New Build Night Owl - 4709 Begins

I forgot about the 8F. So Didcot has taken 4 locos, turned them into two, neither of which are THAT historically important. And two of them (the tanks) are proven to be useful preserved line engines. It just doesn't stack up to me. If you want them that much, the public want them that much, make them from new ala the A1.

 

So, they sat in Barry for 44 odd years and no one did anything about them, then someone decides to use the remains to build an unpreserved class and it's all toys out of the pram... why did no one act before?

Other members of the class have been preserved - nothing will be lost from history but some things lost will be regained.

 

As already pointed out three large parires are still unrestored (4110, 4121, and 4150)

And there nine 2-8-0s still unrestored (2859, 2873, 2874, 2885, 3814, 3845, 3855, and 3862)

And also three 2-8-0Ts as well (4248, 4253, and 4270) plus the three 2-8-2Ts (7200, 7202, and 7229).

While I would prefered 4115, 5227 and 2861 to be kept as they were I don't think with 17 similar engines still awaiting a return to working order if you don't like it why don't you try help get one of those above working!!!!

Before anyone points out I sure alot of the 17 I highlighted are being restored by people but just haven't returned them to working order yet I wasn't being disrepectfull to you guys...

 

So, 6/7 out of 10 of the 41 and 51XXs have been restored (5164, 5193, 5199, 4141, 4144, 4160 - soonish to be joined by 4150) suggesting they are useful engines. Lets get rid of one of them to build a 2-8-0, which you suggest as not being a rare/in demand loco type for preserved lines, and it will have limited mainline speed due to wheel size.

 

Because for a long term they were considerd unavailable, so that is not a fair arguement. Look at Braunton, 45379, etc. There are plenty of examples recently of woe-begone locos, of common classes (ie not rare types), which have been taken on by driven people with some resources and returned to steam.

 

What has been lost it would seem is 4 locos, and we will gain 2, neither or which will represent anything THAT groundbreaking from a historical/technical point of view. As I stated earlier, if there is this massive (?) clamour for a County and 47XX, then why not raise a few million quid and make one. We know it can be done.

 

Just out of curiosity - how much of the 8F was actually from components built by the LNER? I ask because the locomotive in question went on to have the best part of twenty years in service with the LMS and latterly BR. Since frame swaps, boiler swaps and other components were apparently common place during the steam era, how much of the "unique" 8F is/was actually unique?

My point being that if its unique selling point is being a product of the LNER, then surely for that to stand it should have some components made by the LNER still on it?

I just wonder how different removing the 8F's boiler is to taking 34073 249 Squadron's valve gear for Tangmere, or the use of the use of one Merchant Navy boiler on another locomotive's frames. Throw into the mix that an LNER boiler is being made to build a new Marsh Atlantic, and the question of using the 8F boiler seems rather moot.

(Of course I have no problem with the Marsh Atlantic build because 251 exists in preservation - and there are many other examples of the Stanier 8F type in preservation. If that 8F was truly unique, then yes it is a shame, but if it was not unique, having had replaced the majority of its LNER manufactured components over the course of its working life, at withdrawal to the other 8Fs, then I'm struggling to understand the fuss).

 

I think IMHO what actually has been lost is about 200 tons of assorted scrap metal to gain 2 locomotives for which no example survived. There is also the option for a 38xx from the remaining parts - so maybe 3 loco's in the end.
I still don't see anyone waving the cash to restore them as was - yet the work at Didcot has begun on the newbuilds.
AND if Didcot did build from scratch I think these loco's would still be rotting hulks in 20 years time - or worse razor blades.
Anyway, the deed is done - too late to worry now, just look forward to the Night Owl!

 

Well if you are stating that frame swaps were commonplace on the Stanier 8Fs, you know a lot more than people who have researched the Class and written about them. Frame swaps took place when there was a problem with the frames, e.g. about the first 450 LMS Class 5s, the A3s (as A1s) etc.

 

thought that they were just resting after a hard squawk....

 

Hence why I asked "how much of the 8F was actually from components built by the LNER?", and hence the use of the word "apparent". More than happy to be corrected.

So the next question - are the frames (which still exist) the originals as built by the LNER? Is this a known certainty?

That would change my view on the locomotive in question (as per my above post).

