Latest on 34067?

Yay! Do I get a prize? ;o)

Seriously though, thanks for the confirmation. I am curious as to what stage of re-assembly 45699 is currently at. Having seen the loco during the 2008 open day and spoken to one of the men involved with the loco, it must surely, 18 months on, be getting reasonably advanced...? I appreciate the 'it'll be ready when it's ready' disclaimer, but I can't help eagerly anticipating this loco running. I have memories of seeing the loco dumped in the yard at Kidderminster, and, what with the severed driving wheel, I never thought I'd see the day where a return to steam would even be considered, let alone be drawing as close as it must be by now.

 

Talking to someone wednesday night they've seen Galatea and its ready to roll! all painted etc so watch this space is what i was told

 

While that could be true, i wouldnt be surprised if Carnforth have been a bit too busy with the operational fleet and Tangmere's overhaul to have got that far.
Perhaps someone just confused her with 34067?

Chris

 

The Telerail DVD of West Coast shows her, presumably last summer, looking quite complete. Shouldn't be too far off outshopping, if all goes well, now that 34067 is pretty much ready to go.

 

noelists's video from May last year shows her as a rolling chassis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6yVHk6CJI

 

Was definatly Galatea hope to see her soon

 

What livery-LMS maroon with 5690 on the side?
Time for a visit to Specsavers.

 

No it wasn't and you won't - end of!

 

Now that's spoiling the fun! You should have let them carry on in their little world of make believe. They'd be reporting seeing it over the S & C next week.

 

Only saying what ive been told.

 

Mr Shuttleworth, a lot of times when you come on this forum you are very rude & abrupt. Is it too much to ask for you to show a bit more a bit more politeness please? People are only asking civil questions & expect civil answers.

 

Don't see any ??? in the above statement of factual inaccuracies which JS corrected.
WCRC don't supply information and they get slated,they do supply information and get slated.

 

Only posted what i'd been told.

 

Perhaps someone made it up?

 

Thanks for coming on the forum and clarifying the facts. Rumours do tend to have a life of their own so it is always nice to hear from someone who knows!

sw-rogers, this is someone you can believe. Whoever told you was probably well-meaning, but they made a mistake.

 

Ok, thanks for confirming the truth.

 

:faint2: Surely not.......do you mean..........a rumour? On Nat. Pres. ? well, well, well. I'm shocked. out: :wink:

 

Sorry, but I think you're the one out of order "buseng". I'm sure James has far more important things to do, and although his comments may be short and sweet, you can at least be sure they are factual -- unlike some of the specualtive dribble that appears on this forum.

 

I'm not sure that I need to explain myself - certainly to someone who calls himself 'buseng' (at least I do use my own name).

However, the response was short and to the point to an incorrect statement that was made - twice - that 5699 was finished and ready to run (which it isn't) and the young lad was looking forward to seeing to seeing it soon (which, I'm afraid, he won't) and that, hopefully, that was then end of the matter and it would not waste further discussion.

There are a number of us, involved rather more deeply in this 'movement', who, against probably our better judgement, have given the occasional post - however blunt - to Nat-Pres (either directly or covertly), in order to explain a situation or correct a musunderstanding. Sadly, the knee-jerk response, from one or two (but, sadly, becoming more prevalent on N-P), really makes us wonder why we bother.

I will certainly think twice before bothering to post again.

 

I'm not questioning what he says, it is how it is worded.