive that exists now (beside the frame) was present at the great locomotive chase which earned it fame and preservation. If The General presented an authentic representation of an 1850's American locomotive, it would be pretty much unique - and should remain untouched. But as it sits, it's a better representation of an 1870's locomotive, of which there are several very good examples in the U.S. Is it too important to steam then?
this is rather late, but personally, I think it's the experience of the machines that matter. As you say, seeing one in live-action is far and away more impressive and impactful than them sitting in a museum. Hearing the clank of their gears and smelling the smell of their smoke. Seeing them belching out smoke as they go along. We owe it to future generations to keep these beautiful machines in working order and safe whatever the cost.
As a tangent, the class 442 is literally the broom with 5 new handles and 3 new heads?
Great perspective Chris. And something I've said for many many years....
How does the "refurb" of Hagley Hall or The Countess really technically differ from new builds like Tornado. Nothing is original on those machines, its the perpetual upkeep of them which keeps them alive. And I for one appreciate that.
Loved this video!
I was quite pleased with this, I cited it in my dissertation back in 2020 to make a case around the question of originality and the viability of preserved vs new build locos. The end document proved some interesting points and pointed out issues in the heritage sector. But it was a interesting read for sure.
This a great GTI as usual Chris, its so true Replicas can be better but the orginal can have spirit sometimes people don't let the Replica's get their spirit as they could do things the older one couldn't and its so true we here in australia have engines that are over 100 years old but their not all orginal parts they run on the mainline but we still know their storys of running heavy goods up the grades or storming down the line nearly hitting 140kphs, with each engine comes a story replica a or not a replica can tell a story of the hard work and blood sweet and tears done to bring something back and the original can tell the story of when she was around even with new parts, keep it up Chris don't ever let anyone stop you making such great Content!
Hello Chris. This video was brilliant. As a Steam train enthusiast I personally haven’t really thought that this particular issue was a big deal, but I definitely can see why some people would find it. And I really agree with the statements you made. Obviously, it is a great extra touch knowing that a particular engine you see is all or mostly original from the day it was first made. But even if it gets to the point where I’m looking at that same Loco but all of its parts are replaced, as long as it’s to it’s original design, it is still a working steam locomotive. Plus, I like the illustration you used with stuffed animals. If we come to the time where pretty much every steam locomotive is beyond the possibility of running in its original state, then could have the original locos in museums and then have replicas built and have them run. It would give us more than just a flavour of what it must have been like to experience see those original engines in they heyday. I mean most of Flying Scotsman is not exactly original, but I find at least in my case that I forget that, because it’s alive standing right in front of you. It still has that essence about it that all steam engines have that will never die! Even if many original steam locomotives end up in museums because of necessity, as long as we still have some working ones around, even if they are replicas, the spirit of the steam locomotive will never die!
Sorry there, just felt like I had to put that out there. Keep up the good work Chris
As an Australian, who despite having loved steam locomotives all of my life has had very little ability to witness and ride on a working one, I believe that every effort possible should be made to keep these incredible pieces of history running. Of course there are many worthy cases of retirement, but if an engine is to be retired original, replace it with a replica. Then that will continue to inspire and connect young kids like myself 15 years ago to the machines, and hopefully get them working on them. Nothing is more important at present to these engines than keeping the interest up, otherwise if the interest drops, governments and companies wont invest in them, museums will be overrun with standing models, and future generations wont develop that interest that we have for their beauty, and they will in a couple of generations die away and end up with next to no interest. Hence replicas, despite being triggering to the enthusiast, are in fact very important in generating interest for their future!
Very interesting perspective. Great work Chris.
Love it Chris. There's simply no way to create a blanket statement that will apply to all locomotives: if some engines - such as Green Arrow or Mallard - have an important historical weight, then of course it makes sense to preserve them for as long as possible. But the essence of railways is for them to run, and if the majority of engines are left to be polished in a museum then interest will fade.
Steam engines are some of the most beautiful and wonderful machines in the world, and that beauty comes from them being steamed and run by a human being. And I think the most important thing for steam railway enthusiasts to do is to make that life as accessible to a wide audience as possible to keep the beauty and passion alive.
