Another one for the chop!

Oh for heavens sake , stop whinging Ian. Ralph took his Moderators hat off and give an opinion, something we are all entitled to do.

Get a life!

Regards
Chris:

 

Just to set the record straight - there are NO sectioned locos in the UFTM. There is a model of a GNR(I) 'Big D' which has been restored by the RPSI, but this has only gone on show in the last few years and therefore could not have influenced the sectioning of IoM no3. The model was built by the GNR(I) in their Dundalk works as an instructional aid. Further details are available here


Keith

 

Thankyou, I stand corrected by Ghost, I had heard other sources referring to the inspiration as coming from UTM, but that clearly is not the case - they have more wisdom than to hack about their locomotives. Still that article illustrates exactly why you don't need to hack about real locomotives to show oiks how they work (or part of a scrapping process). Far better to build a smaller and cheaper working model which takes up less space, and leave the originals alone in the place they really belong......

 

Well, that's even more bonkers! It then becomes representative of the about 4 locos that didn't emerge from Barry, rather than the 223 that did!

If you want to illustrate the scrapping process: find a wagon.[*]

Tom

[*] Not, for the record, that I am condoning part-scrapping a wagon to make a display, especially not a surviving one of that vintage.

 

Is it about now that I suggest maybe 48518 might be a better candidate to illustrate the barry scrapping process?.....

 

Just for the record, Woodham Brothers scrapped rather more than just four steam locos, they purchased 297 of which 213 "Escaped". 297 minus 213 = 84 cut.

 

Yawwnnnn!

 

I think you may have missed my point but I'm certainly not going to fall out over it. Life's too short for that.
I'm definitely with the "keep it in Barry condition" brigade. The Barry story is a story worth telling.

 

But how do you preserve it in 'Barry condition' as over the years it will continue to deteriorate until eventually it reaches '50 years at the bottom of the sea' condition?

 

Am begining to think there's something wrong with them folks at Barry.. What with the round trip 8f, boiler less black 5 and now this...

No engine stayed 50 years at Barry and got cut.
so what story are they making up ?

why not get the remains of 48518... The cab, frames, unused boiler bits and scatter them about..., maybe even the unusable bits of 42859's or 42765's tender (8fs had fowlers)...I'm sure if someone wanted to create a pile of Barry scrap.. There would be a few lines with authentic stuff "life expired" (not rotten to waste) to donate to a "barry story" memorial.

i for one think 92245 should be restored, but 92219 in Barry condition next to 92220 is a more fitting "preservationist movement" statute/tribute to the generation that saved steam...92220 maybe BR's last steam loco..maybe 92219 could be Preservations last unrestored loco..someday.

but agree a "Barry scrapyard" story is also appropriate.. But at least keep it a real story.

 

Maybe a better idea would be to swop major components with other 9Fs before sectioning the boiler or cylinders and other components.

 

I would hazard a guess that,as it was the one that no-one else wanted,92245 was probably the 9F in worst condition. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about as there are several others "preserved" including a couple still in near enough Barry condition. If it was the only 9F it would be different. At the end of the day it's their engine,or what remains of one,and they can choose what to do with it - whether "we" like it or not. If anyone feels so strongly about 92245 being "desecrated" then I respectfully suggest they get their wallets out and make the owners an offer they can't refuse. Ray.

 

Maybe swap it with for old car ?
80150 was allegedly swapped for the bones of a turntable afterall

just because someone owns a piece of history doesn't make it morally right for them to do what they want with it, even if they can chose to physically do whatever they want with it. An owner of a historic object is only a custodian afterall, what they do during their tenure of it, will define their reputation in history... Some like/want to be notorious because they can't get it any other way. (One person here is quite vocal on his history of an IOM loco afterall).

On the face of it.. Lots of 9f's.. Big, ugly and unpopular makes a case for sectioning... That is if it it were restored to look like an engine.
As for representing scrapping...well if it looked like scrap..then maybe...But It doesn't look neither...
How many engines looked like 92245 does now..back in 1965 ?
if I were to reccomend an equivalent right now, I would say 34016 (whoa controversial !!! )But.. It's worked recently, lots of em, would soon deteriorate to a 1960's condition... Not a 2010's condition., and so look like a engine to be scrapped at Barry...in the 1960's...cut a section from its boiler it would look the real deal.

as I said.. It's about the message to be portrayed.. If the message is to display "a failed preservation attempt after 40 years at Barry" Then yes...this is a candidate.

i hate to be critical of preservation projects, but the import/export8f, boilerless black5, turntables for tank engines and now knifing a 9f... All in location in a few months... I think theres There's only the 0-6-2t left... Maybe that will be converted into a flower pot next month... I really do hope there's a grand master plan that were not seeing yet...once it's gone it ain't coming back and there's no more left where those came from.

 

The Finnish Loco's are pretty useless regardless of how much money you throw at them due to the 5FT Gauge, admittedly though it's unlikely 92245 will be much use short of finding a millionaire, but it's still more likely than the Finnish Loco's.

I agree preservation (for the time being anyway) in Barry condition would of been a better option as I really don't see what sectioning yet another loco achieves, we already have Ellerman Lines at York and Pender in MOSI for those incapable of looking at pictures to see how a steam locomotive works.

 

Is 92245 one of only 2 Crewe examples surviving? Not sure about 134.

 

92134 was Crewe built, 1957.

 

I agree in this case but the trouble is what is your definition of a "historic object" or "piece of history" - that could apply to absolutely anything depending on your viewpoint. One day a Pendolino will be a historic object and no doubt my generation will be donating good money to save one for preservation and lamenting whoever owns them at the time for scrapping them. If we never threw anything away we'd end up miles deep in defunct objects (See Pixar's Wall-E ) One day I will get rid of the laptop on which I'm typing this and no doubt at least one person in the world will lament the loss of a prime example of a TOSHIBA SATELLITE PRO C850-15T.........

Though of course I agree in this case the loco should not be sectioned. There is really no point.

 

If they are so desparate to do this, could something not be done that illustrates a loco being scrapped but doesnt destroy anything that could not be (reasonably) easily replaced.

Cut/remove smokebox, rip tubes out and leave hanging, cut cab, remove wheelset

something like that, with a bit of thought? Also an understanding that parts are available for change to others when they reach life expiry

 

That sort of thing would be best portrayed with photo and video displays...almost impossible to re-create the real thing that I saw at Barry at the time.