2999: Lady of Legend

Richard Roper · 9 Ian 2021

clinker a spus: ↑

...rather than converting one member of an almost generic class of locomotive into what is essentially a look a like of a member of a similar but older generic class of locomotive.
Click to expand...

R.I.P. Sir. It was nice reading your posts!

Richard.

clinker · 9 Ian 2021

JMJR1000 a spus: ↑

You certainly have the right to indeed have YOUR own opinion, of course you are. But one could argue there's a difference between expression your opinion, and (in your case) expressing the same opinion OVER AND OVER again like some preacher on the street with such stubbornness because you want everyone to see it YOUR way and no other way else! Because no other view I suppose could possibly be right surely...

And while it's all well and good trying to use the A1 as a prime example of how it should have been done, once again you seem determined to make it clear your right by stating something or using something else as example, without actually considering the bigger picture involved here. It's not all as clear cut as that.

For one thing the idea of building a new Saint started as far back as the 1970s, a couple decades before the A1 project came on to the scene, and even when they did appear many at the time we're not convinced a new A1 would appear for the reason being that no one had thought it possible to build a WHOLE new locomotive from scratch! As the common saying goes, hindsight is a great thing but not much use. So if a new Saint was to be built, the only way such a project could be conceived was by using existing part of other locomotives to hand, and even by using that method not many were convinced it could be done. For building anything substantial brand new from scratch just seemed impossible back then, and it's only really in the past decade of two now that such concerns were put aside.

Point is when they started the project that was the only conceivable way to build a new Saint, and by the time the idea of building a whole new engine from scratch was considered perhaps not so outrageous an idea, they were already substantially a way through. You can't honestly tell me you would have had them stop, drop everything they were doing and just start from scratch surely, are you?!

Simple fact is as well I fail to see where exactly a compromise has been made, apart from using part from a pre-existing engine that most likely would still be a rusting hulk today if not used for part as it was, and even then Swindon works certainly wouldn't have held any objections over the prospect. And you know why? Because of STANDARDISATION. Because for better or worse the designs of the many parts used from the hall to make a Saint were identical, and no doubt back in the day swapped round parts of all kinds between classes of locomotives with no though on.

The boiler especially was pretty much the same apart from super-heating but even that isn't noticeable visually. The wheels are correct for a saint as built from scratch, as are the cylinders for they wanted the engine to have inside steam pipes, and the frames have been modified so extensively they all for all intents and purposes no longer that of a Hall but a SAINT through and through. Essentially all is correct and accounted for here, so can't see the compromise at all, apart from using a pre-existing locomotive as a source of spares, but even then it's not a compromise if they used the parts from it that ARE a match for parts used for a Saint.

Your argument of using the A1 as an example if it used Blue Peter as a source for parts to rebuild seems just plain daft to me as well, seeing as there is only ONE A2 (and the A4 would have been a non starter as they don't really share part with the A1s), whereas we have still have TEN Halls with five more counting the modified Halls. Quite a difference there I would say. And once again you also overlook the fundamental fact that the GWR was all about STANDARDISATION. Where a vast majority of parts that could and WERE swapped and moved between different class and engines because they were designed with that practice in mind.

As for the matter of how long it took, well I'd say that was down to (A it being a pioneering project at the time so each part and process took much time and thought going into it, and B) as I will concede to what you point out, it's hard to persuade people to get 'inspired' for an engine that looks so similar to many others. But even then your suggestion that it seemed unnecessary to build the loco for it looks 'generic' is rather ill-informed and weak an argument to me.

You call it a generic looking loco that looks like various other generic locos, but do you know where all those generic locos actually originate from, where their design and general 'generic' look first came to be? It all stems back to the Saint. For the society it was all about wanting to tell people the WHOLE story of the GWR's great family tree of locomotive designs throughout the years, and that story would forever remain incomplete, if they didn't have an example of the very design that started the story in the first place. Their is great historical value to having the Saint with us, and the fact it uses part that weren't all originally Saint technically matters little, for such was the great success of them, they did little to change many of the parts (boiler included) from what they were originally designed for.

