48624

Tender exchanges! A great cause of confusion during LMS days and later. There were black engines with red tenders and vice versa. The LNWR practice of fitting a different tender following a loco overhaul (Crewe built fewer tenders than locos as tenders did not take as long to overhaul, so would be ready before its partner engine came out of shops, and would be attached to the next engine ex-Works) worked in LNWR days as the engine number was on the engine. Under the inherited Midland system, it was on the tender tank and would be that of the previous loco attached to the tender. Given Crewe's reluctance to fit (Midland) smoke box number plates, the only number displayed might not only be the wrong loco but possibly the wrong class. Post war, there were black streamilined Lizzies with red non-streamlined tenders. The tender generally was not repainted to match its new partner engine.

 

Thanks for that clarification.

 

This is the GCR I knew and loved whilst I was at university last decade. As an FYI if there had been a public call for funds - like the Duchess - I would have put my hands in my pocket for an authentic livery.

But then, as correctly observed earlier, the owning group made the decision to repaint outside of enthusiasts.

I do find it curious that we can have so many brilliant photographs from the steam era that many try and sometimes very successfully replicate on preserved railways, yet have a pervading anti-accuracy attitude amongst a select few which they portray as some form of anti-historical elitism...

 

Rubbish!

 

By all means rebut my point with some debate and evidence.

I would suggest the good gentleman goes back to the duchess thread for a number of posts he himself posted proving my point rather well.

 

Once again you choose to belittle someone's point of view without any reason or justification being put forward. It seems that you fail to realise that, while we all share am interest in railways in general and steam traction in particular, every individual has his own priorities and perceptions due to his or her upbringing and influences. We are all different and all work or hope for different variations on the theme. It would be a much narrower world if we were all alike, and I'm sorry to say it would be a very sad world if we were all like you in accepting only our own opinions.

 

Deleted due to bullying by duty Druid.

 

Of for heaven's sake quit the sanctimonious posts. Plenty of locos and items of rolling stock are or have been painted in liveries which the purists deem "inauthentic". Such "inauthentic" colour schemes exists in other branches of the heritage transport movement so instead of bleating about it on an internet forum, why don't you go and tell the owners of these "travesties" that they've got it wrong.
You can start with that nice Mr. Hosking and berate him for lining out and naming Bittern's support coach and I'm sure the VT boys would be delighted to be told that their Mk.2 carriages shouldn't be chocolate and cream.

 

You know insufficient about me to make such a judgement. I'm more than happy to accept other opinions, especially those of those who chose to paint things in a livery of their own choosing - something that you patently don't accept. Happy Christmas.

 

My point was more aimed to the attitude that I find curious.

I find it difficult to reconcile - given we talk about restoring engines to working order after all - that anyone who does want a more historical look is in any way asking for the earth when asking for some consideration to be given to the livery too. I've said enough in that point and won't repeat myself but it is amazing at the rank hypocrisy I find in one side of the debate.

I note Mr Spamcans above further posts - how have you in any way accepted my view in calling it "rubbish?"

One does feel that it is too easy for one side to move the goalposts in any given debate.

Regarding the inauthentic liveries on rolling stock - I feel the same way about rolling stock. It's not an inconsistency and strangely enough I've written in to the railway mags putting forward my point of view on several occasions.

There's many inconsistencies in the "owners prerogative" point of view but at least I know I have put my money where my mouth is in backing groups and locomotives which can and are turned out to satisfactory levels of historical accuracy.

 

Well...

 

True (I don't understand why you tell me what my point of view is. I already know what it is and have stated it on here!), and I have given the reasons for it.

All that I know about you is what you have put on here, which is all I have passed comment on. I can listen to reasoned debate and consider my position in light of it, but single word, derrogatory comment doesn't allow either for that or for discussion. It isn't how a debate is conducted to any form of conclusion.

 

You can add the K1 to that list as it never appeared in apple green let alone LNER branding at any point in its working life.

Mayflower is one of those gray areas - as 1306 you could say she was representing the other B1s which did carry that livery (she didn't she was British railways built).