Anyone know what video the talyllyn overhaul clip is from
I have a question for you Chris,do you think some of the "Railway Museum's" engines will run again like stirling single, c1,green arrow,and more?
Spring Gamer 626 - Looking at the Steam Railway Issue 495, the Stirling Single had limited running given its previous running on two heritage railways back in the early 1980’s plus its mechanical condition and age. The two heritage railways were the North Yorkshire Moors and the Great Central. For the latter it was possibly stabled there due to its flat running, although it’s ironic given how it was transferred there in 1983 :P Given its previous history, I think it’ll be a museum piece for the rest of its life.
With Green Arrow, as stated in the video, the NRM sees the possibilities of it coming back in future according to their ‘Operational Rail Vehicle Strategy 2019/2034’ report. That been mentioned in an article called ‘Walled In: NRM Locomotive Displays To Be ‘Permanent’’ from Steam Railway issue 494.
I literally just did an essay on this XD.
Nice video, and very well thought out!
You make some very good points in this video Chris. I've pondered this myself about what makes a locomotive "original" or "the same locomotive from when it was built until now". If you replace one bolt, does that mean it's not "original" anymore? Or is it perhaps that parts that are meant to be replaced (like nuts and bolts) are acceptable? In the case of steam locomotives, does a boiler replacement constitute grounds for the locomotive no longer being original? These are questions I think to myself and I believe that yes, parts will have to be replaced over time, but that's the way it was when those locomotives were in active service, so that's acceptable. Although replacing the boiler with a new one might be a bit much, same thing with building a replica (in terms of having it operational).
Where does one draw the line when referring to triggers broom. How many parts still need go be original for that part not to be classified as a replica?
Thanks for making another great video. Another question I’d ask is to what extent we feel comfortable about modifying locos or loco designs to make them more compliant or more efficient and/or powerful, particularly for those on the mainline. For example, the the Kings and Duchesses that have run on the mainline in preservation needed to be modified to run under the wires. Flying Scotsman has been returned to its late BR configuration from the hybrid BR/LNER one Alan Pegler rebuilt her in. The A1 trust and now P2 trust have changed their new builds to improve on the original designs as have those building Hengist and need we mention DoG’s vast improvement in preservation. Personally I have no problem with it and I for one think that if Green Arrow is to be returned to the mainline, the mono bloc cylinders should be removed and the loco modified to a “super V2” configuration with modular cylinders, double chimney and Kylchap exhausts. I know for many that would be blasphemy though. Also the question would be where do you draw the line with that kind of stuff.
Chris as always I enjoyed this video. Don't have much to add to the debate, but it reminds me of the type aeroplane I fly at work, the DHC-6 DeHavilland Twin Otter. Although there's a company that has recently started building new ones, most of the ones in service date back to the late 1960s and 1970s. Over time the more mundane tasks these planes were built for have been inherited by newer types, but there remains some work that can only be sensibly accomplished by a Twin Otter, and so the old airframes are kept in continuous service. The typical DHC-6 nowadays has had its engines replaced many times, its wings replaced, its instruments completely replaced, new control cables, undercarriage, et cetera, until the only aluminium in the entire aircraft that may have been there in 1973 (or whenever) is perhaps the fuselage, and even then sometimes only the builder's plate is really original. Twin Otter pilots endlessly talk about whether it's still "the same plane". Most commercial aeroplanes don't have this issue to the same extent, because they are built for a certain lifespan. And even though the design is 60 years old now, unlike say the DC-3, they aren't really considered old or interesting enough to warrant preservation!
There’s a quote about the Golden Pavilion in Kyoto by Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy writer Douglas Adams(1952-2001) that perfectly describes my thoughts on the matter:
“I remembered once, in Japan, having been to see the Gold Pavilion Temple in Kyoto and being mildly surprised at quite how well it had weathered the passage of time since it was first built in the fourteenth century. I was told it hadn’t weathered well at all, and had in fact been burnt to the ground twice in this century. “So it isn’t the original building?” I had asked my Japanese guide.