To me that actually makes the project rather poetic, for the legacy of the Saints has essentially come full circle, right back where it started.

Of course I realize all this may well be null and void or indeed just plain wrong in your opinion, and as you say your entitled not to agree with me and keep to your own opinion. But please if your going to keep on incessantly drumming away with your point of view of this engine being a mongrel of a compromise and pointless or whatever view you actually truly have about this loco, do try to actually get some serious thought into what points or examples you are using. Otherwise it just looks like your scrambling about, looking to use anything as ammunition to shout to the high heavens in this forum of how YOUR opinion is right and there can be NO possibility you could possibly be wrong at all!! Not one bit! No concessions!

It just gets very tiresome and makes you seem a tad petty if not appearing to holding a grudge over the loss of an engine I don't recall your name coming up in actually being someone that objected at any time or indeed tried to save the locomotive from this 'terrible compromising fate'...

Certainly I'm tired of these arguments now, and will conclude my involvement in this (what seems like an endless) endeavor to debate with you in a sensible and well enough informed manner.

Leave this debate to the rest of you now chaps, I'm outta here...
Click to expand...

clinker · 9 Ian 2021

JMJR1000 a spus: ↑

You certainly have the right to indeed have YOUR own opinion, of course you are. But one could argue there's a difference between expression your opinion, and (in your case) expressing the same opinion OVER AND OVER again like some preacher on the street with such stubbornness because you want everyone to see it YOUR way and no other way else! Because no other view I suppose could possibly be right surely...

And while it's all well and good trying to use the A1 as a prime example of how it should have been done, once again you seem determined to make it clear your right by stating something or using something else as example, without actually considering the bigger picture involved here. It's not all as clear cut as that.

For one thing the idea of building a new Saint started as far back as the 1970s, a couple decades before the A1 project came on to the scene, and even when they did appear many at the time we're not convinced a new A1 would appear for the reason being that no one had thought it possible to build a WHOLE new locomotive from scratch! As the common saying goes, hindsight is a great thing but not much use. So if a new Saint was to be built, the only way such a project could be conceived was by using existing part of other locomotives to hand, and even by using that method not many were convinced it could be done. For building anything substantial brand new from scratch just seemed impossible back then, and it's only really in the past decade of two now that such concerns were put aside.

Point is when they started the project that was the only conceivable way to build a new Saint, and by the time the idea of building a whole new engine from scratch was considered perhaps not so outrageous an idea, they were already substantially a way through. You can't honestly tell me you would have had them stop, drop everything they were doing and just start from scratch surely, are you?!

Simple fact is as well I fail to see where exactly a compromise has been made, apart from using part from a pre-existing engine that most likely would still be a rusting hulk today if not used for part as it was, and even then Swindon works certainly wouldn't have held any objections over the prospect. And you know why? Because of STANDARDISATION. Because for better or worse the designs of the many parts used from the hall to make a Saint were identical, and no doubt back in the day swapped round parts of all kinds between classes of locomotives with no though on.

The boiler especially was pretty much the same apart from super-heating but even that isn't noticeable visually. The wheels are correct for a saint as built from scratch, as are the cylinders for they wanted the engine to have inside steam pipes, and the frames have been modified so extensively they all for all intents and purposes no longer that of a Hall but a SAINT through and through. Essentially all is correct and accounted for here, so can't see the compromise at all, apart from using a pre-existing locomotive as a source of spares, but even then it's not a compromise if they used the parts from it that ARE a match for parts used for a Saint.

Your argument of using the A1 as an example if it used Blue Peter as a source for parts to rebuild seems just plain daft to me as well, seeing as there is only ONE A2 (and the A4 would have been a non starter as they don't really share part with the A1s), whereas we have still have TEN Halls with five more counting the modified Halls. Quite a difference there I would say. And once again you also overlook the fundamental fact that the GWR was all about STANDARDISATION. Where a vast majority of parts that could and WERE swapped and moved between different class and engines because they were designed with that practice in mind.

