Forgotten "preserved" Steam engines

Did you miss the bit where it was mentioned that 48518 was the last surviving LNER build member of the 8F class??.... I think that counts enough to make it historically significant. Of course on the surface it's not that different but it doesn have something which makes it significant. I note that 8431 is preserved as the only surviving Swindon built example (but then maybe that's because Swindon is the GWR works).....

 

I hadn't missed it, but do wonder about whether that constitutes historical significance to the point that survival is imperative. Otherwise, ought we have a Pannier from all the major works that turned them out? An O4 from all the different works...?

 

Are we in a position to do so? If so then I would argue yes. Steam locomotives are something of a rarity and are finite, therefore if we are in a position now (some 40 years after the ending of BR steam to preserve one that has survived this long then I would argue we should.

 

But that doesn't necessarily mean that we can - finances being the sticking point. If it weren't for the County project, 48518 would still, most likely, be rusting away. It's all very well saving it for a rainy day, but all the rainy days in between will take their effect on the metal! As it is, the boiler is going on to lead a useful life in preservation - and as has been suggested, the frames may one day be used, either with a Turkish 8F boiler or as replacements for life-expired frames on another preserved and operating 8F. As I've mentioned the Turkish locos - is it right, do you think, to do away with the Turkish added parts - the different smokebox door as an obvious visual example? Are they not a part of the locos story that ought to be preserved?

I should clarify my previous post that the story told by 48518, as an LNER built example is, obviously, of historic interest. However, the survival of 48624 and 48431, Ashford and Swindon examples respectively, I would think easily covers that particular story. Just one would suffice to tell the story - although that doesn't mean I'm suggesting we scrap or cannibalise one of them! Both are restored in their own right and should now stay that way. It's all about interpretation - to you and me as enthusiasts these locomotives history's adds a touch of spice to an otherwise bog-standard 8F (which is interesting in itself of course). To a punter - will they notice the builders plate says Doncaster not Crewe? Will they grasp the story behind that? Without proper interpretation, it would to all intents and purposes be a normal 8F. A story is only a story if it is told.

 

Actually with proper explanation to a punter they should have just as much significance. We're not just talking about Railway history here - we're talking about national history as these engines all illustrate a story of how commercial rivalries were put to one side to pull together in the hour of need. It seems that somehow in your eyes the examples produced by Southern based companies are somehow more important than the one built by a North Eastern Company..... Given that the LMS and the LNER had a cut throat rivalry, it makes this locomotive all the more significant.

As for the Turkish engines, yes I'd agree that they should be retained in the forms they evolved too. Though of course I think fitting some vacuum brakes in addition to the air ones might be a good move, plus any other equipment required for running in this country....

 

From what I have read, (and please correct me if this is inaccurate), 48518's best hope of steaming would be courtesy of bits and bobs from a partly-scrapped Turkish 8F - and I seem to remember that this is a distinct possibility. If this route is taken, add on a few newly-constructed parts and there won't be much of the re-born "48518" that originated in Doncaster works, so in terms of it being an historic engine for that reason, the argument would be rather weak. However, if the end result is another working 8F rather than a sorry pile of metal in the UK and another sorry pile of metal in Turkey, I for one will be delighted.

 

Yes, indeed, they are all significant if properly interpreted - my point is that they are not, if the story is not being told are they significant? A pair of spectacles is just a pair of spectacles until a plaque is put next to them saying that they belonged to Gandhi.

Indeed we are, however that story can just as well be told by a GW or SR example as by an LNER example. I would never argue that the SR or GW examples are more important than the LNE example, rather that they are equally important, and I'm sorry that I gave that impression - my point is that just one is required to tell the story effectively. Remember, regarding rivalry that the LMS had extreme rivalry with the GW as well, on the London-Birmingham and North-South West runs.

But 45160 hasn't - it's been reverse engineered to approximately LMS/BR spec, and is soon to go into a British livery.

Naturally

 

i believe someday we'll regret breaking locos to create new ones rather than building new components. If 48518 lives again at the expense of a Turkish loco, one day we'll regret that.I bet the Festiniog boys wish they could turn back time and save the remains of the WHR they scrapped for entirely sensible reasons in their early days.

 

And we all wish Arley still had its original signal box, demolished by the SVR for spares in its infancy. I'm playing devil's advocate rather than arguing my own opinion. Whilst I do not find myself being upset by the loss of the two Halls that have gone into the Saint, County and Grange projects - I consider it little more than the mix and match that has gone on over the years between the S15s - the apparent death of 48518 is much sadder, and its status as the only surviving LNER built example does enhance that feeling.

 

Has anyone actually examined the frames to confirm 48518 actually is 48518, and not a documentation exercise, it is well known frames for 8fs and Black 5's were interchanged between class members in the works.
If its found 48518 exists in document form only, and that it is actually some other unknown scrapped identity.. Then it's case for survival is even weaker... Unless by coincidence its frames were swapped with another Doncaster example.

The levels of effort on 48518 is a kin to saying, I'll make a new pony wheel for 45596, and build a new claughton from the other!

 

It's all very well saying "everything is significant, nothing should be touched in case a future generation want to take it on as a project". Which is fine in theory, but we have lots of linear scrapyards testament to the fact that some items that have been notionally preserved (locos and rolling stock) simply don't have the support infrastructure behind them to have a realistic chance of being sorted out. If there was unlimited capital I'd say fine, save everything and anyone that wants a new build should build everything from scratch. But we're not in that position. Do you think the Brighton Atlantic project should have built an entirely new tender underframe, in the hope that someone somewhere might use the actual one used to start reconstruction of a Billinton B4? It would never happen - that frame would have been scrapped. So the best chance of survival of a historic artefact, in that case, is to form the basis for a conversion.