“But yes, of course it is,” he insisted, rather surprised at my question.
“But it’s burnt down?”
“Yes.”
“Twice.”
“Many times.”
“And rebuilt.”
“Of course. It is an important and historic building.”
“With completely new materials.”
“But of course. It was burnt down.”
“So how can it be the same building?”
“It is always the same building.”
I had to admit to myself that this was in fact a perfectly rational point of view, it merely started from an unexpected premise. The idea of the building, the intention of it, its design, are all immutable and are the essence of the building. The intention of the original builders is what survives. The wood of which the design is constructed decays and is replaced when necessary. To be overly concerned with the original materials, which are merely sentimental souvenirs of the past, is to fail to see the living building itself.”
Great video! One thing I like to keep in mind is that parts were regularly replaced when they were in service. For example, on the South Simcoe Railway north of Toronto has a CPR eight wheeler built in 1883 in service. When the loco entered preservation in the 60's many of the parts would be much newer than the 1880s due to the overhauls it went through while in service, so even then, it wasnt 100% original but its spirit is kept alive. Additionally some parts such as cabs, rods, wheels etc would be swapped between engines so sometimes one engine would actually be made up of parts from many other ones. To me, it's all small beans. as long as it's spirit is kept alive, its all that matters.
There are only two locomotives of the D&RG K-27 class in existence: No 463 & No 464. Both have been reshopped and rebuilt numerous times by the D&RG and D&RGW before being sold and then after being sold. Neither loco is even in the designed or as-built configuration because the whole class was rebuilt from Vauclain compound to simple and then to piston valves and superheated for better performance. No 463 is superheated and No 464 was converted to saturated when the boiler had the superheater flues replaced when it was at Knott's Berry Farm in California. It was also converted to burn oil instead of coal at KBF. When it went to the Huckleberry RR the coal grates were replaced to burn coal again. As to swapping parts, No 464 has the boiler of No 465; I have seen the markings on the throttle casting. To me the loco is still the 464.
Another fantastic and detailed video Chris! I agree: static objects and operational objects are all different experiences. So long as railways can balance that, it will continue to attract tourists and educate people for generations to come.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the NRM's name-change is a downgrade. Wonder what the reason behind that decision was all about?
What about replicas with different materials? Would they have lower maintenance in long term and higher safety, but same look?
I think it is worth noting at the moment we seam to extra engines (new build) such as tornado, rather than building replicas of engines that have existed in the past. It will be interesting to see if the new engines become as historical valuable as the older machines.
Steam locomotives are not just engines, they're history on rails
This is a very interesting thought I have never thought of. I live in Colorado so for those of you who know know, there is the Cumbres and toltec and Georgetown loop and Durango and silverton. ECT. and I doubt those k21’s and 31’s and all those other little steamers are used so much and so heavily I doubt there is very much original left but at the same time I don’t think we are as attached to the locomotives as much as the railways
My opinion is like this. Even if an engine has a bunch of it’s parts replaced to keep it running for future generations, great. At the end of the day, when an engine is retired from active service, how much of the engine is “original” to begin with. Boiler replacements/overhauls, replacing bearings, side rods, couplings, ect… were normal practice back in the day. So to carry out such work to keep a historic engine running, in my opinion, is normal and quite all right since we can’t always prove the complete originality of an engine anyway. If none of the originals were saved, by all means build a replica, but if one of the original members of a class of engine is still around and running, do what is needed to keep it going. Look at Sierra Railway #3 for example. When it was brought back to life in 2011, they had to give it a new boiler and basically build a new tender for it, but it’s still the same engine it was.
I am more than happy to see something run. We all accept parts will not last forever and need replacing. More power to those good people that give their skills and knowledge to make it happen.
Really interesting discussion Chris, thanks for posting. I tend to agree with the faction that thinks it's probably more important to see these locomotives running and doing what they were made for, than keeping them in a museum because of conserving original parts. At the end of the day, if it's just going to sit there, what's the point? These engines were made to run, and that's what they should be doing. Just my opinion. As always, keep up the good work.
