What will be the first first-time restoration to steam in 2014?

Well that's the q0uestion answe0red, so what is going to be next?

 

Surely Bagnall No. 2469 was the first? (Unless I'm missing an earlier locomotive) She returned to steam for the first time in preservation during the May bank holiday weekend.

The original post didn't seem to say that it had to be something BR or from the big four.

 

Fantastic achievement! Well done to all involved. As time goes by there are now many engines that have spent more time as hulks than they did in service. I know we all hope that one day each one will get their time in the sun but the effort and cost is immense and as each year passes, "first timers" get rarer, so congratulations and enjoy the champagne, GWSR!
Now what is going to be next?

 

Bagnall o-6-0 st No 2680, now named Courageous built 1942, was returned to steam at Ribble Steam Railway at the Steam Gala in February 2014, does this qualify as the first to be returned to steam in 2014?

 

time for a recap of what is steamble and what isn't perhaps? Anyone up for the big task of compiling a definitive register?

 

Define "what"... In aviation they seem to count as restoration anything that has an original part. I know of a project where the original parts are a magneto and the end of the control column...

So on that basis you ciuld argue that any loco for which name or numberplates survive is potentially restorable...

 

That's not what I suggested at all. "steamable" is what I said...ie serviceable now

 

Ah, sorry. I read potentially steamable. This came up some weeks ago, and I did make a suggestion to Mods about how something might be done under the natpres banner, but presumably it turned out to be undesirable or impractical.

 

Perhaps a thread in its own right but what is the longest uninterrupted restoration of a loco yet to steam ie a loco in the same ownership and undergoing work continuously?

 

You could argue that - but you would be daft

 

On that basis North Star and Taliesin are originals - and I eagerly await seeing the Pearson 4-2-4T back in steam!

Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk

 

Ridiculous or no: read this for an Aviation point of view.

http://bristolscout.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/5-replica-or-roproduction/

And after all, by the time Flying Scotsman gets out of the works this time will she have any more LNER fabricated parts than North Star has mid 19thC GWR fabricated parts? Although I would say that North Star having never been built as steamable disqualifies from rebuild status, although I'm not sure why!

 

I've read it and I like the logic of the author's fairly tight definitions of rebuild, reproduction and replica. He argues there is little difference between a machine constructed around one original part and another which has had almost every part gradually replaced through wear and tear or modification over many years. However the important difference is this: continuity. Flying Scotsman is original, even though it probably contains no original parts, because it has always existed since 1923 whether in service, in store, or in bits. The reason why the reproduction North Star should not be considered a rebuild of the original loco is because the original ceased to exist, for ever, when it was scrapped.

 

Has it ever steamed in preservation before? If not then by my simple definition it does qualify as the first engine of 2014. No need for industrial locos to be shy. Pop the champagne over this one as well!

 

WB 2680 (previously Birchenwood No 4) had never worked in preservation until Feb 2nd this year and was, in fact, the first loco to return to steam in 2014. Ray.

 

I'm not greatly troubled if someone calls original something that is so obviously a repro or replica. I just consider it a bit daft. The builders of Tornado could have done that with some small surviving piece of an original A1. Instead they stated from the outset that they were building a new one and are right to be proud of their remarkable achievement.

 

I think in the warbird community there is a considerable cachet to being able to claim wartime provenance, hence a desire to claim aircraft are restorations even if they are largely new.

In addition, much more of the fabric of an aeroplane is safety-critical, so parts tend to be replaced rather than restored. For example, if you have a Barry steam loco and find that the frames are OK except some wastage by the cylinders, it is possible to cut out and replace the wasted part but retain the majority. Whereas if you had an aeroplane with an equivalently partially corroded main spar, you would almost certainly have to replace the whole lot if you wanted to restore to flying condition.

Both factors tend to mean that aeroplane restoration tends to result in much more replacement rather than refurbishment of parts.

Tom

 

Fair enough up to a point but if the machine was scrapped or destroyed in battle or in a crash then we should accept it has gone forever, even if a few bits are reusable in a new build.

 

I think there are also issues around regulation where its easier to get (limited) permits to fly historic rebuilds than it is to gain approval for brand new aircraft.