Talyllyn No. 1 at the start of the preservation era

Sorry, I have no further information. Something I have noticed from photos of the Gibbons rebuild - the right side of the front handrail as seen facing the loco extended down further than the front left side!

 

I would still far rather have Talyllyn I'm service than in a museum with more Victorian parts. The loco is not just an assembly of metal - not quite alive, I know, but something near!

 

Hear, hear!

I must confess I've always loathed the idea of not running a steam locomotive, but have it stuffed and mounted instead, all for the sake of preserving it's "original material"... By their nature they are machine built to do a job, to move! Not be stood idly around for folks to glance at only for a moment, but otherwise go by unnoticed and fall into disinterest... Plus to me it's never made that much logical sense, certainly for the future as if we all adopted this mentality, it wouldn't be long at all before virtually NO steam engines is able to run again, because we refuse to replace even one screw for the sake of "originality"...

I realise of course that's a rather extreme example, but put it another way; there were plenty of people who suggested we should just stuff and mount Flying Scotsman because of the rising costs in it's overhaul, and instead build a brand new one. But this would get virtually ZERO support from the british public (or the world even), as everyone wouldn't want a duplicate... for there already is one in existence, THE ONE they all want to see running, there has will only ever be one Flying Scotsman to ride behind, just as they'll only be one Talyllyn in service for people to see and enjoy, and that is how it should be...

I've never really bought the whole "preserving their originality for the future" common argument that much either, and suspect more likely that most quite frankly don't care much whether it original material or not... Though don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting ALL static locos should be running right now, as some rightly should be kept on display, purely because their usage would realistically be impractical and limited in this day and age.

Pardon me if I ranted on somewhat, it's just a topic I feel passionate about...

 

It's as well to remember that TR No1 was rebuilt (not "restored") at Gibbons Bros in 1957/8, and the loco carried a plaque recording this for many years. This was in the very early years of railway "preservation" - a word first used by the Talyllyn Railway Preservation Society and which has caused much controversy and anguish ever since. In reality, the aim was to preserve the identity of the railway, in the knowledge that it couldn't be strictly preserved "as-is" - it was far too run down and inadequate to survive in that form.

The railway desperately needed more motive power and it would have been much cheaper and easier to obtain another loco similar to Barclay No 6 Douglas and re-gauge it than rebuild No 1. There were a few candidates around in the North Wales quarries, but the stated aim of the TRPS to "preserve" the railway meant that No 1 had to survive, and keeping it in its woeful condition as a static exhibit wasn't seen as conforming to that aim.
Rebuilding the loco as a usable piece of motive power inevitably meant replacing much of the original worn out material and, as two further rebuilds were to prove, design modifications to suit the new traffic requirements. In this respect No 1 is little different from what the FR had to do with Prince. Both retain their original identity, and with subsequent rebuilds and modifications well recorded they are as much historic artefacts as any "preserved in aspic" museum piece.

 

I have come to the opinion that it really doesn't matter if it hasn't been possible to retain all the original material. Better if it did but it doesn't diminish the loco any as it's all part of it's story.

 

My own personal definition is that it's only a "rebuild" if there is an intention to alter (the loco/ design), otherwise it's just a heavy overhaul - no matter how many components get replaced!
So for me Merddin Emrys was rebuilt in the 1960s (and wonderful she is too) while Talyllyn was rebuilt to 0-4-2ST in the 1860s, and since then has just been repeatedly and extensively overhauled!

 

As someone who spends a significant chunk of his day job conserving historic objects, I'm afraid I beg to differ! But I've been through all this before, so I'm just going to quote my own post from this thread: http://national-preservation.com/th...-steam-locomotives.419455/page-3#post-1050090

And for the record, I think that Talyllyn is one example where it is perfectly OK to keep the engine running. The preservation of the TR as a complete, working entity is, I think, worth more than the sum of its parts. And we have other examples of Fletcher Jennings locomotives which are unlikely to run again, and so can be conserved. But I'm afraid it just irks me a bit when people say "engines should never be stuffed and mounted!" Both approaches are valid, and we shouldn't take a one-size-fits- all attitude.

 

My point was that the Gibbons rebuild was so drastic in 1957/8 that in more enlightened times the example of the FR with Livingston Thompson (in the NRM) is an example of what perhaps ought to have been done. Earl of Merioneth is another recent example.

In the current restoration of Welsh Pony, everything that can be re-used is being re-used. I dont think Gibbons adopted the same approach. They had no experience of loco work, and the subsequent re-build was a drastic and horrendous bodge that took another 25 years plus to sort out.

