60163 Real or Replica?

Something that has been puzzling me for some time now is this, Is 60163 Tornado an A1 or a replica A1?

 

I think it was at the first meeting in 1990 or at least an early meeting that they agreed it would be a genuine member of the class and was numbered 60163 the next in sequence after 60162 Saint Johnstoun.

 

But surely as it was not created on the original production line, and its boiler was built in another country, it is a replica A1 built from original plans?

 

It's similar to the LMS Black 5s - built by various different manufacturers to the same plans.

Richard

 

I don't wish to take anything away from 60163 which I think is a marvellous achievement, however the opposite of "real" is "unreal" so the question is a false premise, because 60163 is obviously not "unreal". The true question is whether 60163 is an original or a replica; on that basis it is a replica, but none the worse for that.

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. replica - copy that is not the original; something that has been copied

 

But it is not claiming to be a copy of one of the locos, but a new one. If it was named 60131 Osprey then it would be a replica.

 

OK...not sure that we really need to get into semantics. 60163 is real, because it is not unreal (obviously). It is not an original, though it was built to the original design (to a very large extent). So it was built to the original design but it is not a copy of an individual loco; I think replica is a reasonable description. I hope we can all agree that it looks fantastic and is a great asset, and all involved deserve medals, free pints, etc.

 

Why does this matter and who cares? :-k

 

It doesn't and I for one don't.

 

The last post was the only sensible one on here

 

However, there was, to my knowledge no other 60163, therefore 60163 is real IMO

 

Just to make it awkward, given the modifications to Tornado over the original design should it not be an A1/2. Great Northern became an A1/1 when Thompson butchered it so logically Tornado should take the next sub-class. This makes it a genuine loco

 

The only purpose of 60163 is to show us what an A1 used to look like - had an original one survived, I think it is a safe bet that it would not have been built. This, in my view, puts it fairly and squarely in the replica category.

Had it been built by National Express for hauling East Coast expresses, I think that would have muddied the waters somewhat.

As for the number - it's only paint and a few stampings, so it's irrelevant really, whether it is given an original number (like the Beachy Head replica) or a new one - the purpose of the project is identical.

I think the best answer must go to one of the A1 trust guys - a few years ago (before Tornado was finished) I met him at the GCR (can't remember his name now, sorry) and asked whether the loco was a replica or a new-build. His answer was very simple: "yes".

 

How can it be a replica when it has got completely different boiler technology, ie welded instead of riveted.

 

When we have finished debating this one - how's about we move on to how many angels can dance on a pin head?

No wonder rail enthusiasts have such a bad name.

 

So your post would not do that... :-k If you do not have any sensible comments to make then leave this thread to those who have.

 

my post was perfectly sensible - as others have said mine are the only sensbile posts on this thread; as for yours - least said the better as it doesn't even make sense.. ](*,) ](*,)

 

Do you know, (do you know :smt002 ) I was just going to say that myself. It is a magnificent piece of engineering and a credit to all the people connected with it. The Railway Herald reports it has passed 10000miles in service.
Call it whatever you want. Who cares whether it's considered new, replica,reproduction, fake or any I've missed :smt102