To be fair, I have always viewed locos at preserved railways as something which will, one day, be entirely renewed and the last part of each machine that was made at Swindon, Crewe, Doncaster, etc will find it's way to the scrap bin, while the machines that are owned by museums will hold on to a good deal more of their original fabric. That does natrually mean that locos such as Lion, Mallard, C. of T. will eventually all fall silent while machines such as Bradley Manor, 5305, or Clan Line soldier on,
Everyone would agree that a steam loco in a museum is nothing like the same loco in steam.
I am of the opinion that we need to go with classic/vintage racing approache were if something is damaged you just rebuild it or manufacture a new part
I personally think that with steam engines, it's fine to replace old parts with new ones (even if it means completely rebuilding them like with Stepney). Besides, no matter how many parts may have been replaced, deep down it'll remain the same engine.
A really interesting video. The wild adventure days of railway preservation with a surplus of original boilers in god nick is certainly at its end, But we need to keep in mind that things like boilers and other interchangeable parts were replaced throughout the life of an engine back in the days. I am from Denmark and have read that it was not uncommon for our state railway DSB, to keep a few extra boilers on hand for their different standard engines, so that when one needed service or inspection, they could unbolt it, slap a serviced and ready one in and just prepare the one removed for the next engine that needed one. You touched a lot of different aspects of the discussion and the many grey areas. I guess in the end Money and pragmatism will have its way with most of these cases. No one will see nor feel the missing rivets of a modern welded boiler, and we know that it will last longer against the abuse of being lit and cooled down frequently compared to an original one.
Hay Chris are you thinking of talking about the Steam Turbine Locomotives? In Gauge the Issue?
I was reading a railway magazine a few days ago, and one suggestion to a) reduce emissions, and b) to allow old locos to run again, was to fill the tender with batteries and add motors to the tender axles. Good idea, but I imagine if it was so good it would have been done already. Who's to say it might not happen though...
Great video Chris, I reckon we should strive to use original parts whenever possible, but when not possible we should replace those parts and put them in a museum if they're significant enough, like Green Arrow's cylinders. Some locos like Mallard shouldn't be returned to service because of how important some of her components are, but thankfully we have other A4s on the mainline to get a similar experience, even if it's not quite the same.
I'll have to make the trip to England one day and see all the engines that I can, sadly there's not much going for steam down under.
I’d love for Mallard to be restored. Don’t forget soon there’ll only be 2 regular working A4s left when Union of South Africa is withdrawn and will never steam again
Bittern and Sir Nige will be enough, Mallard has earned her retirement, and too many of her historically significant parts would need to be completely replaced for her to steam again. The closer we stay to her 1938 condition, the better. If anything, a new build A4 would be preferable once Bittern and Sir Nige start showing their age, as we will have that loco for much, much longer. Could make it an improved design and classify it as A4/1
Song ?
I still don't get why the V2 can't have the updated version of the cylinder block like it's past siblings.
Yes the Mono is important, but really from an outside of England, how visible is this block during running?
I can understand the outside cylinders, but the inner one?
Doesn't matter if you can see a part of a steam loco or not. If there is something worn out on a loco, it's not allowed to run and that's it. And its because 4472 is much more popular than 4771.
Oliver The Great Western Engine I understand, what I meant was, if this monoblock is too expencive to make a mould of.
Would the other varient be a cheaper alternative since you only need to replace one cylinder rather than all 3 at once?
This is a question which was raised in ancient Athens. A historic boat was preserved. Well, being made of wood, bits were replaced over and over until it was asked whether it was even the original boat. Eventually they gave up and discarded it.
Jeez you’ve gained a large American following...
