60163 Real or Replica?

It may come as a complete surprise to you but it's not compulsory for you to read this thread.
Anyway 61063 has a welded tender so no rivets to count. :smt019

 

Just amazing isn't it? A complete non-topic can generate 4 pages of drivel in a day! I suppose it just confirms to Joe Public that we are indeed a bunch of greasy anoraks. I can sense the static generating from here, sending my screen skewy.

Well that's done it for me with the Nat Press. I've put a substantial sum in Tornado, and contributed to keeping the forum afloat, but if that's all it's good for, I'm off.

I shall find a forum where steam and engineering are appreciated for what they are, irrespective of what the parentage or paint colour may be. (If such a place exists).

Good bye.

Iain

 

Alternatively, it could be seen as a damning indictment on a certain type of person who obviously have absolutely nothing more important in their lives to occupy their minds. Railways seem to attract that type, for some odd reason.

My wife has just lost her job and I'm really not sure how I'm going to cover all our outgoings until she manages to find more work. In the midst of a major recession that, to me at least, is something worth worrying about... :-k

I look forward to 50 posts of constructive suggestions on that topic in around 24 hours. Although I'm not holding my breath...

 

Funny how every time a topic comes along that invites us to reflect on the nature of what we do, it can be guaranteed to be dismissed as a waste of everyone's time or even scare people off.

 

Unfortunately some people feel that a forum should only exist if it conforms to their way of thinking and any topic which doesn't abide by their rules is a waste of time etc. AFAIK it's not compulsory to read every thread on this forum so why do they bother chipping in if the thread is not to their liking? OK so they are only expressing an opinion but that's all the other contributors to this thread are doing anyway. A bit of idle chit chat doesn't do any harm at all. There's enough heavy topics here and elsewhere if that's what people want.

 

Iain, I am truly sorry if you (or anyone else) should decided to quit this forum because you didn't enjoy this thread. there are plenty of threads on this forum which bore me, so I ignore them. In our defence I would say that nothing on this thread has been critical of 60163 itself; I repeat that I think it's brilliant. I chipped in yesterday because I was having a dull day at work and didn't think that "Real" or "Replica" were valid alternatives. It's definitely real, and if you had to pick one other word, replica is probably correct. I think it would be a good time to draw a line under this discussion and hope we can all find something better to get worked up about henceforward.

 

... by obsessively splitting semantic hairs...

Because in the real world, where there are real issues to deal with, whether one's opinion if a steam locomotive if real, a replica or whatever - or even what blessed colour it's painted - is quite staggeringly unimportant! And some people wonder why large sections of society write railway enthusiasts off as a bunch of obsessive nutters?!

And it obviously comes as an equally complete surprise to you that there is just as much responsibility on other users not to post pages of pointless froth that wastes valuable server space and bandwidth!

It's so easy just to say "If you don't like it, don't read it" but it's this kind of pointless froth that gets anyone with even the merest interest in railways tarred with the loony brush by the rest of society. Something that I, amongst many others I'm sure, am heartily sick of!

 

Because in the real world, where there are real issues to deal with, whether one's opinion if a steam locomotive if real, a replica or whatever - or even what blessed colour it's painted - is quite staggeringly unimportant! And some people wonder why large sections of society write railway enthusiasts off as a bunch of obsessive nutters?!

And it obviously comes as an equally complete surprise to you that there is just as much responsibility on other users not to post pages of pointless froth that wastes valuable server space and bandwidth!

It's so easy just to say "If you don't like it, don't read it" but it's this kind of pointless froth that gets anyone with even the merest interest in railways tarred with the loony brush by the rest of society. Something that I, amongst many others I'm sure, am heartily sick of![/quote:27evdka2]

And who are you to say what should or should not be written here? If the forum owner considers any thread a waste of bandwidth then he can delete it at a stroke. Then of course there will be howls of protest regarding censorship and free speech. One man's waste of bandwidth is another's harmless chit chat.
I am really surprised at the lack of tolerance shown by many people on this forum. The moment they see a thread that doesn't comply with their idea how this forum should be, they jump down the throats of those who are contributing to said thread. I stand by what I said earlier - YOU AIN'T COMPELLED TO READ IT.