As for the matter of how long it took, well I'd say that was down to (A it being a pioneering project at the time so each part and process took much time and thought going into it, and B) as I will concede to what you point out, it's hard to persuade people to get 'inspired' for an engine that looks so similar to many others. But even then your suggestion that it seemed unnecessary to build the loco for it looks 'generic' is rather ill-informed and weak an argument to me.

You call it a generic looking loco that looks like various other generic locos, but do you know where all those generic locos actually originate from, where their design and general 'generic' look first came to be? It all stems back to the Saint. For the society it was all about wanting to tell people the WHOLE story of the GWR's great family tree of locomotive designs throughout the years, and that story would forever remain incomplete, if they didn't have an example of the very design that started the story in the first place. Their is great historical value to having the Saint with us, and the fact it uses part that weren't all originally Saint technically matters little, for such was the great success of them, they did little to change many of the parts (boiler included) from what they were originally designed for.

To me that actually makes the project rather poetic, for the legacy of the Saints has essentially come full circle, right back where it started.

Of course I realize all this may well be null and void or indeed just plain wrong in your opinion, and as you say your entitled not to agree with me and keep to your own opinion. But please if your going to keep on incessantly drumming away with your point of view of this engine being a mongrel of a compromise and pointless or whatever view you actually truly have about this loco, do try to actually get some serious thought into what points or examples you are using. Otherwise it just looks like your scrambling about, looking to use anything as ammunition to shout to the high heavens in this forum of how YOUR opinion is right and there can be NO possibility you could possibly be wrong at all!! Not one bit! No concessions!

It just gets very tiresome and makes you seem a tad petty if not appearing to holding a grudge over the loss of an engine I don't recall your name coming up in actually being someone that objected at any time or indeed tried to save the locomotive from this 'terrible compromising fate'...

Certainly I'm tired of these arguments now, and will conclude my involvement in this (what seems like an endless) endeavor to debate with you in a sensible and well enough informed manner.

Leave this debate to the rest of you now chaps, I'm outta here...
Click to expand...

Now I really didn't realise that You felt so strongly about My right to be wrong, and Your right to be right, of course it would be beyond any other railway company to think of such a thing as standardisation, gosh no, that would be unthinkable, and I would imagine that Swindon were constantly dismantling current locomotives in order to build obsolete designs, goes without saying doesn't it? Seriously though HOW can You or any-one else truly believe that converting one class of locomotive to look like another (I've not used the word generic..... oops sorry) is not a compromise? hang whether it's superheated or not it's still, and always will be a compromise. I was about when this project was first mooted and Maindy removed from Barry, and even then I felt that some-one hadn't done their homework, basing it all upon the conversion of St. Martin into a prototype for what became the Hall class, I feel that events of the ensuing 40 years prove Me to be correct, Whether You like it or not Tornado has been built FROM NOTHING in half the time that it has taken to assemble a STANDARD locomotive from STANDARD parts. I will at this juncture point out that very little of the STANDARD parts that Maindy was made up from have remained unaltered in Lady and other STANDARD parts have been made new. As I have said elsewhere I have not judged good/bad or wrong/right or critised the engineering or workmanship, merely stated that by it's very nature, this along with some other so called 'New Builds' are a compromise as they are neither the locomotives that they were built (and survived)as nor are they historically the locomotives that they appear to be.

61624 · 9 Ian 2021

JMJR1000 a spus: ↑

You certainly have the right to indeed have YOUR own opinion, of course you are. But one could argue there's a difference between expression your opinion, and (in your case) expressing the same opinion OVER AND OVER again like some preacher on the street with such stubbornness because you want everyone to see it YOUR way and no other way else! Because no other view I suppose could possibly be right surely...
Click to expand...

