Liveries!

I'm with you on this one Railway History didn't end in 1968, these things still work for an (albeit different) living, 75069 carried BR green during its last operational spell, it now carries a 'Rebuilt Bridgnorth 2018' Worksplate on one side just because it didn't carry these before 1968 doesn't mean it's not part of it's history. Different form of traction but what about 50007 and 50049?

 

I'm struggling to understand how giving a list of non-authentic examples within the preservation movement somehow makes them right and proper. The fact that something was painted in spurious colours in 1968, for example, and has retained those colours since doesn't mean it's right, merely that it has been incorrect for a long time.

 

I agree that Tornado wouldn't have got off the ground had the decision been made to use a bespoke livery. But that's not a case for the authenticity of the livery on a new build, but a comment on the A1 Trust knowing their audience. Likewise, the KWVR only using a bespoke livery for a short period before realising that BR wouldn't enforce a ban on logos is not a comment on authenticity, but on the emotions of the time - emotions, I note, that ran contrary to the views expressed by some of dislike for the post nationalisation period.

You also don't help your argument about BR by misrepresenting what BR were doing at the time. Electrification was already present in many places, while the HSTs (at least I assume that's what you mean by "high speed tram") didn't come about for a few more years.

 

It means that what is "right" is not necessarily the same as what that something carried prior to preservation.

 

I meant electrics, the point I was making was that everything, apart from the motive power and some stock was anything but modern. Some of the motive power was questionable, an example being the type 4 diesels that came nowhere near matching the power of the Pacifics they replaced.

 

I didn't particularly have a point, it was just an observation!

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

Well, let's start with the Torbay & Dartmouth. That is an entirely ccmmercial railway intent on making profit and a return for its shareholders. It always has been. They purchased second hand locos from BR ( just like Colonel Stephens did). It basically transports people from Paington to Kingswear and on to Dartmouth. I would never consider them to be preserved. Their locos are doing a job, pretty similar to the one they were built to do. Then let's move on to the NYMR. Admittedly, it doesn't pay a dividend but it transports people from Pickering to Whitby and back. It needs locos to do this. These locos continue to do a job. In the case of 5428 and 1264, more or less what it was designed to do. Perhaps not in the case of 2238 & 65894. Is one therefor not preserved and the other is? Then, we come to 80135. When restored it appeared in BR green and has remained so ever since. When it eventually goes back into traffic it will almost certainly continue in that livery and I suggest that there are few people
who don't want it to be like that. finally, when the NYMR first started up, their coaches were painted in green and cream. Very smart they looked and I don't think many disapproved. it was only as more coaches were obtained already in BR maroon that this livery displaced the green and cream.

There's no right answer to this. I like locos in BR livery because that is what I remember from my mis-spent youth (and you generally yearn for memories of your past) but I'm equally happy with a steam loco in any sensible livery.

 

I think the major difference between these and a Col. Stephens railway is that Col Stephens was never actually selling a steam train ride, he was only selling a journey. The above do both. Col. Stephen lines would have operated just as successfully with a DMU which cannot be said for either the P&D or the NYMR. There is also the fact that in the NYMR's case the whole railway is apparently an "accredited museum".
In both cases though they're still trying to "recreate the past" in whatever way is practical for their situation, and that is a part of their selling point. I can't be bothered to look but I bet if you went on either railway's website you'd see "Step back into the past" or something similar somewhere. Of course livery is a very, very small part of that compared to other things, but as I've said before, it's also dead easy to get right compared to some other things, so why wouldn't you?

 

I'm curious to know what the opinion is of the Ffestiniog locos either brought in, or repainted since 1955, such as Linda and Blanche (should they be in Penrhyn Quarry black) or all the FR locos painted green with red lining 1955-1986. Is it acceptable that locos bought for the FR were painted in a livery that was the FR corporate one of the day, or should they have worn a coat that reflected their previous home (matt black for Mountaineer, or PQR black for Linda and Blanche). Similarly the FR home fleet - should they have been painted in the Victorian / Edwardian splendour, or the austerity of the 1920's and 30's exclusively as that was what they had carried before closure - especially given the financial constraints of the day, and Allen Garraway's desire to be seen as a unified, professional, outfit, one aspect of which was a corporate identity and livery. Same argument applies to the Corris locos and Douglas on the Talyllyn. To this day, should all of the WHR garratts be in SAR black, as that's all they ever carried in Africa?

Why is there anything wrong with the owner choosing what paint to apply to their stock?

Moving away from the Narrow Gauge, is Pete Best's S160 not "right" because it never carried that livery in service? What about the Austerity 2-8-0 on the KWVR - that was never a BR engine, and never ran in its current form, let alone livery, in service.

Is the problem only with locos being painted in a livery that is authentic, but not for that particular class / loco, because it might confuse "history"? I'm truly curious to know what is deemed to be acceptable!

