Demic Barry/other Wrecks

Irrespective of the reuse of certain parts on LMS designs, the point to me is that those components only became deemed as surplus because the boiler was taken for the County experiment. This led in turn to the frames being pillaged of fitted parts resulting in a carcass which was apparently unceremoniously destroyed. All the reused parts could have been made new, ordered by the respective owners. I am not in the least bit glad scrapping 48518 subsidised the other jobs but no point grieving now.
Another personal opinion is that whilst the Patriot project as a memorial loco is very worthy, to me a restored wartime loco would have been equally if not more fitting. 48518 could have been that loco but its easy to be wise with hindsight.

 

May I just add - as a big fan of Didcot, and all the GWS has achieved, and in particular the excellent Saint locomotive, the way the county project has developed has always (in my view) seemed at odds with the GW ethos the rest of the shed complex and its locomotives have provided - using standard parts to rebuild or recreate engines of GW heritage.

I apologise if this has ruffled feathers. I will clam up now.

 

Another perspective on this is to speculate about what will happen in the future. If there is a decent chance that we might one day see a Saint, a County, or a Night Owl steaming along the main line (or even just steaming along anywhere), then the sacrifice of other locos might have more justification than if the 'new-builds' end up as museum exhibits. I'll reserve my judgement for a few years.

 

The ways its going its potentially the case that none of the three will fit on the mainline!

 

I like the Saint, as there are already a lot of Halls preserved and it was a GWR type exercise anyway, as the Hall was basically, a Saint with smaller wheels, so the development was in effect reversed. Also, it was the prototype and starting point for the 20th century GWR locomotive development so historically significant.

The argument seems to be that there are a large number of late GW designs in preservation already, largely due to the fact that Barry was in GWR territory so a lot of ex GWR engines got there. There are less from both the LMS and less still from the LNER. The 8F is a favourite of mine anyway, and one which could, legitimately, wear LNER livery would be unique.

Also, the LMS boiler is not a straight swap for the County one anyway, it has had to be modified to a point where it would probably not have been much more difficult to have built a new one.

 

As i said earlier, they aren't using the whole boiler, only those parts made on the same flanging plates ie certain parts of the firebox.

In case people don't realise the County boiler was built using the flanging plates made for building the boilers of the 8Fs built at Swindon.

You could argue then that it's all part of the same story.

I did say that I'm not entirely at ease with this process, but let's face it the opportunity was there for anyone to take on this loco and they didn't . Noone came up with an alternative plan and we are where we are.

Seems it was an LMS built boiler anyway so makes no difference to the LNER story. The GWS bought the boiler, other bought parts and scrapped the rest.

 

As I have said previously, 48518 was built by Doncaster to an LMS order. It was not one of the LNER O6s.

 

I was just about to post something similar. 3100-3167 were paid for by the LNER. The worksplates attached to these locos are informative, especially in comparison with the ones built to LMS Lot Nos. The locos built by the LNER to LMS Lot Nos had plates similar to that attached for 48518 (there were also engraved plates of similar wording). 3525-67 had standard LNER engraved plates of the type shown (I cannot be dogmatic that they all had these). The 25 built at Brighton had LMS-style plates but headed LNER as shown, unlike the locos built by the SR to LMS Lot Nos.

 

That doesn't make sense. You seem to be saying that if the Patriot project and Ian Riley (but not the GWS) had approached the custodians of 48518 with a proposal to break it for the parts they wanted, they'd have refused because the loco still had a boiler. Where's the evidence?

I think you've got the decision sequence the wrong way round. The custodians' first decision was, 'Is this a realistic restoration project, or is it only fit to be broken up for parts?' Having chosen the latter course of action, only then could they ask, 'Who is going to get which bits?' You may disagree with their choice, but it's wrong to blame the GWS for the custodians' decision.

 

An interesting point. Well made.

 

With respect it has already been mentioned that the loco was subject of other offers and enquiries before it was broken up, ditto 44901 for that matter.
My belief is the GWS proposal and request for the boiler was the decisive factor simply because it was the biggest single component. To ask for a pony truck or cylinder would not be very persuasive to my mind as to impel the breaking.
Unwise as the boiler proposal may have been, I do not blame the GWS but I do wish they had not suggested it; the custodian took the decision to acede to the offer and then the sorry saga unfolds .....

 

Now who were the custodians of 48518? As far as I am aware, it was acquired by the GWS for the inner firebox to be used on their County project. The rest of the destruction followed on from this.

 

my take on it and other donor locos is that a proposal or proposals was put forward to the Barry10 people which was the best offer they got and they took it.

The people involved walked the walk whereas everyone else, including us, talked the talk.

I imagine if you had put forward a credible plan, you could have acquired the loco whole (you as in anyone) noone did

 

That is as I recall too and was reported at the time.
I also recollect when at ELR in the 90s the Churchill 8F group (8274) looked at the feasibility of acquiring Turkish parts to aid 48518.

 

Doesn't that say something about the quality of the offers and inquiries? If, for example, Jeremy Hosking had offered to buy the remains in order to fund a full restoration, would the custodians really have said 'No, we'd rather give the firebox to the GWS'? If that (or something like it) is what actually happened, then I agree that they made a terrible error of judgement. But that scenario seems unlikely.

 

A quick google suggests the involvement of Cambrian Transport who acted on behalf of the Council? Remember also that both the Patriot and County projects also had a common driving force?

 

And having examined the feasibility, what was their decision? Isn't it rather telling that three 8Fs have been brought back from Turkey for restoration when there was one sitting in Cardiff, awaiting a new owner? What does that say about 48518's condition?

 

48173 is still out there untouched and several others dumped in Turkey. What say those mourning 48518 weigh on behind that one instead?

I think the hysteria about the "GWS scrapped an LNER loco" is just an excuse to kick the poor old GW again.

 

At least two of the offers I am aware of came from highly respected sources with proven track records in loco overhaul.
There was an issue with transferring Council property but this was obviously overcome but I am equally sure this was not predicated on a component recovery only basis.
The chronology is GWS acquired 48518 for its boiler and disposed the rest either by sale or gift.

 

Some background reading....

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/48518-remains-of.17387/

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/quick-question-about-stanier-8f-48518.24940/

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/48518-cab.38253/

And this is just a search on the no. in the thread title.

Going through these one thing which is not clear is whether the GWS took on the whole locomotive from Barry or just the Boiler, and thus who made the decisions regarding the wider disposal of the frames etc. I know that members of the Patriot group post on here, perhaps they will know or alternatively as much of the initial stripping took place at Llangollen that's possible another source for clarity, I am pretty sure that only the boiler ever actually touched the ground at Didcot.