There is an interesting replica case over here in the states. The 1831 John Bull was operated on and off again by the Pennsylvania railroad up until the 20s when the Smithsonian Institution, which owned her, pulled the plug on the operation. The PRR, still wanting to show off John Bull’s history, built an operating replica in 1939 to compensate for the loss of the original. The replica eventually was put in the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, which operated it on a few occasions until she was sidelined in about the 90s because of boiler issues. Apparently she would need a brand new boiler. When I asked someone up at the museum about if the John Bull would return to steam they simply stated that the John Bull “has it’s own story to tell.” What I got from that is that the RRMOPA values the historical significance of the replica and to replace to boiler would hurt the historic fabric of the engine. The replica build story itself is valued. So when you question if a replica will become sidelined for preservation of the metal, it already has been done...
And it gets ironic that the Smithsonian Institution actually operated the original John Bull under air after they pulled the rug from under the PRR. The original was in such great condition that they actually fully operated it in the 80s. So now we have two fairly serviceable John Bulls and both of them are considered too historic to touch!
They actually ran the original under reduced steam pressure and it's ironic that the replica represents a later version of the john bull
What’s a lner a10?
In Britain (and I bet elsewhere) virtually new steam locomotives were claimed as rebuilds to get around budget constraints, there was always a repair budget, there may not have been a new engine budget. An engine did a good enough job or it was scrapped. Lion only survived because a part of it was used to pump water well enough for half a century. Most of it was actually built new in 1923.
Hi Chris,
A fantastic summary of the issue. Like you I can see both sides of the arguments.
In mallards case it makes sense to keep here in a museum as we have to my knowledge working A4s so you can see an A4 in steam but on the flip side with the Scotsman there’s only one and rightfully she’s running and I think personally (MY OPINION.. please feel free to differ) the V2s were gresleys best work as they were very capable machines and stood in for A3s and A4s regularly when they failed in service and I feel green arrow should run again or a replica be built because unlike the two B1s which arrived in the war years we don’t have any of gresleys mixed traffic machines (except the K4) that bore most of the rivalry from the Black 5s, S15s or the halls in the ‘golden age’ of steam.
Anyways I waffled on too much, really enjoyed the video. Keep up the great work.
Ross
Great discursive piece! Perhaps a bit of both? Keep the big ticket ones (Mallard, Flying, 3801, stepney) as static, build some replicas, with the more standard stuff have a mix of running, overhauling and preserving like now. New parts are part and parcel. Like you say, history exists by being lived and breathed - even in a new, repaired or artificial lung.
You know what Chris, I was only saying the same thing about 2 weeks ago! I totally agree with you, I think I'd could speak to you for hours about this!
One thing going for Green Arrow restoration is that the new build P2 faces a similar problem. The original P2s had a monoblock cylinder casting that was very similar if not identical to that of the V2 design (some might say a P2 is just a stretched V2 with an extra driving axle and a longer boiler) It is difficult and very expensive to get such enormous castings made today so the P2 project has redesigned the cylinder block as a fabrication from a number of separate smaller castings and machined components. This same design might be adapted and used by the museum for the V2. Please note such a restoration need not cost anything like the sums spent on Flying Scotsman, which exceeded the new build cost of Tornado significantly. Getting the spec and deliverables correct and agreed before starting should avoid the costs of doing the job twice as occurred in the case of the pacific. A number of V2s already had their monoblocks replaced in service before withdrawal by pacific pattern separate cylinder castings, and these were recognisable by their visible external steam pipes under the smokebox. The pipes were incorporated inside the monoblock in the original design. Green Arrow was not one the locos modified however so it would be incorrect for the particular loco to have the visible steam pipes, although OK as a representative of the class. That might favour the option of making a modern equivalent of the monoblock design, incorporating the internal steam pipes but fabricated using modern methods and following the experience and advice of the A1/P2 group. While the V2 was in service on the mainline without its original engine block, that component could form the centrepiece of an exhibit about the ingenious Gresley front end design, with its signature three cylinder V form drive onto a common axle and the two to one conjugated valve gear arrangement.
You know. I’ve always wondered. Would they be able to produce replicas of engines that have been scrapped without any of the originals left? I mean if the have the plans or measurements could they?
They have done that, i.e. the Peppercorn A1 Tornado...