John

 

While that 'preserved' railway is certainly a commercial undertaking, there have been times when museums, art galleries, etc., have charged admission. They were still museums, but commercial undertakings at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. Ask anyone from the National Trust about charging for admittance to their historic buildings!

 

That is akin to arguing that the things you did between the ages of 0-10 matter and everything that you've done since doesn't count. Like flares, kipper ties and comb covers, they might be not to everyones taste, but they are part of peoples' history.

Increasingly locos will have spent more time in preservation than working for BR or their previous companies.

I'd also argue that all these locos are currently in industrial use. The industry being the tourist industry.

I am just wondering why people don't object to locos running on lines they never would have run on, the world would be a lot poorer if only authentic locos were allowed to run on the SVR for example, pulling authentic coaches, with authentic services to an authentic time table.

So then it is realistic for a BR built loco to carry a grouping era livery then? If the rest of the class would have carried it...

New builds carry inauthentic liveries.

Just out of interest, what is an appropriate livery for the WD locos that never saw service in Britain? Surely they should be in SEK or NS livery.

Authenticity seems to be whatever you decide you like rather than any objective criteria.

Well, Linda and Blanche have pony trucks, tenders and in Blanche's case piston valves. So would Penrhyn black be authentic?

The Alco has a new cab, boiler and looks very little it used too.

What is an authentic livery for the new builds?

I'd like to see the 50s and 70s heritage recreated as well. A train of Woolworths carriages or red tin coaches because it is as much part of the lines history as the 1930s or 1880s

 

Different things are acceptable to different people. Some of these people think that their opinions need to be forced upon everyone else!

As for me, there are some practices that I like and others that I dislike - I find that the "acceptable/unacceptable" way of putting it is too strong for me. Even if I don't like a livery, I'm not in the mood to demand that it should be repainted into something that I like immeditately.

 

Because you have to make compromises for modern day operation. Of course you can't do everything exactly as it was, that would be ridiculous. But there's no advantage gained in painting it in the "wrong" livery, whereas there is considerable advantage in not running only stock appropriate to the line using an authentic timetable. That's the difference. This reductio ad absurdum just doesn't stand up.

 

I can't see the connection between human beings and historic machinery. When machines become obsolete or simply worn out, they are scrapped, except for a few lucky ones which are preserved. We don't do that to people, but please don't suggest it to the government: the potential savings to Work & Pensions are enormous!

 

I think what this thread illustrates perfectly is that there are a variety of opinions on this subject, and even between the "livery libertarians" and "historicist heros" there are things we agree on, disagree on, and don't really mind!

Thankfully it's a broad church in railway preservation. There are hundreds of preserved locos (a minor miracle and one our predecessors would be astonished by, and a fact enthusiasts in most other countries envy). Almost all of them are in "historically correct" liveries, and indeed the effort put into this has only increased lately. If a few show a bit of artistic licence, I'm sure those of us who enjoy that can have our fun, and those who don't can take pleasure in all the others...

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

Indeed. Really, we all have a common interest and share a hobby, but there are bound to be differences of opinions at times. Let the debates go on, but no reason for people to to fall out about it.

 

Is there much difference between a care home and a head shunt?

 

I believe that in a care home it is expected that the staff will look after the inhabitants, whereas in a head shunt no such expectation exists.

 

It's a good question, but I believe one is warmer than the other.

 

Railways existed as a business for the simple purpose of changing the value of things. Moving things was the means by which that value change was made. Coal at Bishop Aukland was worthless, at Stockton docks it was worth more. A London barrister in Henley-on-Thames is an unemployed middle aged wig-owner. Removed to London , he is a very expensive middle aged wig-owner.
Preserved railways change the value of their passengers by making them feel good. Doesn't matter if that's by giving them a nostalgia trip back to their childhood, or a new thrill if they are a child now, or anything in between. Same reason people pay for travelling to the theatre, or seaside, or visit their lover-somewhere there is feelgood element. It is something many people are happy to pay for-and we hope they are prepared to pay for us to play trains the way we want to.

I think, though, that the public are more inclined to like a variety in locomotive liveries, and the dull BR black/BR green are not as attractive, and hence sellable as pre-nationalisation colours. Early preservationists were keen to expunge the memory of British Railways. Twenty years of filthy locomotives, and beloved branchlines being axed wasn't what they wanted to remember, and I'm puzzled why people want to recreate it now, but greater minds than mine seem sure.
Can anyone explain why those awful commercial operations like the Torbay & Dartmouth, Brecon Mountain, V0fR etc are not the ones with the begging bowl out at the moment? Somehow they manage to sell rides to enough people at a high enough cost to cover their operating expenses, pay their staff, pay for track maintenance, all without making their customers feel guilty. Could it possibly be that pretty steam trains are more of a draw?