Non-working replicas?

ask that question next time you see Clan Line.

 

Never can have enough Bulleids, although not a great fan of the Jarvis designed improved Brittanias or Dukes.

 

The first problem I see with this is space. We often talk about rolling stock looking cluttered at railways and needing undercover storage for what they have. So where do you put these replicas? I don't know of any railway saying please bring your out of ticket loco to fill my space as I'm desperate for something to put there. And we can't yet cover what we have. And unlike a working loco the replica is unlikely to get extra passenger numbers to a railway either. It might be a "nice to have" or a "if a person pays it will be done" but I couldn't see anymore than that. I remember the original B17s project was something along the lines of build 2, one working and one none working and it didn't get much interest.

 

Obviously the MNLPS is not of right mind. I'll have words with young Mr. Cruse next time I see him.

 

Does that mean when I'm at the next BLOA meeting I'll be in a room with crazy people lol ;-)

 

I've been thinking about this a bit. A non-working replica of an unrebuilt MN would be a great idea and quite prototypical (although they did work sometimes I hear). All you need do is get a whole lot of old cardboard boxes from the back of Tesco, pile them up and paint them green with yellow stripes.....all good.

 

On that note there is already a question mark over the future of the static Bloomer replica which used to live at Milton Keynes, and of course the tender of the static Dean Single replica has already been scrapped.

 

I think the underframe of the latter is at the Bluebell isn't it?

 

Not exactly - the underframe very much lives on.

Tom

 

Ah, but that isn't a replica.

 

We're all crazy - rebuilt or not.

 

Both you and Ralph are now in the book.

 

The idea I originally suggested was that non-working replicas might be offered to take the place of original engines which could then be restored to working order - 60008/10, 1442 to name three. I don't see any point in them per se.

 

I do see your point, but conversely once you've built two static replica A4s, shipped them to North America, shipped 8 and 10 back, and then overhauled them you'll probably not have much change left over from what it would have cost to build two working A4s and leave 8 and 10 in the hands of those without whom they would have been scrapped, and besides which you'd be looking for work for six A4s when there isn't enough main line work for four and most heritage lines can't physically or financially accommodate engines of that size. It's not without reason that when 4468 was last overhauled the work was done on the understanding that it would only be in service for a brief period and thus not tread on the toes of the A4LS and John Cameron. And why restore more big pacifics when so many MNs remain unrestored?

Same goes for 1442: if dedicated funding could be found to overhaul it and build a mock up then fair enough, but if having parked a replica in Tiverton Museum you then had 1442 spending years in bits in a yard somewhere, or being overhauled at the expense of another engine which did not have access to secure undercover accommodation, then what would be the point?

Dear God. I'm starting to sound like Paul Hitch.

 

Nor will the museums.
Maybe you could swap them over in the dead of night and hope they didn't notice but if they did you'd be forced to repatriate and put them with all the others in SAC Martin's garden.

 

And in any case, if you want to see another 1400 in working order the GWS would like to hear from you. Here's the gen: http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/forms_central/1466_appealform.pdf

 

They'd probably paint it in BR(W) livery.....

 

It's a hypothetical garden, before anyone gets any ideas! XD

Why can't I have aspirations? Sir William McAlpine* has a private railway in his garden...

*admittedly a lot larger than mine...

 

No, that's a sensible, well-thought-out opinion, Rosedale.