Cheers,
Julian

(Edit above with apologies to michaelh - see below)

 

Of course in the case of Tywyn there are static preserved locos retaining all their industrial era components in the adjacent Narrow Gauge Railway Museum, as well as the 'living' TR.
Although the Gibbons rebuild was not what we would do now, it was perhaps what was possible then, while preservation was still in its infancy and the whole movement could easily have fizzled out. They brought her back into service for good reasons, and I for one am glad she is running today. Clearly it should not happen again! We should be pleased the movement has matured in the intervening half century and improved our approach. Back then we were still getting started (well, not me myself, I was decades in the future!)
Remember in the 1950s steam was still current technology (albeit rather obsolescent); what did BR do when a loco needed heavy maintenance? Seek to preserve parts or just get it running...?
Also don't forget, the loco is now more that 50% older than she was at the time of this rebuild - she wasn't even a centenarian then!

 

I dont think that Gibbons had the necessary experience to undertake the job at the time. Gibbons had a 'gun ho' attitude.

His engineering works had no loco experience at all. They did the most awful bodge. This is quite different to what Morris Jones achieved with Prince in 1955 on the Ffestiniog.

Cheers,
Julian

 

Earl of Ffestiniog ??

Do you know what you are talking about?

 

I think you are somewhat wide of the mark in your judgement of Gibbons Bros' rebuild. They certainly did some unsatisfactory things, but these have to be placed in the context of the times.
The TR had plenty of volunteers but, by todays' standards, not a lot of money. No 1 wouldn't have been rebuilt at all but for the generosity of TRPS member Eric Gibbons. There was an urgency to get the job done as No 3 Sir Haydn was about to be withdrawn having struggled for years on reduced boiler pressure. This would leave only 4 and 6 available and in consequence the job was "rushed". Completion in about 12 months would be quite an achievement even today.
You are right to say that they had no loco experience, but they regularly overhauled road and stationary steam plant. As rebuilt, it wasn't quite the "awful bodge" that you suggest, managing to operate services until John Bate started the second rebuild at Pendre in 1968. Until then, most of No 1's shortcomings were to do with inherent original design weaknesses (wide-to-gauge, long wheelbase, poor steaming) when faced with an entirely different traffic demand. John Bate has recorded some of Gibbons more glaring errors, which do seem quite bizarre now, but they were working on a unique machine with no drawings and no prior knowledge of performance. The two subsequent rebuilds addressed the design weaknesses - the second to overcome the sharper curvature on the Nant Gwernol extension.

 

Well said - a much more informed and reasoned view than some of the ill-informed comments on here

 

Since we don't have a time machine, and can't go and give them the enormous benefit of our vast experience (i.e. hindsight) perhaps it is best to stick to enjoying what we have.
Worse things were done in the same era (Moel Tryfan! How about Merddin Emrys first rebuild?) but all were explicable, perhaps even all that was possible, in the context of the time.
It's it great we have been able to improve on those rebuilds subsequently?

 

If the TR had closed and the renewal of Talyllyn been carried out for use elsewhere (perhaps including re-gauging) it would indeed have been highly regretable and static preservation ('stuffing and mounting') preferrable. However restoring it for use on its original line was indeed a great achievement, after all the whole idea was to preserve the Talyllyn Railway, of which Talyllyn was just one of the components.

I recal that an alternative idea in 1951 was to just preserve some artefacts at Towyn with a short length of 2' 3" track and lay a 15" miniature railway up the valley!

 

See chapter 2 of "Railway Adventure" by LTC Rolt. Rolt's idea, inspired by the Ravenglass and Eskdale being converted from 3 foot to 15 inch gauge, was to relay Abergynolwyn to Pendre at 10.25 inch gauge. Pendre to Wharf would have been gauntleted, with 10.25 inch gauge track between the 2'3", to provide a short museum run for the original TR stock.

 

LesterBrown,

If the TRPS had not saved the railway in 1951 there is no doubt that both Dolgoch and Talyllyn would have been broken up for scrap plus everything else. The valuation placed on the TRPS if it failed was the scrap value. This was part of the agreement with Lady Gwendolen Haydn Jones, and thanks largely to Edward Thomas.

Despite disagreements with what I penned above, it is arguable that 6-7 years later virtually all of Talyllyn was indeed scrapped!

Cheers,
Julian

 

I think what's being alluded to is that as so much of Talyllyn was rebuilt that they could have built a replica and the original stuffed and mounted... Its dodgy ground that is and has been chewed over a lot by those that 'preserve' spitfires. They dig up an old spit and as long as its got a data plate and a new aircraft is built around it, its called 'original' as all the parts would have changed in service over a period of years, this preserves its originality and value ( I kid you not) conveniently forgetting that in service it had been shot down, oh and by the way the real remains are destroyed to finalise this. On balance I think the rebuild of Talyllyn was worthy and honourable and lets not forget that this was early in the story of restoration and some of the lessons learned here have benefitted their other locos.

 

I had the pleasure to be hauled by No1 and No2 in quick succession a couple of weeks back, looking splendid in their new old livery. I've no problem with anything done in the past to retain this fantastic iconic line.