Steam locos - what's significant, and what is at risk?

I know, I had have a final sentence which I deleted which noted that such legislation also doesn't stop Joe Bloggs from cutting up his Monet if he so chooses.

 

I can't see that the sort of legislation which covers fine art, even if extended to steam engines, would have covered a non-unique loco like 'Dumbleton Hall'. It might have stopped Flying Scotsman languishing in the USA for a few years (but it might not even have done that, given that at the point of departure, it was expected to return).
Is there anything currently abroad that would be of more intrinsic heritage value if brought 'home'? All I can think of is one of the pair of LMS diesel shunters in Italy, but they have been there so long that when they left, they weren't significant; their significance comes from their survival, for which we have to thank the Italians.
Ex-UK steam locos abroad, excluding those built for export: I can think of a Mersey Railway tank and three ROD 2-8-0s in Australia, some 8Fs and WD 2-10-0s in Turkey/Greece/Netherlands/Israel, the Hall now in Japan, two A4s and a Terrier in North America and maybe some Austerity 0-6-0STs here and there. And some industrials. I can't imagine any legislation would be too bothered about any of them.
The sort of legislation I'd be more pleased to see would cover things like the wanton destruction of an LMS Crab or a GWR Hall, not because of any historical significance or uniqueness (because they don't have much of either given other survivors) but because they are all 70+ years old and their destruction is unnecessary. But it would be difficult to justify such legislation and probably near impossible to enforce it. Would you also be inadvertently preventing locos from swapping parts to keep the better one running? (e.g. 92212/92245; 825/841). And once you start designating machinery just because it is old, where do you stop; would you apply the same rules to a 70 year old Fergie tractor, for example? (Even though there are probably thousands of them.)

The French system - see the link I posted up thread - does designate examples of non-unique locos (much as our NRM has a Crab, I suppose) but doesn't care much about other examples of the same type. So for example CFV 403 is designated, but 401 & 404 are not (and 401 is a rusting hulk with little prospect of restoration).

 

I agree, it wouldn't affect "Dumbleton Hall". I'm also with those who argue caution, because the side effects of protective legislation could cause more problems than they solve.

 

I think you mean ROD 2-8-0s from WW1 - WD 2-8-0s were from WW2 and although they did travel widely in war service none got as far as Australia.

Peter

 

Indeed I did; corrected.

 

Of British locos abroad, I think the more significant ones are those built for export. Of those in particular I'd single out:

• Samson (in Canada), a Hackworth 0-6-0 essentially identical to a S&D "Tory" class, and representing an intermediate stage of development between "Locomotion" and "Derwent"
• GS&WR No. 36 (in Ireland), a Bury-type 2-2-2: not only are 2-2-2s rare in Britain despite being the predominant passenger type of their era, but Bury type locomotives are also rare
• Prins August (in Sweden), a Beyer-Peacock 2-4-0 still in substantially original form; said to be the oldest still operational locomotive in the world.
• No. 1 D. Luis (in Portugal), a Beyer-Peacock 2-2-2

All of which are I'd suggest best preserved in their current homes - I'm not clamouring along some kind of faux nationalism that they should be bought "home" - but a reminder that there are gaps in what we have preserved at home that are at least capable of study by what is preserved abroad. In particular, some interesting locomotives from the 1840 - 1870 "dark ages" of UK rail preservation.

Tom

 

Do we really have preservation at all?

What we have is a rather precarious situation where the perceived monetary value and enthusiasms of a relatively small section of the population is currently securing the future of most steam locos. Is it the case that the only ones which are secure to any degree are those owned by properly constituted charitable organisations? Individuals, even those with hugely deep pockets do not necessarily make good custodians. Loose affiliations of such individuals do not necessarily make for secure and sustainable railways. I have seen trains of 6 coaches and an engine where there are 7 different owners, quite frequently.

 

Individuals with sufficiently deep pockets make better custodians than institutions without. See Steam Tug Reliant. Auxiliary Schooner De Wadden etc... The challenge is to find successive individuals.

 

I’m not sure about that. Someone once said to me that owning an old car was like taking a cold shower whilst ripping up £5 notes. Owning a steam engine the same but £20 notes. Aircraft the same but £50s. Ship preservation though …. That required shredding treasury notes. My point being that ship preservation is so expensive that the comparison here isn’t a good one. You’re right though the issue is finding successive individuals, who all meet at least a minimum level of responsibility. There are many many examples where this hasn’t been so.