6233 in LMS red and wider livery debate of locomotives/stock

Sorry about this.......

 

You do yourself no favours by so disparaging other people's opinions; you should respect them even if they are diametrically opposed to your own. Nor is "I see no reason..." an argument in itself; it states merely that that you do not agree with the counter argument.

To use your analogy of the NCB Jinties, this is an entirely different situation and not comparable. The NCB need to move its and BR trains around and needed motive power to do so. The Jinties provided a cost effective means of doing this, but so too could a diesel shunter, battery electric loco or even a JCB with an improvised buffer beam and draw hook (it was done). The Jinties were bought to meet an objective and were not the objective themselves, and were discarded, mostly for scrap, once they were no longer needed. With preservation, it is the loco itself which is the objective, and the working of trains is a means to that preservation, but is not the objective itself; many a preservered loco is no longer in use. That makes a difference as to how preservation should be approached and the precedents of former owners' repaints into house colours do not apply.

 

I think we're back to "It's my engine and I can do what I like" again!

It will be difficult now to ask all those involved of their opinions at the time, but BR's attitude and dictats then were definitely hostile. I was involved at the time and fully recall the sense of annoyance and frustration.

 

I think it's fair to say that on a case by case basis, everyone would understand entirely if the underlined DID happen, and that it was acknowledged that such a repaint and rebranding wasn't permanent.

That wasn't the case with either Royal Scot at Southall, the 9F at the GCR, the 8F at Peak Rail, Leander or Galatea, all of which are in totally inauthentic liveries, or have been, and it's been a choice by their owners (new or otherwise) to paint them in liveries which they never carried to varying degrees.

I personally don't see the harm in a member of a class which didn't carry a livery carrying a livery a class mate did, provided its shown that it was accurate and historically correct to that class member. That's why the green 9F was a great idea and the red 8F wasn't. At the end of the day, steam locomotives have history and it should be respected.

 

Well, yes. But I fear your argument is a little circular in that you appear to be taking a position that the only valid way to have a locomotive is a particular style of compromised authenticity, and that any argument for an alternative is not valid. But I hold that all these choices are compromises, and there probably are nine and sixty ways of painting steam locomotives, and probably all of them are right...

It seems to me, for example, just as valid to attempt to project a style of train as specific units, so if a line is, I dunno, aiming at an atmosphere of LNER, if your stock necessarily contains some BR Mk 1s, it is quite valid to paint them teak style rather than dogmatically say that they must be in such and such a livery no matter what a horrible mish-mash the resulting train looks like. Good practice. admittedly, in that case to have lettering that doesn't actually say LNER, in the same way I recall seeing 1638 on the Dart Valley Railway with Dart Valley on her tanks in pre 1923 GWR style, which provided the desired effect without actually being a historical anachronism...

And again painting a locomotive in its new owner's preferred style must be seen as valid, because historically that's what always happened.

 

Well whatever the livery I think the most evocative steam action photos are in black and white!

 

Yes, that saves many problems!

 

A pretty fair summing up, yes! It takes little imagination to work out with which loco I am (mainly) involved, and I could give you a list of non-authentic fittings she has carried over the last ten years. Many of these will disappear during this current overhaul, but others alas will appear. Such detail modifications are the price for useage and cannot be avoided. But major appearance changes can be, and will be.

The case is similar in the world of classic cars. If you use such a car only to go to the odd show a few times a year, then originality (important in this world) is easy. I use as daily transport a 55 year old Ford Prefect, so it's modified to make it less of a hinderance to drivers of modern cars, but from the outside you would need to look very closely, and know what you were looking at, to see this. Again, it's the price for useage.

You might not agree with me, but at least, I practice what I preach!

