7027 Thornbury Castle

That would apply to most steam locomotives. For instance, next time you visit Didcot, take a look at all the numbers stamped on the coupling/connecting rods.

I think it's more about bridge clearances than clearance between catenary. When I travelled to Bold Colliery in 1985 with 5051 in the cab under the wires, with 5051 in original condition, there was absolutely no problem. Is the catenary lower now than then?

 

Rods are mostly either originals or straight replacements, to the same designs, from sister locos. FS has some major bits that are different.

Again I was passing on what I was told; which is that they do not intend 4709 to run on the main line but they do need to get it in and out of Didcot under the wires and that that is what sets the constraint on height.

(And a bit of pedantry; I believe the lowest wire, which is the significant one for clearances, is correctly termed the contact wire, the catenary being the upper one that supports it.)

 

Good god that's a stretch and a half. I was stood next to the loco just over a week ago and what you are saying is disingenuous in the extreme.



In any event, no steam locomotive in preservation 100% made up of its original parts, unless it was never actually used. The continual (and rather banal) "Trigger's broom" pseudo-meme applied to [insert name of steam locomotive here] isn't justified. It's very tiresome for those of us who actually volunteer and run steam locomotives as part of our lives.

Flying Scotsman has worked for two major railways, had three major private owners, and is now in the hands of the NRM. In that time as a working locomotive for the LNER and then BR Eastern Region, the locomotive underwent maintenance and overhauls and, like every steam locomotive in this entire country, had parts repaired, replaced or upgraded as funds/time allowed by its owning body.

The locomotive presented for us in 2022 is the sum total of 100 years working on that particular time and space that has been known as Flying Scotsman.

It is ultimately irrelevant how much of the locomotive survives from its build date in 1923: the fact that something which tells the whole history of its class, by virtue of its survival, is still with us and running today is testament to the people who cared about it, worked on it, saved it, and now continue to do their utmost for it on behalf of its owners - the general public - today.

 

Wouldnt have thought that creating a thick mounting plate on the bottom of the boiler/smokebox to enable the interface would beyond the engineering skills of.... even me if im honest

 

That shouldn't be a constraint. Why not do what York did with 6000 when it was shunted over to the carriage works for transport to Swindon in 2015 - it is easily reversable and retains the integrety of the loco. It is not like this would be a very frequent move.

Peter

 

Wow .... with that move, we should be grateful width over cylinders wasn't an issue!

 

Judging by their statements to date, I would take anything the 4709 group say with a pinch of salt!

 

Don't tell me, tell the 4709 people.

 

I don't disagree at all.

I was responding to the questions

when I said "Identity seems to be in the mind of the beholder, or possibly the accountant." For FS in particular I do not know how many parts are original, but it has often been asserted that they are few. Despite that, most of us, as beholders, do regard it as still having its original identity. Anyone who believes otherwise would have a tricky task in determining which of the many changes over the years meant that the original had finally ceased to exist.

 

During its lifetime, the primary objective would have been to minimise the time spent in the works. If that meant taking a part from somewhere else, so be it. Otherwise you would have a railway workshop full of locos waiting for their own parts!

Why does that matter? The identity of a locomotive is determined by the frames. A 100 year old locomotive will never be 100% original.

 

That’s a myth I’m afraid - there are many documented examples of locos swapping frames but maintaining their original identity. (Didn’t the LNER keep spare sets of frames for A3s for just that eventuality? I seem to recall someone mentioning that the loco involved in the Castle Cary disaster emerged from the works “after repair”, passing the battered remains of itself on the way out.

Ultinately, the identity of a locomotive is determined just by the number painted or bolted to the side of the cab.

Tom

 

Yes, but that is generally the case as it was normal practice.

4983 or 4965? https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/4965-rood-ashton-hall/

Shouldn't Castle Cary be Castlecary?

 

I've never seen any evidence that it was normal practice, on the GWR at least. It seems to be an enthusiasts myth. And TBH I submit the 4983/4965 tale only reinforces that.

 

Well I can say that I have never seen evidence that it wasn't normal practice - and I haven't. Of course there were exceptions such as 4983/4965 and 4082/7013:

http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_cas_40827013.htm

As detailed in Kenneth Cook's book, the GWR had record cards for each locomotive. How would that have worked with locomotives swapping identities willy-nilly?

 

Certainly some Drummond M7s were built as short frame examples, went into the works at the same time as a long frame loco and what emerged was the long frame loco but carrying the ID of the short frame one (plus a pile of components for scrap or recycling that had the redundant short frames but the long frame ID for accountancy purposes).

I think a loco getting broken down then reassembled with largely the same parts was more common in some works and in older times, but wasn’t universal.

Tom

 

It didnt go all the way to Swindon by rail. It was only tripped over to the old York Carriage Works - now known as Thrall Europa - for onward road transport. Like the GWS at Didcot the NRM has no road access for large transporter vehicles due to low bridges at either end of Leeman Road.

Peter

 

The same happened to some T9s in the 1950s. Those locos converted for oil burning post war were withdrawn en masse and stored at Eastleigh when oil burning was abandoned. In due course when other T9s came in for shopping and were found to have defective frames these would be changed for a set off an oil burner but no former oil burner was ever reinstated into traffic.

It is probably safe to say that had the use of S15 825's frames for 841 happened at Eastleigh the loco would have emerged as 841 and not 825 as has happened at Grosmont. But it is a privately owned loco and the owners can number it as they like.

Peter

 

You might like to check up on the frame history of Stanier Class 5s 45000-45461. There were numerous changes over the years.

 

3265, and no doubt others.

There can be no doubt at all that fitting new frames did not constitute a new locomotive and require a new number to be allocated. That was not an infrequent occurrence.

So the only question is whether a second hand set of frames normally carried the number previously used on the frames. You list some exceptions where they didn't. I would ask for examples of the reverse, but the trouble is it such an exercise doesn't really differ from a normal heavy general overhaul. Arguably the only time the point comes into play is when there's a one good one from two exercise, or maybe if there's a reconstruction into a different class. I can't think of many one from twos that didn't actually end up with a new number allocated. 3265, 4983, what others come to mind?

As for reconstructions to a new class, most seem to have received new numbers (3100, 8100, 7200, Dukedog etc) but Star->Castle rebuilds were renumbered if the rebuild was done from renewal money, but not if rebuilt from revenue. But those weren't frame swaps - the majority of the locomotive was kept, with only cylinders, boiler and cab discarded.

I think its a reasonable assumption that the identity of a locomotive couldn't be said to reside in any part that could be replaced over the service life. So if you examine that, in view of the "exceptions", the not unusual fitting of new frames etc, then I submit the logical conclusion is that the identity of a locomotive resided in the register entry in the company's books and not in the frames or indeed any other part.