In the case of a loco type that has numerous examples in preservation (such as a GWR Hall), I'd suggest the best chance of survival of the Hall in question is to be converted into a Saint - better that than having no Saint, yet no-one bothering to restore a rusty old Hall when so many others are already preserved. Would be hard to get excited about that prospect, and all restorations require excitement to generate funds and volunteer capacity. Of course, if the Hall in question was the only one that had made it this far and was sitting rusty and unloved, I'd have a different view - but I suspect were that the case, it wouldn't be sitting unloved, as it would by definition be an exciting project. The cases where there are locos still in Barry condition are mostly ones where there is already several of the type in existence - e.g. various Bulleids (espec. MNs); various GWR tank engines etc.

There's also a limit to just how far it is worth subdividing a class to try and garner some kind of significance; the fact that the 8F in question is an LNER built one doesn't really do it for me I'm afraid. There are 4 Maunsell U classes in existence (thankfully all have run in preservation); but I suspect not many people would consider it hugely significant that 1638 was built at Ashford and 1618 at Brighton; or that 1806 is a K class rebuild; 1618 was ordered as a K but outshopped as a U and that 1638 was ordered and outshopped as a U. (Though I'd argue that is actually a more significant fact than that 48518 was built at Doncaster to a Crewe design).

There's an interesting paper on the Vintage Carriage Trust website about deciding significance of preserved carriages, as an aid to informing lottery and other decisions about whether a particular project is worthy or not. It makes the very real point - and this is with the backing of numerous expert opinion, including from the NRM - that not everything is equally significant. The last remaining Gresley articulated coaches - the Quad Arts, now at the NNR - are clearly more significant than just another Mk 1. In a landscape of limited funding, it is right that it is prioritised to the Quad Arts, and away from the Mk1, even if ultimately that consigns the Mk 1 to an eventual grave. The same goes for locos: 4771 is clearly more significant (if only by rarity) than an 8F, even the only surviving Doncaster 8F. If at least part of that engine can live on as a donor, then that is better than the whole engine rotting away because no-one can get excited enough to stump up the money to restore it.

Tom

 

Out of interest what happened to the 8f in Turkey that was to be scrapped could nothing be brought over for our sorry 8?

 

Nothing moves that fast in Turkey, whilst spares would be useful, say for 48173, and a wheel for the Patriot.. Reckon the tender would be useful...
However I think historically one of these British built 2-10-0's, actually a German design, built in the UK, and the very reason why the 8fs went to turkey in the first place...woud be quite historically significant to return to the UK.
Trains of Turkey - Steam / 56080 browse
I believe one of these is up for scrap too.

 

I take it then that it wouuld be quite some time before it actually gets cut up compared to our current tender list... wait a month or two, tender results... scrapped by the end of the fortnight system.

It would be nice for one of those to appear over here as well as one of the "Liberation" (IIRC) British built locos supplied to Europe post war of which there are two in Poland.

Seeing as a bad boiler is better than no boiler in terms of moving towards a complete loco could the boiler also be brought across to make up for the one being used for the GWR 1014 project?

 

Whatever one may or may not think of the historical significance of no. 48518, the fact remains that a perfectly restorable engine was denied its chance. If anyone feels that "perfectly restorable" is stretching the truth, just take a look at 34046 Braunton, which was the ultimate basket case when it arrived at Williton.

Personally, I always had a vision of the 8F wearing LNER style numbers and forging up the bank out of Grosmont, which will sadly never happen now.

The real tragedy is that it was sacrificed mainly for its boiler, which will need such drastic surgery to make it into a County boiler, it would have been better to have built a new one. The boiler has now been standing in the rain at Didcot for something approaching four years, with absolutely nothing having been done to it.

Whilst on the subject of forgotten locos, I hope a similar fate doesn't befall the Black 5 at Barry, no. 44901.

 

Hang on a second. The county project are only using the smoke box last time i checked. They will be doing an appeal to raise money for a new barrel. The 8fs barrel will then be sold on to who ever wants it. If someone comes along with money (which no one yet has for 48518) they could potentially buy it. The driving wheels will be sold from it at some point to any interested people. If anyone was interested i could possibly get you a price.

As for 44901. That also has a bright future and will be restored by a group.

I would love for all of the locos that have been "cannibalised" to never have been done, my Father nearly bought Willington Hall but instead there group bought Dumbleton Hall so he was annoyed to see it disappear . But you could say if they are bought by someone and that someone wants to do something with it then thats there right to do so.

So apart from the firebox from 48518 and the pony wheels, what else is missing from the 8f that wasnt missing already?

Gavin

 

Looking at the pictures of what was there when it turned up to be broken there looks to have been some motion, cylinders, firebox, cab, wheels, boiler. Tender... in short there was alot to play with.

 

It does beg the question if the Turkish 8F had been brought over then perhaps 48518 could have been restored and the other projects could have had their spare bits.

 

In store awaiting restoration for the museum at Aberystwyth. Impossible to purchase any of the collection as it is not for sale.


Charlie

 

Does anyone know what happen to the two industrial tank engines that turned up in the early days of the MHR? Both locos never run on MHR metals and left of pastures new? From memory one loco was in green livery and the other was in a light red livery.

Thanks