1014 - County of Glamorgan

Carefree Liveries Limited is alive and well!

 

I think that you will that there is very little (if any) difference between 1014's boiler and the originals. Hawksworth used the same tooling as used for the 8Fs built at Swindon during WW2. That's why an 8F's firebox was selected. The barrel and front tubeplate are new. How does that equate to being half-arsed, as you put it?

 

Presumably, you don't approve of the Dukedog either?

 

Because the firebox is only fit for 225 PSI, not 280 (later 250) like the originals. In the grand scheme of things, I doubt a new firebox would've cost that much more than overhauling the previous one. Now they've got a brand new barrel coupled to a firebox that saw 20+ years of service plus 45 years sat by the sea.

Regarding the Dukedogs, a company creating a class of thirty locos for a specific traffic need is a tad different to cobbling together parts so someone can tick off a number in the ABC Book of identikit GWR 4-6-0s.

I have absolutely no issue with new builds, but taking parts off other locos to create something else seems pretty pointless.

 

And how would you describe 7200, 7202, 7229, 7802, 7808, 7812, 7819, 3217/9017 etc?
We can also note that the late 19th/early 20thC GWR was very fond of slicing up redundant boilers and turning them into different types according to need. You can favour these projects or not according to your taste, that's your privilege, but criticism of the process as inauthentic when it's exactly in line with how the GWR used to go about things isn't altogether logical. With my pedant's hat on I submit they'd be better described as renewals rather than new builds, but explaining that to the average rail enthusiast would be a struggle.

 

I can see absolutely no objection to using parts from locomotives that were evidently not wanted and for which numerous examples of the same classes exist, to make something of which there are no examples. For example, would it have been preferred to restore 4942 and 7927 as Halls when there are already two (unused) Halls at Didcot? If you didn't know, could you tell 2999 from a genuine Saint?

 

Not just boilers, but 100 Granges and Manors were built with the wheels and motion from 100 withdrawn 43xxs. That's just one example. This was all made possible by Churchward's standardisation policy.

 

You're surely not offering that as a serious objection?

Can you tell me the difference between the modified frames of 7927 and those of an original County?

 

It is OK for there to be different opinions about the principle of re-using parts nowadays to re-create an extinct class.
My own opinion is that re-using parts that otherwise had no future seems a lot better than letting them rust away for a few more decades before going for scrap. But the objection to the boiler for the pseudo County is not only the lower working pressure but the fact that they have actually re-used very little of the 8F boiler. They could have had an authentic County boilet at little extra cost (and leaving the 8F to take its chances for restoration).

 

I think you'll find that they used the entire firebox. Otherwise you would have answered yourself - it would have been, to all intents and purposes, a new boiler.

 

You can't compare the policies of a company a hundred years ago who's business it was to make money, with that of a "preservation" outfit who are supposedly looking after heritage items.

I fail to see how dismantling locos to create something that looks similar to something that has been scrapped fits in with those aims. It's certainly not preservation in my eyes.

 

This misses the point even more than a GWR XYZ Road station missed it's purported destination.

This is not a debate about whether GWR design practice is being followed, but about the purported resurrection of extinct classes of locomotive based on conversions that are without historical precedent. I find this doubly dissatisfying when it requires the destruction of viable examples of extant class members to fulfil this purpose, creating the purported new class member.

It is not about whether it is or isn't "allowed", but whether the end product is a coherent whole - which in my view it is not.

 

If the boiler of 1014 had been allowed to steam at 250psi, I feel sure that there would be far less negativity from the few people who consider the recreated loco to not be a proper County. This is unfortunate. I believe the staying arrangement of the County firebox was different to the identical, or near identical 8F version, in order to permit the original very high boiler pressure of 280psi, hence the 225psi setting of the new 1014. As is very well documented, it proved very difficult for crews to maintain this pressure, when working hard, so 280psi was not really a practical setting of the safety valves. The 250psi double chimney Counties were much better, consistent steamers. The new 1014 will apparently have bored out cylinders, so the tractive effort will be very close to the double chimney 250psi originals. I asked an ex 85A
fireman with experience of the original Counties what he thought of the 225psi setting of the recreated 1014. Quick as a flash, he said the difference wouldn't be noticable. He confirmed that with the single chimney 280psi original condition locos, you just couldn't maintain maximum pressure when the loco was being worked hard. He also told me he fired a final form double chimney loco on a heavy train and he said it steamed really well and that the bark from the chimney was fantastic.
Finally, I wonder how many people realized that 6000 King George V ran all of it's main line carrier with the safety valves set at 225 rather than 250psi? Yet it still produced some very high power outputs.
The new 1014 will be a superb loco, many people are really looking forward forward to seeing (and hearing) it in steam.

 

So according to you, GWR preservationists can only do what the GWR did as anything else is without precedence. If it had been left to the GWR, there would be next to nothing left. Remember Lord of the Isles and North Star? City of Truro was only saved because of the efforts of Collett (who went against the wishes of the GWR board) and the generousity of the LNER.

As for your "viable examples" those examples used were evidently not wanted by anybody to restore as they were. How many ex-Barry locomotives are there still in ex-Barry condition?

 

I gave a personal view - as did you.

My problem is not with recreations, nor with might have beens- I don’t think the history of steam in Britain ended in August 1968. It is with what are frankly cut & shut jobs, crafting a “new” member of an extinct class by butchering donors from other classes.

I accept that “viable” is a debatable term given how long some locomotives have remained unrestored, but when it was 7027 that triggered this, I stand by my usage however measured. Where historic artefacts are concerned, I regard custodianship as a better perspective than ownership, as it combines duties with rights.

Claims are being made for authenticity that don’t stand up to close examination because of the compromises being made, imposed by the donors chosen.

That affects my interest in the locomotives, and willingness to support those projects. It doesn’t alter the fact that the owners (word chosen deliberately) have the ability to do these things. They just don’t have the right to expect not to be challenged on their choices.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well now, there are a lot of myths about this. Lord of the Isles and NorthStar were only broken up after a lot of effort trying to find a permanent home. The board approved *lending* 3440/3717 to the LNER museum and limited expenditure on tidying her up. There are relevant extracts from the GWR locomotive committee minutes here: https://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/northstarmyth.php.

As for the other topic, I was foolish to jump in. It's been repeated endlessly and no-one is going to change their mind.

 

Your statement is at odds with this:

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/594/going-loco-april-2024 (19th April)

Apart from City of Truro, can you think of another preserved GWR loco that was withdrawn before natioalisation (and not sold on)? I can't.