Isle of Wight Steam Railway

Again fair enough points made, though considering the IOWSR's policy is to acquire engines that are appropriate for the railway, that would inevitably involve them presenting the engines in a guise that would be most appropriate for the history of the line itself not the locomotive.

You may not agree with it but in the end it neither my call or yours to make, so perhaps believing the engines would be appropriate for the line, or bemoaning about the engines being 'fake' is rather irrelevant either way.

The E1 belongs to the IOWSR now, so they will do what they wish with it, with or without anyone's approval. And if Haydock does go to the Isle of Wight as well in the end, the same fact will apply to it too.

Personally I'm just happy to see the E1, and hopefully Haydock too, will have more a secure and prosperous future.

 

Wasn't the plan for the E1 to be turned out as W2 Yarmouth when restored? I think the loco carries the identity at the moment while on display.

 

I’m always bemused by discussions about ‘authentic’ loco liveries and whether an engine has the correct boiler or number of rivets for 1929 or whatever. I can see the importance of historically accurate liveries but personally I’m just pleased to see a loco operating, especially if it fits in with the spirit and ambience of a line. Ultimately the loco owners can paint it any colour they like, and it’s a bonus if it can carry different liveries. Heritage lines need to appeal to as many customers as possible of course but I can confirm that my 6 and 9 year old children aren’t too fussed about historical accuracy!

 

I think that's only because a certain member here claims the IoW is perfect in every way, it wouldn't be brought up half as often if it weren't in response to a disparaging comment made elsewhere.

As for loco authenticity, I get the argument about engines ought to keep their own historical identity, their own story etc. But a livery change is an easily reversible thing, it isn't permanent. Personally I'd draw the line at any rebuilding that might need to take place to make a loco "authentic" for its new setting, that feels like a step too far to me.

 

Now I can very much agree with this sentiment, totally agree. Though I am curious that given the E1 has a non standard boiler for it's class, in order for the engine to represent members of it's class that served on the island, the IOWSR plan to build it a boiler to the class's original design. Would you consider this a step too far, or as the engine has a non standard boiler that it didn't carry in it's earlier (and arguably more interesting) working life, might you instead view this as a means for the locomotive to be actually more authentic to it's original design as a whole?

 

"Fishbourne" surely, this is the Isle of Wight thread!

 

The E1's boiler is life expired ,and will need rebuilding anyway, At the moment it carries a Bagnal boiler, not the Stroudley pattern originally fitted, So that opens up the question, did the 3 E1's transferred to the Island have Stroudley , or Marsh pattern boilers? Iam not that concerned about originality of B110 because the loco received modifications during its industrial life, so fitting a new boiler, of the correct pattern, is in effect reverting it back to how it might have been when sold out of service plus, its the only E1 that made it through to the time when it could be preserved.

 

Though where do you draw the line - if you are not careful, you end up saying the only "authentic" condition of a loco is the one it was withdrawn from service with. As an example, if you took your view to extremes, "Normandy" would never have the graceful LSWR cab it currently sports, because it would have to continue to have the ugly monstrosity it carried as "Corrall Queen" (See photos here to see what I mean): https://www.bulleidsociety.org/96/96_Gallery.html

If you know where to look, many locos carry signs of rebuilds in subtle ways. I think you probably have to take each case on its merits; in some cases the continual rebuilding is of historical interest; in other cases not - in many cases that depends on how well recorded the loco is, and how much of the fabric of any era remains. As an example, I think the "retro-conversion" of 35011 is of great interest, and relatively little of unique interest is lost by doing so; by contrast, "unrebuilding" a surviving Beattie Well Tank to 1870s condition would be several steps too far, even though such a loco would be fascinating.

Tom

 

Not so sure as the report from
https://www.islandecho.co.uk/govern...feasibility-study-into-island-line-extension/ says
“Understandably, the steam railway’s first priority is to ensure the continued operation of their award-winning and popular heritage railway.

“I am very keen to explore how we can continue to progress their plans to return steam trains to Ryde St Johns and – in due course – see them running into Newport as well."

One of the things the feasabilty report might look into is (if the Ventnor extension is under SWR) keeping the IWSR seperate from SWR, so public grants could be used at Ryde St John and for a new station near Barton (which will be the on the Newport Harbour development and near to the new foot/cycle bridge).

This new Newport station could be run by IWSR as a new terminal with a new carpark, walk/cycle paths and bus links to improve tourism for the Newport Harbour development and boost numbers visting the ISWR main station at Havenstreet?

The IWSR could possibly get an extra grant for running an off peak diesel service?
From
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-52784960
Grant Shapp's said about the projects.
"They include the "Ivanhoe line" from Leicester to Burton-on-Trent, branch lines on the Isle of Wight and a new station at Wellington in Somerset.