Clinker, you have been rumbled - You are Paul Hitch and I claim the £50 prize!

clinker · 9 Ian 2021

61624 a spus: ↑

Clinker, you have been rumbled - You are Paul Hitch and I claim the £50 prize!
Click to expand...

No sorry Sir, I'm not, so I claim My £50 refund,

Hampshire Unit · 9 Ian 2021

I think we should also consider who is building these locomotives. The aims of the A1 Trust and the GWS aresurely rather different? The GWS exists to document and educate the history of the GWR- in this context 2999 in 4-6-0 and 4-4-2 form demonstrates a chunk of the history of locomotive enigneering for this company that previously did not exist- provided the detail differences between the original are documented and everyone is aware of them, the fact that the lcomotive is not exactly as the original is surely moot? In many ways the swapping and adapting of nominally "standard" parts is also in the spirit of the old GWR. The A1SLT's aim as to build a modern mainline steam locomotive to run in the 21st century railway environment, whilst again keeping to the spirit of the original loco.

MellishR · 9 Ian 2021

Hampshire Unit a spus: ↑

I think we should also consider who is building these locomotives. The aims of the A1 Trust and the GWS aresurely rather different? The GWS exists to document and educate the history of the GWR- in this context 2999 in 4-6-0 and 4-4-2 form demonstrates a chunk of the history of locomotive enigneering for this company that previously did not exist- provided the detail differences between the original are documented and everyone is aware of them, the fact that the lcomotive is not exactly as the original is surely moot? In many ways the swapping and adapting of nominally "standard" parts is also in the spirit of the old GWR. The A1SLT's aim as to build a modern mainline steam locomotive to run in the 21st century railway environment, whilst again keeping to the spirit of the original loco.
Click to expand...

Fair comment, except that apart from the superheated boiler there really is very little on 2999 that is different from an original. The GWS went to the trouble of fitting new cylinders with inside steam pipes. They went to the trouble of fitting lever reverse. Those decisions are quite the opposite of clinker's alleged compromises.

Hampshire Unit · 9 Ian 2021

MellishR a spus: ↑

Fair comment, except that apart from the superheated boiler there really is very little on 2999 that is different from an original. The GWS went to the trouble of fitting new cylinders with inside steam pipes. They went to the trouble of fitting lever reverse. Those decisions are quite the opposite of clinker's alleged compromises.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that was done, my point is still that 2999 are 20163 were built for different reasons, so I am absolutely happy that different engineering solutions were used. Two worthy locos IMHO

LesterBrown · 9 Ian 2021

Flying Phil a spus: ↑

................................. So when do we get a "Great Bear" new build????
Click to expand...

Better still a working Dean single

JMJR1000 · 9 Ian 2021

61624 a spus: ↑

Clinker, you have been rumbled - You are Paul Hitch and I claim the £50 prize!
Click to expand...

Now to be fair to Paul Hitch, at least with him he's just being a stern pragmatic realist, who just feels we could all do with having our enthusiasm for big chuffers and WIBN projects taken down a peg or two once in a while, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

We all need a reality check once in a while, even if it at times we find it a tad tiresome, and him a bit of a killjoy.

I personally have for the most rather enjoyed our back and forth debates, even if more often then not we don't agree with one another.

At least when having conservation with him, you know what to expect and he's always pretty sensible with his opinions.

Matt37401 · 9 Ian 2021

JMJR1000 a spus: ↑

Now to be fair to Paul Hitch, at least with him he's just being a stern pragmatic realist, who just feels we could all do with having our enthusiasm for big chuffers and WIBN projects taken down a peg or two once in a while, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

We all need a reality check once in a while, even if it at times we find it a tad tiresome, and him a bit of a killjoy.

I personally have for the most rather enjoyed our back and forth debates, even if more often then not we don't agree with one another.

At least when having conservation with him, you know what to expect and he's always pretty sensible with his opinions.
Click to expand...

Not always... have a look at the 9F thread. I have no objections to someone having differences of opinion with me, but to compare Alcoholism to ‘Big Chufferitus’ and not back down when you know your being bloody silly, is just well... bloody silly.