Well put Chris. I like what Terry Pratchet said about this. Take a broom, replace the brush and handle as many times as you like, but the 'broomliness' of that broom will remain. Same goes for working locomotives. It's not like every loco gets COMPLETELY rebuilt everytime its needs major work done (ok maybe on occasions as you stated, but its still rare) And as long as some of the parts remain even it's only a name plate after a dozen or so workshop visits over 100+ years, the spirit of that loco remains. Take Duke Of Gloucester for example, how much of that remans from the loco Riddles outshopped in 53? yet no one is screaming that the Duke is not the Duke, no one sane at least.
Just my take on it, people as free to disagree, its a free world after all.
The real question as you say is to what value you put on specific part, for what ever historic reason to stop you restoring it. From my personal experience a replica is much easier to work on because it's not "real" so anything you do isn't really important. But they are also much less enjoyable to work on as you don't have the history. That said 90% of people riding on them genuinely have no idea until you tell them, and they still love it just the same.
With older genuine machines I genrally say they are not dead, there working life has never ended, there time will come but it hasn't yet
But you alway have three option to decide from and they are decision that shouldn't be take lightly.
Preservation, Conservation or Restoration.
Preservation is to do all you can to prevent any further wear, damage or deterioration of any sort.
Conservation is to limit the amount of wear and deterioration. So for static object this would be cleaning them etc but not replacing anything.
And Restoration is to repar and replace to make somthing back to as new. This is obviously the only way to have a working engine.
Keep em running. The locomotives that survive to preservation were retired with parts that originally they weren’t manufactured with. It’s the way it is. HMS Victory and USS Constitution are probably only 10% original yet it doesn’t take away from them.
awesome video
One thing I wonder is if you'll ever do Steam Locomotives in Profile abroad. It'd be neat to see someone look at non-british locomotives with the same thoroughness as you do with british ones.
If you're interested, the DVD bonus material on Volumes 1, 3, & 5 feature classes of engine at work in the Irish Republic, Germany and Poland, respectively. Volumes 3, 4 & 5 also feature USA-built prototypes at work in the UK.
You're welcome to follow the link in the description to our online shop for further details
This also raises an interesting question about originality for WWII aircraft.There are multiple aircraft flying today that were complete wrecks. Yes, the ID plates and maybe a few gauges are original, but the rest is new. Does this make it an original or a replica? To the eyes of the government, as long as it's got that original ID plate, it's the original plane and can be certified as such. So this begs the question, do we assign the identity to the builders plate?
Great video 😀😎👍 liked Chris Eden -Green
So a lot of what is a current day operating steam locomotive is actually an original reproduction?
There are plenty of people debating these debates happening in the U.S. At the Nevada State Railroad Museum in Carson City, we have some very unique and interesting pieces that exemplify both arguments very well. The museum recently restored the only known McKeen Motor Car to working order, and the only original pieces are fragments of the body and the whistle. Someone could have made the argument to just preserve the hollow shell it was before restoration, but then we wouldn't have a running McKeen car, and even though it may run the remaining original pieces into the ground, it's brought international attention to the museum. On the other hand is a Cosmetically restored 4-4-0 that is the oldest example of a Sacramento built locomotive, and very the only one to retain it's original boiler. Due to the boiler crystallizing, it can never produce steam again, at least not without high risk of an explosion. Many volunteers have expressed great interest in running her again, but too many are opposed, as they feel like she'd be more of a replica at that point, and that she's too unique to become one.
I myself will usually vote for operation because, I too agree, they were built to run, and should be kept running, even if it means replacing some pieces. And if those original pieces are so important, then they can be preserved when their time is up. A lot of people don't know that us living creatures are also replaced completely in their lifetimes. One by one, all our original organisms die, and are replaced with new ones. But we are still the same person in spirit. I feel like the same can be said about the locomotives.
The only original part that remains will be the builders plate.
A better analogy is heritage aviation. In the late 1980s a Blenheim bomber took to the air after a long rebuild, only to be crashed after a pilot error a few weeks after the first flight. A few parts of this aircraft survived the crash were saved and put into the new rebuild. Another example is the Bf-109G (Black 6) which also was rebuilt to a flyable state and after a few years crashed at Duxford and was severely damaged and now has been cosmetically restored and is now a museum piece.
