46235 City of Birmingham

Perhaps Fred. And what about some form of fund-raising, as has happened with other publicly-owned loco's, to supplement the cost? As others have said, if we can have 3 A4s on the mainline, then why not 2 Duchesses?

 

Probably. But who would support it? Especially with the proliferation of new builds around at present.

 

Now whos been at the Heineken ??

 

Building on the theme of the restoration of the loco for "training" purposes, then there is the precedent of the old MSC schemes at Tyseley that did some work at the site. Apprentice builders and fabricators etc. etc. could certainly be actively engaged on rebuilding the roundhouse, funded by HM gov. That would surely be money better spent than restoring to steam 46235 as it would provide protection for more artifacts.

 

Use an MSC type scheme to rebuild Tyseley's roundhouse, you say?

Well there is some sort of precedent; it was the MSC who 'restored' the shed roof at Didcot.

Nuff said! :-s

 

I first went to see the engine a year or so after the museum opened. I was standing, admiring it and remembering all the times I had spent bunking Crewe North and the footplate ride I had on it in 1962. I remember all of them being withdrawn at the end of summer 1964 and sitting, dead in lines on the site of the old Abba shed. We "cabbed" all of them. I got chatting to a gentleman, probably in his sixties and it turned out he was a Crewe North driver. He also reckoned that 6235 had gone into the museum in first-class condition. When I asked him what he thought it would take to get it out, he replied, "Some mudhole doors, a couple of gallons of oil, ten tons of coal and 6,000 gallons of water. She'd get out all right." "Oh yes, and a couple of matches!"

Bob Meanley is quite right, the Duchesses were kept in first-class condition until they finished; they had to be for the jobs they did. I grew up in Stoke-on-Trent in the fifties and sixties and had the pleasure of talking to a number of Crewe and Stoke footplatemen before I left the area in 1976. All revered the "Big Lizzies" and maintained that no other engine could match their performance, although they did say that a rebuilt "Scot" in good nick came close.

 

There are always higher temperature lubricants. But the exotic ones are a lot more expensive. Better to use proper cylinder oil if you can - with tallow in.

Much of the increase in temperature was down to the increased gas flow through the flues. Allowing the temperature to increase further towards the smokebox. Even so the steam temperature was still a lot higher than the gas temperature as it exited the flues. So part of the trick of obtaining high superheat is to reduce the heat loss before the steam reaches the header. The first indication that the superheat temperature had increased substantially was that the exit tubes turned white after a hard run. Rather like a spark plug in a petrol engine which is running too weak a mixture.

 

Yes, maybe this time round my old fruit!
How about in 10 years time?

JS

 

Is 46235 owned by Birmingham Council? She was certainly initially preserved by the British Transport Commission, the collection of which is now owned by the Science Museum/ NRM. Brell Ewart & Brian Radford's book on 6233 certainly says 'City of Birmingham' was saved as part of the National Collection although both Andrew Rodden's (excellent!) book and the NRM book on 46229 say she was 'presented' to the city of Birmingham by the BTC.

Was ownership ever legally transferred to the council? I'm sure I remember reading somewhere there were some questions raised when Duchess of Hamilton was acquired by the NRM as the nation had theoretically already saved a 'Princess Coronation'.

 

Even if formal transfer of ownership had not taken place or could not be proved, I would have thought it unlikely that the NRM or residual BRB would want to contest the matter, even if they felt they had a case.

 

That's an interesting question. Certainly up to the end of the 1980's, 46235 was a/the national collection engine. It was chosen in the early 60's specifically because of the plan at that time to preserve a Coronation Pacific in Birmingham museum, which is of course what happened. That is, instead of the original Coronation, which would have been the natural choice being the first of class. Probably a good thing from an engineering point of view, because the first five were not modified to the spec of later engines. When 46229 was purchased from Butlins the situation presented itself that two engines from the same class would then be held in the national collection. I can remember hearing much about the heated discussions that took place at the time Butlins were offloading their engines. It was originally proposed that the Friends of the NRM would purchase it and operate it themselves. Which would have been easy because the purchase price wasn't much more than a tenth of what they had raised for the overhaul. However politics took hold and certain middle managers at the NRM decided that wouldn't do. So it was proposed that the museum should purchase it and argue that they would then use it as the flagship operational loco. Which would overcome the difficulty over having two engines of the same class in the collection, and thereby reduce the pressure to operate other engines in the collection. It was actually quite clear to those that were close to the situation that it was only done like that as a spoiler to prevent anyone else having control of it. So that's how the purchase was justified, and most people know what happened next. The NRM waited for the overhaul to be finished and then announced that they would take it off the friends and use it as an exhibit, therefore diluting all the commitments that were made at the time of the enormous fund raising. So one wonders what the exact status of 46229 and 46235 are now. Technically it's reasonable to suppose that 46235 is on permanent loan to Birmingham (where have we heard that before?), but as public bodies, is there any obligation for these people to disclose this information to the public when requested?

 

You'd be surprised. In the past, the NRM's favoured line, was that the BTC did not have the authority to dispose of any assets, unless a return was received on them. As this excludes donations to other organisations, the NRM has been able to 'reclaim' several of these. A couple of them at least, are now standing in the Great Hall.

 

You'd be surprised. In the past, the NRM's favoured line, was that the BTC did not have the authority to dispose of any assets, unless a return was received on them. As this excludes donations to other organisations, the NRM has been able to 'reclaim' several of these. A couple of them at least, are now standing in the Great Hall.[/quote:ne08yapg]

Quite so, but as 46235 does not appear on the NRM's stocklist it is reasonable to assume that the NRM makes no claim to it, as it does, for example, with 2516 or 9400. If anyone needs confirmation, I'm sure either York or Birmingham would be happy to provide it.

 

Just diversifying a little (perhaps I should have started a new topic) who owns Gladstone? Or for that matter Lion? The former was bought by the SLS(?) and presented to York Museum. Was it an outright gift, permanent loan, or what? Lion was once in the ownership of the LMS then BTC and part of the 'national collection' but now seems to be in the ownership of Liverpool Museums. There are probably other items of stock where ownership can be questioned.

 

Re. ownership, this website (linked to Think Tank?) states the loco was gift from the British Railways Board in 1966

http://www.birminghamstories.co.uk/coll ... t=3&set=6#

 

That raises a couple of more questions doesn't it. Like, a gift to whom? Who actually owns it now, and who is responsible for its upkeep. What evidence is there to support who owns and is responsible. And not least - what is the national collection (of railway artifacts), and who is responsible for the care and maintenance of its integrity. How does the administration of such things compare with for example the identification and classification of listed buildings. When you consider the way that operates, it's easy to conclude that the system might not be as good as it ought to be.

One of the things I find to be of concern, is the situation that might occur in the future whereby someone might be given responsibility for these items who takes a dramatically different view of their value and importance. The result of which might be that some items are destroyed as a matter of convenience. We have already had this situation occur with the prototype Deltic v's the "National Collection" example.

 

Thinktank is administered by the Thinktank Trust, and the objects on display there that were in the former Science Museum in Birmingham are, I imagine, subject to formal loan agreements.