D1002 · 9 Ian 2021

Enough of the this bickering.
Congrats to the GWS for a remarkable achievement.
Video: Didcot Railway Centre, Saint Class No. 2999 Lady of Legend, 5th April 2019.

D1002 · 9 Ian 2021

.....and another one:
Didcot Railway Centre, Lady of Legend Weekend, Saint Class No. 2999, 6th April 2019.

Paul42 · 9 Ian 2021

Saint - turntable 1 by Paul Simpson, on Flickr

Paul42 · 9 Ian 2021

Saint and Hall by Paul Simpson, on Flickr

JMJR1000 · 9 Ian 2021

Matt37401 a spus: ↑

Not always... have a look at the 9F thread. I have no objections to someone having differences of opinion with me, but to compare Alcoholism to ‘Big Chufferitus’ and not back down when you know your being bloody silly, is just well... bloody silly.
Click to expand...

Well as I said before, I don't agree on many things with him... his clear absolute loathing for big chuffers in general is definitely one such thing I don't agree with him on, but I digress.

D1002 a spus: ↑

Enough of the this bickering.
Congrats to the GWS for a remarkable achievement.
Didcot Railway Centre, Saint Class No. 2999 Lady of Legend, 5th April 2019.

Click to expand...

And indeed would quite agree, I come here to talk about steam engines and related matters alike, not people!

Find steam engines far more simple yet fascinating then people~.

JMJR1000 · 9 Ian 2021

Paul42 a spus: ↑

Saint and Hall by Paul Simpson, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Loving the pics you got here, particularly this one, a nice comparison between the Saint and Hall here.

Like I said before I'm SO looking forward to seeing it stretch it's legs on other heritage railways, a visit to the SVR being definitely high on my anticipation list.

Dunfanaghy Road · 9 Ian 2021

She sounds a bit "industrial" there! I hope the valve timing has been sorted since then.
Pat

Matt37401 · 9 Ian 2021

JMJR1000 a spus: ↑

Loving the pics you got here, particularly this one, a nice comparison between the Saint and Hall here.

Like I said before I'm SO looking forward to seeing it stretch it's legs on other heritage railways, a visit to the SVR being definitely high on my anticipation list.
Click to expand...

I think there’s a few of us waiting for Martin to arrange a Charter with the Churchward Toplights at Bewdley,maybe with 2857 passing on a goods working? Wouldn’t it be nice @Paulthehitch

Cartman · 9 Ian 2021

2999 is a superb loco, a fantastic job, and I love it!

Autentificare sau Înregistrare

2999: Lady of Legend

Richard Roper Well-Known Member

clinker Member

clinker Member

61624 Part of the furniture

clinker Member

Hampshire Unit Well-Known Member Friend

MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

Hampshire Unit Well-Known Member Friend

LesterBrown Member

JMJR1000 Member

Matt37401 Nat Pres stalwart

D1002 Resident of Nat Pres

D1002 Resident of Nat Pres

Paul42 Part of the furniture

Paul42 Part of the furniture

JMJR1000 Member

JMJR1000 Member

Dunfanaghy Road Well-Known Member

Matt37401 Nat Pres stalwart

Cartman Part of the furniture

Distribuie pagina asta

Autentificare sau Înregistrare

2999: Lady of Legend

Richard Roper Well-Known Member

clinker Member

clinker Member

61624 Part of the furniture

clinker Member

Hampshire Unit Well-Known Member Friend

MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

Hampshire Unit Well-Known Member Friend

LesterBrown Member

JMJR1000 Member

Matt37401 Nat Pres stalwart

D1002 Resident of Nat Pres

D1002 Resident of Nat Pres

Paul42 Part of the furniture

Paul42 Part of the furniture

JMJR1000 Member

JMJR1000 Member

Dunfanaghy Road Well-Known Member

Matt37401 Nat Pres stalwart

Cartman Part of the furniture

Distribuie pagina asta

Căutări utile