'Super D' 49395

In the latest issue of 'British Railway Modelling; there is an extensive feature on Pete Waterman's 7mm scale 'Leamington Spa' layout. One of the pictures shows a model of 'Super D' no. 49395 and the picture caption states that '49395 is preserved as part of the National Collection but is in Pete Waterman's care having been restored by his LNWR Locomotive Works.'

As a regular visitor to Crewe I don't ever remember seeing this engine under restoration there. So who can tell us the story of the loco's restoration, please?

Peter Jordan

 

Well I don't know how you missed it unless you have been going since 2006 when the loco was out running on preserved lines. The story of its restoration is too long to recount here but it was a very difficult job. The railway magazines at the time, (Steam Railway), gave frequent reports on the restoration. It cost Pete Waterman over £600,000 due to accident damage to its motion, the need to repair rather than replace its motion and the fact that the engine had been left outside for many years. We are very lucky he took it on and kept with it as the bills far exceeded origial estimates.

 

From memory the loco was reassembled at Crewe, the boiler was done at Chathams and the frames were done at the NRM.

The loco ran for the first time at the Churnet Valley Railway in 2005.

 

And it has been to a large number of preserved railways all around the country.

We've had it at Llangollen, and others I can think of are the east lancs, churnet valley, north York moors, severn valley and keighley.

Not too difficult to miss really!

 

It is currently at the elr where it should be staying for quite a while

 

Thanks for the input on this topic so far. The posting from Mike Redditch suggests what I had suspected - that the locomotive was not restored at Crewe, only certain work was done there. That would explain why I can't recall seeing it.

Peter Jordan

 

It was restored at LNWR Crewe and returned in steam in circa 2005, before running in at Churnet Valley.

 

Well. Lee, your posting seems to take us back to square one. You say it was restored at LNWR Crewe but Mike Redditch says the boiler was done at Chatham and the frames at the NRM, with the engine being REASSEMBLED at Crewe (which is NOT the same as being 'restored.')

So who is correct?

Peter Jordan

 

Mike is... i was going off base for restoration.

 

Is this thread going to turn into another of Peter Jordan's anti-LNWR rants I wonder...?

 

I don't believe I've ever said I am anti-LNWR.

Peter Jordan

 

As at least the reassembled was carried out at LNWR, how would prefer the caption to be worded? Personally, "reassembling a loco" and "restoring a loco" are pretty much the same thing, as most people accept that boilers and other parts will be worked on by other specialist contracters.

Richard

 

I'm sure I saw it at Ironbridge Gorge 25 or so years ago..

 

I don't believe he said your anti-LNWR, my translation is that he is asking will this thread become an anti LNWR thread guided by yourself.

based on evidence, he may have a point...maybe you could counter propose how much of the link below is pro-LNWR ?
http://railways.national-preservation.com/search.php?searchid=2555988
i reccomend starting on page 4 and work forwards.

 

Moving on...

what chance the super D appearing in LMS or LNWR guise in the few years it has left ?, do we think this will get a 2nd overhaul ? It seemed to be a bit of a knacker to start with, but I don't think it's done too badly since it was overhauled.

 

I saw it there 25 years ago, rusting on a plinth. Was really pleased to see it running again, thanks to Pete Waterman amongst others.

 

I saw another forum that the Super D does not get much use at the ELR due to it been mechanically tired and only a few crews there are deemed to be competent in operating the locomotive.

Maybe given the above it won’t get done again.

 

I think that takes a lot of credit away from the people that actually did the hard work on the loco. The people who restored the bottom end/ mechanics and the boiler did the hard work, putting the bits together at LNWR was the relatively easy part. I believe that the tender was done at the NRM as well.

 

So is the work of these other contractors not worthy of mention? Surely if the magazine wanted a brief caption it would have been simpler and more appropriate to say that the loco. was restored at Pete Waterman's expense. To mention one organisation that had input into the restoration without mentioning the significant contribution of others is hardly fair.

And no, 'reassembly' and 'restoration' are not the same thing. I was a clock repairer for ten years and if I took a customer's clock apart and then put it back together without doing anything else to it I had 'reassembled' it. But there is no way I had 'restored' it. The same applies for railway locomotives or vehicles.

Peter Jordan

 

Its not that some crews are deemed incompetent, but there aren't many people at Bury passed to drive it.

As for livery, that's all Pete's choice - his money restored it, so it looks how he wishes