He said if the plans are viable, "we're going to build them fast".

 

I take your point Alex, but if Haydock went to the IOW and was restored and painted as an IOW loco, what are the chances that it would ever be repainted/renamed into its authentic guise? Slim to none...?

Keith

 

My understanding is that it was precisely the increased power supplied by that Bagnall boiler which was largely responsible for this unique survivor making it to preservation. Ironic, eh?

All the same, I can't think of a more appropriate home for an E1 .... what with the Bluebell needing far larger locos for the slog up to EG these days!

Just how far our movement has come is never better illustrated than by mentioning the last surviving original Island E1 was rejected as a preservation candidate, on the grounds that it was too far gone, as was the case with the unique ex-LBSC directors saloon). Different times. Ho-hum.

 

I think I missed a bit out in my original post; rebuilding to make it something that loco never was, which "allows" all the examples you've given. To take a different example, NSR New L no.2 currently has an industrial boiler. It would seem reasonable to replace that for an authentic one, but not to rebuild the cab and other fittings to "convert" it into an original L class, as that loco was always a "New L".

I suppose showing intent for potential is part of it, if you rebuild it it's a clear signal that that's curtains for its original identity (even if in theory it could be un-re-un-rebuilt...) I suppose it's more drastic taking it to the IoW than doing a similar thing on a railway on the mainland though.

Anyway, as folk have said, there's clearly no easy one rule to apply to everything and I didn't intend my proposition to be as such, each case must be taken on its relative merits, but I guess that would be my starting point on what I'd personally feel comfortable with. Which isn't to say that should be everyone's personal feeling!

 

Unfortunately Keith, unless its in the terms of the purchase, or gift, of the Loco, the IOWSR, as its owners/ caretakers,, could paint it any colour they wished. i have no problem with that, because at least it will serve a history , as well as telling its own, the railway, even if its painted up as An Freshwater& Yarmouth engine, would still on display boards tell the visitor this loco is X, and give its history, and just add that its currently carries the livery of an identical engine that worked for one of the island companies.

 

If you are referring to me, I have no such delusions. For example I am not at all enthusiastic about Haydock appearing either on practical or historic grounds. However it is a decision taken by a Board fully representative of the membership which, as we know, is not a universal situation elsewhere.

This is awash with W.I.B.N. both from gricers and politicians. "Heritage" railways operate by virtue of derogations from what is required on "real" railways, such as crash resistant rolling stock. In return for these derogations, trains are limited to 25m.p.h. Any train thus limited would be slaughtered on the roundabout Ryde to Newport route by more frequent buses running up to 40m.p.h., actually serving centres of population between the two towns. Shanklin to Ventnor would offer passengers the pleasure whatever their fitness levels, of climbing and descending 200 feet between town and train

 

Guys, we need to stop this.

There is no suggestion that this engine will be painted in some pseudo IOW livery.

No other engine based on the IOW has been put into some odd livery in recent years with the exception of the E1. This engine was done because it was a condition of the bequest that financed the purchase and the IOW are very clear about this fact and about the engine's own history.

To answer the boiler question, the current one is beyond repair, I believe a Marsh pattern has been suggested.

 

Freshwater actually pulled a surprising number of passenger trains - the Oakwood Press book describes an excursion to Freshwater with 14+ carriages, followed by another lengthy train to Ryde via Ashey and then a days service on the IWCR deputising for locos being tested on the FYNR.

All this suggests a surprisingly capable design.

I'm sure if there was sufficient interest it could happen, if there isn't then it's no great loss - one of the terriers was painted in BR livery some years back so it's not unthinkable.

 

Wandering of topic, but 'seize the moment'. In the NRM drawings list there is a series (starting with 52834) titled "Engine 30587 Drawing of Alterations for Preservation of Engine 587". Over 30 of them! Drawing 52834 is titled "General arrangement of alterations to engine 30587 for preservation in condition of 1898". What does that tell us about NRM policy fluctuations over the years? It also tells me that there was no longer anyone at Waterloo / Eastleigh who understood the renumbering of LSW Duplicate Stock in 1948.
Pat
Edit - must learn to spell preservation!

 

Thank you indeed fot reference. Another thing for my to do list - when Corvid-19 is safely past.

 

Fair enough, but it wasn't part of island 'stock' in terms of having a long history like the FYN's own Manning Waddle saddle tank (which was what I assumed this was when I first heard), nor was it in Southern livery or the other suggestions I was rebutting.

I'm sure it would be capable of taking a 70 ton train over five miles with an intermediate stop, so would fit into our small engines bracket. Perfect for set 2

 

I'm a bit confused, ( await the usual remarks) ,
But was the original Loco, owned by the FYN? or an Contractors loco, that was then hired by the railway ?