 

You should read my posts more thoroughly. I have stated that people are entitled to an opinion but that doesn't mean I should agree with them nor refrain from stating that I do not agree with them. It would seem that you have a very narrow view in that if the livery of a loco doesn't meet with your approval then it is wrong, end of argument. Nowhere have I said that I approve of "non authentic" liveries - nor disapprove for that matter - but I'm quite happy to put forward an argument as to how they can be justified under certain circumstances as well as respect the right of owners to wield the pain't brush how they wish.
I presume you'll be writing a strongly worded letter of complaint to the Times over the Bluebell's continued heresy of painting 323 in its house livery as well as the number of faux Thomas paint jobs that grace our heritage railways.

 

Actually, of three small locos on the Bluebell that have liveries that they never wore in pre-preservation days, Bluebell is the one that least warrants a letter to the Times!

There are more subtle examples: for example, a number of Bulleid West Countries have crests in preservation that they didn't have originally, or else didn't have in the livery they now sport (Blackmore Vale is an example). So it can be a bit of a minefield.

Certainly I'd agree that the history of locomotives did not stop the moment they entered preservation. One loco on the Bluebell had five owners before being preserved (and several had four owners), each of which painted the loco in their own house style; so the fact that - particularly in the early days of preservation - railways such as the Bluebell and KWVR continued that tradition and painted locos in their own house style does represent an important part of their history. ("Bluebell" is 105 years old, and the Bluebell Railway has owned her for 55 years, or more than half her life, longer than all the previous owners put together).

That said, inasmuch as Preserved Railways have a function to educate their visitors (remembering that many are set up as educational charities), I think there is at least an expectation to strive towards standards of accuracy. For that reason, I am far more relaxed about a loco such as Bluebell being in what is obviously a house style (but also historically relevant, albeit remembering history of the preservation era rather than pre-preservation) than I am about locos in which the inauthenticity is more subtle and would require specialist knowledge to know was not accurate for pre-preseravation, such as a green 9F of Standard Tank, or a BR blue rebuilt Merchant Navy.

Tom

 

No I wouldnt as I said in my post no desire to see and photograph it at all . Didn't do 35005 in blue on the mainline either

 

That is what I'm saying although it depends how long they wanted it to remain like that

 

No, Spamcan, my criticism was not of your opinions, but your dismissal of others' opinions as nonsense. You have every right to your opinion and also to express it; my disagreement with it is the basis of what I hoped could be open but friendly debate.

Apparently not.

 

Not a valid analogy. HMS Victory is a static exhibit and is no longer used for the purpose for which it was built (going to sea). Steam locomotives, however, are used for the purpose they were built, hauling trains. This means that various bits on them have to be replaced and patched up to keep them that way. Your comparison would be similar to something such as the original Stephenson's Rocket, or possibly something like Lode Star which has effectively been left untouched since the days of steam.

I would be willing to bet 90% of what is currently deemed as being "Flying Scotsman" is not the same as what was there when it was built, and maybe 75% of it is not the same as it was when it was withdrawn. At what point does your "working museum" idea reach its limit? Every operational steam locomotive in the UK today will be using different boiler tubes, some will have fireboxes made out of new materials, many will have technical wizardry in the cabs the men who worked on them in the 1960s couldn't even have comprehended.

If something such as 6233 is so very different to the locomotive it was in 1964 on the inside, why the issue about what colour it's painted on the outside? Why is your idea of historical accuracy only skin-deep?

 

Sorry that's wrong it's not in revenue earning service it's a museum exhibit on a heritage railway which like any other museum has a duty to history

 

I suspect the directors of many heritage railways would be surprised to learn that their locos are not in revenue earning service!

Tom

 

So locos on heritage railways are not in revenue earning service then? Better tell that to those railways who have passengers who actually use them as public transport.

 

This is getting a bit silly now locomotives were built to move freight and passengers from A to B . A preserved locomotive is there to give pleasure rides on a heritage railway oraas I prefer to say a working museum, totally different

 

If you've worked out a way to make a paint job on a working steam locomotive permanent I should think there will be a lot of people keen to know how [grin]

 

I believe they've managed it with the Forth Bridge.

On the other hand, this could REALLY expand the livery debate!