Steam Locomotive Restoration of the Decade 2010-2019

More than that, the BR branding was copyright and they would not allow its use on any preserved steam loco, such was the desire to rid themselves of any connection with outdated steam.

 

Never quite sure whether that was true (i.e. that BR enforced it), or whether it was to try and justify the owner's choice e.g. 7029. 46201 only went red in 1970, and did 46443 and 43106 ever lose their BR logos because of this?

 

I do remember it from the time, although it did seem to die off quite quickly. I think it was more to do with repainting an engine into BR livery rather than engines which arrived with the livery applied by BR and still in place; it was a long time ago and I can't remember all the details. But the SVR didn't open until 1970 so out of sight anyway, and these engines were not 'restored' prior to that and were in the paint they arrived in. 6201 was under restoration at Ashchurch for a long time and probably didn't have any logo for several years.

If anyone could provide the definitive story, I'd be grateful.

 

I don’t know exactly when there was a softening of attitude from BR, but certainly that was the very early view. On the Bluebell, the earliest locos all very rapidly acquired a livery that’s removed the BR identification - for example, lined black but with pre-grouping number and possibly a name on the tank. 55, 27, 488, 473 and I think 323 all ran like that. When time allowed, they were then repainted, generally to pre-grouping livery, hence the use of Improved Engine Green for “Stepney”; SECR green for “Primrose“, and Adams pea green for 488. “Bluebell” meanwhile got a corporate blue livery. “Birch Grove” went Marsh umber but retaining the name.

As late as mid 1964, when “Fenchurch” arrived, it was very rapidly renumbered 2636 and the BR emblem was erased - there is a photo of her in that condition here: https://www.terriertrust.org.uk/other-terriers/212-fenchurch-saved-by-the-bluebell-railway-1964 So clearly the injunction about BR liveries was still in force at that time. By contrast, when 75027 arrived in January 1969, it went straight into service in BR livery.

Tom

 

34023, 35028 and 41298 kept their BR liveries when they were at Longmoor.

 

They all lasted right to the end of Southern steam, ie July 1967. So was BR’s concern primarily about the possible confusion whereby a preserved loco could potentially be seen in proximity to a BR loco. (Conceivably, Bluebell locos could be seen adjacent to BR ones up to the mid 1960s before the connections to the mainline were severed either side of Horsted Keynes).

I wonder as well if there were regional variations in policy?

Tom

 

I’m no dancer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The prevalent dislike for BR and all their works was a major factor. Certainly in Western circles as I recall.

 

Just seen a picture of 41298 at Longmoor in 1968 and she looks pristine, seemingly after a full repaint.

 

I don't think it can be the proximity concept e.g. 46201 at Bath Road in October 1967 https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p483725128/h70D7FE#h70d7fe One could imagine such a requirement being written into the sale agreement but even if it was in there, enforcing it would be a different matter I guess, and BR probably quickly lost interest as the corporate logo changed.

 

Not true because I said something! As 45157 it's still wrong as it should have a domeless boiler.

 

I think back then there was a belief that BR would not allow its own branding as it was in conflict with its laughable modern image.

 

Top lamp bracket is in high position now

 

You are correct they were and by enthusiasts too. no point in quoting the 4 or the 6 etc in front, The exception were Mr Bulleid's engines that had the odd numbering scheme pre nationalisation.

 

I remember a Swindon painter telling me they used to put a very thin coat of paint over the great western on the tender so after a little while it came through again, long live the GWR!

 

I think an additional bracket was added at the top for the Jacobite this year John. The side bracket remains and the top bracket has been removed again if you look at any photos of 45212 at the KWVR this December just gone. The bolts to hold the bracket in place can be seen.

 

Thinking about it, is the lower bracket necessary for the KWVR as they work in close proximity to the wires at Keighley?

 

I'm not sure about that John. You could be right, but there are plenty of other loco's on the line that do use the top bracket for lamps. Back in the mists of time I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was asked if the bracket could be moved for the Jacobite headboard, but the WVR wanted it kept where it was. My guess is they want to keep the loco close to it's withdrawn state from BR as close as possible.

 

As I understand it there was usually a clause in the sales contract requiring the removal of the BR emblem but it was not a universal requirement and some locos were sold without that clause. That does explain why, with many early sales, locos were quickly repainted in non-BR liveries. I do know that, when the Middleton Railway purchased their Y1/2 Sentinel, BR actually painted out the emblem before it was delivered.

 

I think that the condition of purchase clause that BR insisted on in those early days was that the loco be removed from BR property immediately. This being so why would they worry about how it was displayed. The general move to repaint locos in non BR colours reflected the fact that most of the early preservationists were from the pre nationalisation era and had fond memories of that period. Not unlike those of us of a certain age now who like to see locos in the livery we remember, namely of the BR period. In the early Bluebell period BR delivered 9017 and 32636 in steam and were unfussed about their livery. It was the Bluebell who altered this on arrival.

Peter