 

Because in the real world, where there are real issues to deal with, whether one's opinion if a steam locomotive if real, a replica or whatever - or even what blessed colour it's painted - is quite staggeringly unimportant! And some people wonder why large sections of society write railway enthusiasts off as a bunch of obsessive nutters?! [/quote:35xqv0nb]

There are occasions in this business when it can be quite staggeringly important to be absolutely crystal clear about the differences and similarities between say, a replica, a representation and 'the next production example.' You mention that this sort of 'obsessive' behaviour turns people off from railways. In fact, one of the defining aspects of railway preservation that makes it stand out from other areas of heritage is the often woeful lack of thought we give to what we do and why we do it.

 

I don't think we should beat ourselves up for being nutters because we are interested in railways. All hobbies look daft to people on the outside, and when it comes to bores have you met any golfers recently?

 

and all this from the postings of a Troll :Joined, posted and left within about an hour.......

 

Real? Certainly, but a replica it isn't and for a number of reasons, most of which already been explored. For me 'Tornado' is a model; a genuine twelve inches to the foot model.

To an engineer a model is a device that reproduces the appearance and/or the functions of a piece of engineering. Hence the Bachmann model of an A1 is a model because it has the appearance of an A1. 'Tornado' does much the same thing but it is 76 times larger!

'Tornado' isn't just another A1. There are significant changes to the original design. The materials used are modern developments or replacements for the original materials, the units of measurement are metric not imperial, the boiler is welded not riveted etc.

None of this is really important. The engine looks and sounds like an A1, so why can't it be an A1? If I ever won the lottery I'd have a Midland 3F built. It wouldn't be an original, but it would look and sound like the original design.

The analogy with the Shuttleworth Collection's Sopwith Triplane is, with respect, spurious. That aeroplane was made to the same drawings, using the same materials, the same workshop technologies, the same machine and hand tools as the original WW1 aeroplanes. And quite deliberately so. Too all intents and purposes it is a Sopwith Triplane. There is more to this replica lark than might meet the eye!

The position of these Spitfires, and other WW2 fighters that are being made nowadays are in much the same anomalous situation as the A1. They look the same, and where they are equipped with a genuine engine they can sound the same, but they are not the same. But I still get a buzz when I see one at Duxford! And I get the same buzz from 'Tornado'. I think it's brilliant!

Regards

 

At the point he left no "intolerance" as you term it had been expressed so no not the reason.

 

I agree with Spamcan81 on the replica theory. In my opinion 60163 is a modified A1 to meet modern engineering standards and should be seen has a sub class in the same way has modern traction is classified.

 

Is Shakespeares Globe Theatre real or a replica ?
How about the Warsaw Historic city centre ?
Closer to topic, is the clock at St Pancras real or replica ?
or how about the bloomer at Milton Keynes ?

I'd argue replica to all. (even if the Bloomers tender is real).. all of which have a specific historic foundation.

Put it another way..
Heritage Lottery Fund, fund restoration projects and reject many on the grounds that not enough original material survives..

Tornado's a new engine based on an original design and is a replica.. which is in my opinion the same category as all of the above.. and are all worthy schemes which have produced stunning results.

 

I'm glad you raise the point about funding, because writing funding applications is one of the key areas to be quite clear about semantics. However, I would argue that the difference between the examples you cite and Tornado is that your examples are all recreations of prototypes; there never was a 60103 Tornado however.

 

You can't argue with that statement.

 

No, you're right. There was a 60103 Flying Scotsman though!

 

Now, now. You know this is a waste of bandwidth and you have a duty not to post such froth. People might leave the forum because of this. :smt002