In the video you mention an LNER A-10, to which I can’t find any reference. Is there such a thing or was it just a slip on A-1?
A10 was the classification given to any Gresley A1s not yet rebuilt into A3s when Thompson rebuilt Great Northern into his A1 class (later to become A1/1 when the Peppercorn A1s came along).
@@stevebarnes2 ah alright. Was confused becaise I found a wikipedia about them once which seems to have since disappeared
I love steam engines, due to one reason. Each one has its own personality and soul(if you can call it that) that makes it unique and different from other engines, even other engines of its own class. No two steam engine is the same even if they look the same and I personally love that about them. Diesel run engines just don’t seem to have that same characteristic about them. If I owned a steam engine and had enough money, I’d choose to get it fixed to the point it could move under its own power, instead of trying to preserve the “originality” of it
A very great video indeed!
Personally I say if you toss enough parts out, start calling it a "replica" and take all the other parts and assemble an "original" to place on public display.
Chris I know that’s a issue in the UK but here I n the states some locos still have their original boilers and minus a few parts they still are mostly original as well as we can run them longer
Well done Chris! :D
Chris,
Towards the end of their days, if a Gresley V2 locomotive required replacement cylinders, the monoblock casting was replaced by three separate cylinder castings. Outside steam pipes were also fitted. Number 60847 was one of these modified locomotives, as was 60862, which was also one of five V2s that received a double Kylchap blast pipe & double chimney. This was before development work on steam locomotives was officially halted.
Were Green Arrow to be restored to main line condition a double chimney & German smoke deflectors would be invaluable for 75 mph running. The drivers are 6' 2" in diameter, the same as Bulleid's Pacifics. Merchant Navy class 35003 "Royal Mail", with a trailing load of 164 tons tare, 180 tons gross, achieved a speed of 105.88 mph on 26th June 1967, so smaller wheels than "Tornado" are no barrier to 90 mph running.
interesting, I would agree from an engineering point of view having a pattern to work from, especially one that shows faults and an oppotunity for improvments, is a sound way to progress.
During the working life of a locomotive many parts would change due to servicing. There is nothing wrong with replacing parts and getting better axial bearings i.e. roller bearings.
I think that with Stepney it is most famous for being the bluebells first engine and featured in a famous book. The bluebell is popular with enthusiasts for all the pregrouping stuff but popular with kids for having Stepney. So if most people want to see it run then an overhaul is more justified to help bring people to the bluebell. After all Stepney isn't a terrier if it can't bark.
I personally don't care if it's the original or a replica. The Jupiter and 119 are both replicas but they still breathe the same way the original locomotives did. Just like the 844 is what i would consider original even though practically every part has either been taken from one of her sisters or built from scratch (the UP can still do that) in the 75 years she's been running (she was never retired).
13:39 A bit off topic but what type of engine is that and what is tjat thing on its boiler.
I have no real idea on the type of engine but guess it may be a 4-4-0. The canister looks to me to be an experimental feed water heater.
The engine looks like a S.D.Holden B 12 (GER S69 /"1500") 4.6.0. The thing on top is indeed a feed water heater, you can see a similar image on the "LNER info" website.
The argument of whether or not you should run a steam locomotive can also be applied to collectors keeping rare cars cooped up in a garage. They were built to go fast, so let them go fast. Who cares if it breaks or crashes, your rich, so just get it repaired! I understand that the same argument of “just repair it” can’t be applied to locomotives, but when the boiler ticket expires, you could just keep it in place while you wait for enough money to be raised. At least run them every once in a while so that they don’t get stiff if they do have to get moved because of specific circumstances.
Personally I feel that the question of what defines a particular locomotive is a matter of the "spirit" of the machine, the sum of its parts, whether original or not, coming together to form a complete machine, 60103 doesn't cease to be 60103 just because you've had to replace a smokebox door hinge or something.