Current and Proposed New-Builds

I read that the 'new' Grand Parade actually passed the rather battered original on its way out of the Works. I am almost positive I've seen a photo showing the two together, but I'm sorry to say I cannot remember where.

 

Indeed I gather that the "replacement/rebuild" Grand Parade, was assembled from the "spares pool" at the Plant. With whatever was salvageable from the old Loco being consigned to the spares pool, once repaired/refurbished.

 

Thanks, that is interesting but puzzling as, to take the years 1935-37 during which a number of A4s were built I think, there is no capex allocated in the published accounts to new locos, apart from some minor (c. £1,000 or less) annual expenditure on "Improvements" (and a credit to capital of £1,157 of removal of a booster from a loco in 1937). There is however substantial expenditure through the Maintenance and Renewals account (i.e. not capex) in each year arising from Complete Renewals in both the Company's Shops (over £300,000 in each year) and by Contractors (£100-200k in each year) in those three years. The LNER's stock of steam locos reduced from 6,846 at the end of 1934 to 6,576 at the end of 1937.

 

Locos of the LNER Part 2A has an image of the withdrawn loco (Fig 48).

 

I'm not sure I can speak for most or majority of old enthusiasts with a childhood history of spotting in saying that I have always had a desire to 'identify' something that carries a definable identity and as a romanticised enthusiast somehow want those identities to remain 'whole'. The realist tells me otherwise that my "OCD" carries no real value in terms of funding or running a railway and each historic artefact is but a collection of steel, brass and copper that can easily be transformed by melting into 'new' items of steel, brass and copper.

I find myself when I get up close, eyeing the numbers stamped into individual parts that make up a 'preserved' locomotive, almost needing to know the true identity of each transplant donor. I like the idea that 2999 Lady of Parts carries connecting rods that have run on 2906 even though I admit that this is somewhat silly because it's just forged steel after all, isn't it?

I'm sure that there are behavioural scientists queueing to write their thesis on why certain people like to collect, to record and to pigeon-hole in such a way. What do other's think?

What we say we melt down our favourite item of Gresely or Collet memorabilia and use the raw materials created to cast and forge 'new' metal locomotive components from the same? Do I need to go into hiding suggesting such atrocities?

 

In the early days on the LSWR and LBSCR (and no doubt on other railways too) it was the physical number plate (or name plate in the LSWR case) that signified the identity of a loco. So if for example a loco was renewed, it was not just the number that passed to the new loco, but the physical number plate (which was typically a relatively large casting, i.e. a tangible object).

If the old loco had a continued existence in the duplicate list, a new number (or a cypher) would be required, but generally that was a simpler job. For example, on the LBSCR the cast brass original number went to the new loco, and the duplicated ones had a simple wooden oval of the same size and shape with the new number painted on; later on, even that was removed and the duplicate number was simply painted on the cab side. "Fenchurch" as currently preserved has (erroneously for the loco) LBSCR-pattern wooden duplicate number plates.

On the LSWR, the original duplicate scheme (once locos were numbered, things were different in the very early days) was to transfer the cast number to the new loco and paint a number with a bar above the middle character for the duplicate. When dirty, those bars became hard to see, so a leading zero was added to the duplicate. That system lasted into SR days, easily taking the "E" (for Eastleigh) prefix in the first SR numbering scheme. When the second scheme happened (adding 1000 to SECR numbers and 2000 to LBSCR numbers), the leading zero no longer worked, so LSWR duplicate locos had 3000 added to the number. Thus for example, one of the currently preserved Beattie Well Tanks was successively 298, 0298, E0298, 3298, at which point BR screwed everything up and renumbered it 30587 ...

Tom

 

Back when Flying Scotsman reentered service I took my children on the Hampshire Cream Tea trip from Salisbury.

Now clearly it was much modified from when it had been at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley and I doubt that much if anything remained of the machine that was displayed there BUT at the same time it was the same machine that there Grandfather saw when he visited the exhibition at about the same age they were.

It has the identity if not the component of what was displayed then.

 

I would surmise that your interpretation is correct for that if it's in the financial records. My view is the board discussions are generally high level and work at lower levels are generally different and more detailed. I think we may be talking at cross purposes though: the accountant, board director and engineer will all have different ideas of what goes on.

 

The ship of Theseus comes to mind. I take the view that we are all examples of this. My identity hasn't changed since birth, but all my working components have...

 

This picture exists in my records as being Grand Parade directly after the accident. Sobering stuff.

 

There's also this image, from https://m.facebook.com/154922483200...529220280672102/?type=3&source=48&__tn__=EH-R

Amount of damage doesn't look horrendous, though it was probably quicker to assemble a new loco from spares than repair 2744.

 

I believe the time factor was the decider: it was quicker to assemble the spare parts than straighten out the originals. That these were eventually straightened and sent to the parts bins says it all, but the most severe damage would have been to the leading end and not visible here.

 

Wasn't the "repaired" loco back in traffic in only a few weeks? If the LNER works were keeping in store spare frames, boiler and sundry smaller parts, erecting a "repaired" loco with all new / refurbished parts from store would be quite quick; and those depleted parts could then be replaced by the parts from the stripped down "original" loco, being repaired or refurbished as required. So the cost impact would be relatively minimal, essentially amounting to the cost of an out-of-turn heavy overhaul, plus whatever additional work was required to refurbish parts such as straightening / repairing the frames. Presumably less than a whole new loco, in any case.

Tom

 

ahem - post #4244 above

Re Grand Parade, I'm sure it did no harm to reputation/reliability stats etc to have the "engine" back in service after a few weeks

 

But did BR screw it up? Or was it some Loco. Dept. clerk (of LSW vintage) simply applying the old (antique, even) methods of reusing number blocks? Early Drummond engines went through something similar.
USA tanks 61 to 73 took the numbers of T1 class 0-4-4T's, withdrawn in the 1930's.
BR numbers 30564 to 30581 (the former Duplicate Stock) - Adams Jumbos and Radials; Beattie Well Tanks, and Drummond 'Potato Cans' - took the numbers of the Adams 4-4-0's of Classes T3 and X2. (Noticeable that 563 was not re-used, was it still 'on the books'?)
Pat

 

I think I would want a very good look at the boiler!

 

Indeed, the repairs from most heavy collisions involved a boiler change as the old one would have had its firebox disturbed within the stays, due to the G forces from the sudden deceleration. But that was pretty well standard practice; it doesn't alter the fact that, in the circumstances, 2744 looks remarkably well preserved.

 

That is exactly how your posts sound when I read them

 

Ah well, I'm glad at least that somebody reads them

Tom

 

Your romantic view implies that locomotives (and ships of Theseus) acquire a spirit and personality of their own, something more than just the iron and wood whence they are wrought. Ok, its potty to believe it, but given the way some machines appeal to something inside us, I have yet to get a better explanation. I recall Tony Bianchi saying of a 100% rebuilt spitfire (only the airframe number plate dated from 1940 odd), that although it was perfect, it had yet to acquire a personality