As I said before, 3440 looks better to me in accurate livery as 3717. I couldn't comment on most of those as I don't know the details, but 60532 did carry her current apple green livery (albeit with a single chimney and conventional regulator type), so it's not quite as inaccurate as her LNER livery carried previously - but again, was this representing what other class members did wear? (Though as I recall the letters and numbers might have been Gill sans and not shaded as done for that overhaul.

We agree to an extent. I think changing up the liveries is a good idea and keeps things fresh. I'd prefer if they were authentic and accurate to the locomotive mind but accept its not always entirely possible. However that's why the M&GNR society's J15 to Y14 conversion is so inspiring - backdated to as reasonably possible condition authentic for the livery she now wears. Which, when all is said and done, is a beautiful example of what happens when owners take the time to research and do things right. Bravo to them I say.

 

Surely the point is, in amongst all this froth, that it doesn't really matter. People choose to paint engines in whatever colour they choose and, for anyone who complains, there are plenty of others out there to look at, so get over it. So something is painted in an 'inauthentic' colour - no laws have been broken and no-one has died. Personally I liked the red 8F - no it wasn't authentic but it was interesting to see what it looked like. Given that BR spent quite some time painting engines different colours to see what they looked like, it is rather odd at the rage attached to such a thing now. If we are just to spend our time desperately trying to recreate what railways looked like in the 1950s then that seems a little dull, frankly.

 

That's precisely the opposite of what I've been saying for quite a while now.

If it doesn't matter, as you suggest, why not get it right in the first place? Saying "there's others to look at" really misses the point I feel.

The point is that there's - in my opinion, accepted - a responsibility on behalf of the owner or owning parties to put their charges in a reasonably accurate rendition of what they would have looked at when actually working for the purpose they were built.

That's a bit of a straw man argument in my view. You could apply that thinking to everything and everyone you disagree with. Effectively coming down to "you're wrong because nobody died and no laws were broken". Life is rarely as black and white as that, hence why we have debate to find common ground for agreement.

That's fair enough and it certainly looked smart and well presented. However for me, the photograph shown earlier on the GCR with the engine in black was beautiful - recreating as much as possible a scene which has vanished from Britain, giving a flavour of what it was really like to people who never knew it and reminding those who did what it was all about.

If I may, nobody has actually suggested everything should be BR 1950s.

In fact a number of us welcome the chance to paint engines in grouping and pre grouping liveries if they are authentic.

LMS black would have been equally authentic and is underrepresented in preservation.

The point being that it could be differently presented. There's options and solutions to everything. So let's not turn this into a debate high doesn't exist - because as far as I'm aware theres no actual pressure group trying to make everything BR liveried.

 

But surely you must see that spending this much time arguing and getting worked up about it is pointless. This has been gone over time and time again - some people think everything should be authentic, and some don't. So let's just get agree to disagree and move on. Nothing new has been added to this debate in terms of thought. I agree with you that the 'weathered' 8F looked fantastic. Now can we get back to more interesting issues?

 

Would you mind perhaps explaining why you feel it's rubbish? Rather than continuing to run my view down without evidence?

Because the general feeling I have had from any discussion here is that to use a correct livery or to want to see a correct livery is in some way wrong or totally unreasonable.

So to me it does feel like an anti-accuracy attitude: and further it feels that to like railway history and to want it portrayed accurately is also somehow wrong or totally unreasonable.

The way some people have been shouted down here (myself included) with not a lot of substantial evidence to back up the simple question: why get it wrong when you can get it right just convinces me there's a strange them and us situation whereby those who do like railway history and look to portray it are vilified by those who don't or aren't bothered by it.

 

Happy to: it's just a shame to feel a little stomped on for putting forward a point of view.

 

Which is the point. That comment tells us nothing but your opposition to a viewpoint, to which you are entitled, but not why or where you think the viewpoint is in error. I believe that my opinion is correct (otherwise I wouldn't hold it) as you no doubt believe yours to be. And while it is the pantomime season, a discussion on the lines of, "Oh, no it isn't!" followed by, "Oh, yes it is!" doesn't help.