Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by steam_mad, May 21, 2015.
Totally logical, good post Tim, now I am 100% in agreement.
Spot on! that was exactly my original point.
I have to say that i am one of the original members from the Patriot project who has been bugging for the Fowler tank. It was also myself that mentioned the idea for 42424 as a possiblr number, based on the idea that we would match the same idea of using the last member of the class, add to that its a cracking number! Now all of this was from a point of view of marketing and publicity and it being a great "idea". Obviously i have spoken about the class to people gauging opinions about the class in general with nearly all comments being positive about them. It is only since the decision that we should go ahead in "theory" with this that i have started buying books , including the wild swan that someone mentioned a few posts back, and finding out the actual history of the loco. Its all been a great read so far and obviously listening to people on here has also been great, its been a nice thread so far doing what i believe Nat Pres is all about. Since seeing the images of the differences between them and hearing of the issues between the two cabs etc and obviously the issues of being able to choose a livery which is always the no1 interest (haha) i have come to the decision i would personally prefer to see the original version and a different number chosen. I would imagine that with a loco of this type being built for a general heritage railway that the ability to paint it crimson lake would be a big positive for the Joe Public who would travel behind it throughout the year. While the next Board meeting isnt till the end of July, and we wont spend much time discussing the engine as our main priority is 45551, it will come up as a review of how the press release has been received, so ill bring it up at that point. And as said we are a pretty democratic society. So join up to be part of the decision making. There are plenty of guys on here who all have the exact sort of knowledge that we need. And from start to being in steam in a 5-7 year plan you will see rapid progress on this project! One to tell the grandchildren all about and leave your legacy!
Good to see the power of democracy/positive side of national preservation in action.
Membership form and cheque in the post.
All good to hear, and I hope the discussions on these matters run smoothly. I'd hate to see splits and disarrays over small issues such as these (like the cab type).
I completely agree that perhaps a different number could be in order, though in that area you've got several possibilities to explore. For one, though the next numbers in line were used by a different class, would it be that problematic if you did use it anyway? For another point, does the engine that carried the number 42425 even exist anymore?
Or another for your Trust's consideration, how about the only example of the class to briefly carry a name, 2313 The Prince.
Bonus: Has the original cab AND a catchy name.
You beat me to it, Mate!
Actually ragl beat you too it several pages back, but glad to see some commonly held good ideas. Sounds like a marketing bonus to me!
I must confess I wasn't entirely sure if someone had mentioned about 2313 or not, though as you say, it appears to be a commonly held good idea overall.
The only slight hiccup we could marketing wise is that a certain other engine is already being built that, while not carrying the exact same name, could easily end up being referred to as the Prince and therefore possibly cause some confusion.
I'm not certain it will, but it's an issue to consider nevertheless.
Though I can think of a possible good solution to that...
Give it a different number (next number along 2314 perhaps) or keep it, and follow in the footsteps of the LNWR George the Fifth Steam Locomotive Trust by naming it "Princess Charlotte" in honour of the recently born child.
What's the opinion on this idea? Good or bad?
There are precedents - among the Stanier pacifics, for example, there are two of the 'Princess' class - each heving a nameplate biginning 'Princess ...; and two of the Duchess class, with nameplates 'Duchess of...'
Doesn't cause confusion. It would work.
Further to the cab discussion, if it is built with the outside steam pipes modification I think it could only carry BR livery?
Good point, Dave.
The wild swan publication mentioned above shows LMS plain black liveried engines with outside pipes as well as early BR black engines with inside pipes, and states the cylinders were renewed during the 40's and 50's so it doesn't appear to be that clear cut.
But as with many locomotive designs, many things changed during construction and there working lives. There are a myriad of design decisions that will have to be made, steam pipes, bogie brakes/no bogie brakes, tank vent height, coupling rod profile, cab step shape, snap or flush rivets to mention just a few. Compromises will have to be made, but that's an inherent part of recreating our railway heritage.
Thanks, I wasn't sure about the date of the outside steam pipes.
For LMS 2-6-4T fans, NCC No 4 is back in action, on the mainline... http://railways.national-preservation.com/threads/rpsi-more-great-news.490484/#post-1183311
As it's a new build and starting out its working life surely any livery it carries could be considered 'authentic'? Anyway paint colour is irrelevent at the moment the most important thing is to get it built first!
Lets finish 45551 first! Lol
Yes! I do apologise, got slightly ahead of myself there!
absolutely - any takers for middle chrome green, shirtbutton monogram, maybe a nice copper cap for the chimney.....?
There was a green one... Pictured passing through Leeds in the Wild Swan book. Unlined with post 1957 crest!
Separate names with a comma.