 

Agreed. It is too late to complain or reconsider. Whatever my opinions or preferences. I personally think those locos MAY had been revived in time, eventually, but that cannot be proved. I actually think the 47xx is a handsome machine, but I just wish its creation didnt cause so much carnage and I hope once the myriad of new-builds is complete the GWS will remember all the other locos in the back of the shed getting dusty.....

I will now cease comment on the issue and put another tenner in the pot for 4150.

 

I shall be watching this project with great interest.

I must admit that 3 new build locos being constructed at Didcot seems a bit much, but in reality would the donor locos have been restored? I doubt it to be honest. There seems to be more interest out there for a Saint, County and 47XX than the donor locos of which we already have many surviving examples. For those who think it is wrong to use parts from other locos would you have delved into your wallets for them, even though there are already surviving members of the class in working order?

The 47XX to me must have some potential for mainline work (providing it fits!). It has the same size wheels as a Large Prairie (5 ft 8 in) so it could run at 60mph.

 

Balck 5's and Halls have a limited speed due to wheel size...hasnt stopped them being utilised.
This thing will do a job that you'd need two Black 5's for...

My Crystal ball suggests that there wont be too many new preserved steam railways, the Market is pretty well served

I dont see these railways running short on Locos, only the resources to overhaul the ones theyve got

It all boils down to what some people want, your scenario says its ok to want to restore another example of a class that exists, because you like them and think they are good engines, but not ok to want something different that you dont like or consider to be as good... whatever...

 

It seems to me about the only thing the preservation movement is *not* short of is rusty wrecks sitting in headshunts making the places look considerably less appealing to the casual visitor. And, incidentally, one thing it could use is a few spare boilers to reduce turnaround. So just considered from the point of view of increasing the spare boiler count and reducing the rusty wreck count then reducing a few of the wrecks to produce has some advantages.

 

The 47xx if finished won't do what two black 5's will do because in all probability it won't fit.

GWR outside cylinder locos are having more and more problems with route availability, probably not good on many preserved lines either.
Iit's a shame really, it would be nice to see double headed halls now and again but it now seems harder than ever to find a worthwhile route for them let alone a 47xx.

Cheers Dave

 

I agree. If loco owners were to invest in spare boilers then the time out of service for overhaul could be cut from a decade or more to maybe a few weeks. The rest of the loco could probably run almost indefinately with planned off season overhauls.The Owner would then have 10 years to rebuild the original boiler , ten years of a revenue stream whats more.

 

As my user name suggests I have a strong affinity to this, and as a member of the GWS and thus receiving details of the formal launch in the post a few weeks back I did consider putting something on here, however I decided that it just wasn't worth the hassle it would cause.

For what its worth, for all those who have suddenly developed a great love for 41xx's (and why not they are beautiful machines) I am sure that many of the groups who are preserving them would welcome your new passion and appreciate the cash, there are even many unrestored examples which are potentially for sale so go for it, I and many other GWR supporters would support you all the way.

I think the destruction of any locomotive is sad and (unlike what would appear to be many on here this is irrelevant of its region, builder or designer - but thats a debate for a different thread), but I am also a realist. Taking account of all those that at present have no identified future, and the time (and money) that such restorations take do you honestly think that they will all be done in even say 50 years, during which time they will continue to deteriorate, will the passion and volunteer force still be there, and this does't take account of normal maintenance and overhaul of other loso's already running?

In answer to some of the points noted above:

Its not unique - If you can show me another one that has been preserved you will make my year. I assume that this is suggesting that just because its a 2-8-0 and GWR they are already represented by the 28xx's. They are a different class of loco, I assume on this basis the Merchany Navy's are not unique as they are a bigger BB. I know its a stupid examplem (and delibertaley so), but I don't get the argument.

Its a cynical process by the GWS to deflect publicity from 6023 - I wasn't aware that the GWS's media and spin capability was that advanced. The scheme was first formally mooted to members over 2 years ago.

If you don't support its aims, then fine each to themselves but please don't just try and stir things up - we have all got Steam Railway for that at the moment and it helps no one, just makes the casual observer think that the movement is full of ego's and feuds.

Right I've lost the will to live now.

 

How come no one has complained about the SVR breaking up 3612 years ago, might only be a pannier tank but still a useful heritage line loco.