46235 City of Birmingham

Because they aren't Caerphilly Castle. Nothing wrong with having multiple of the same class out and about - but those that haven't been steamed in preservation, and therefore are original* to a far greater extent than others, should be saved. If they said they were to steam Caerphilly I would be as vociferous in my opposition as I am with 46235. This isn't about how many of a class there are, it's about retaining one as an original* example if sensible to do so - i.e. it isn't in need of earning its keep financially and it's in a state where it's stasis is of value - you could not say that about Galatea pre-restoration.

*Original. See my other posts on other threads for discussion on what "original" entails. Used here as the most convenient word.

 

46235 "City of Birmingham" should remain in the "Think Tank" (Museum), it is simple as that. She is the nearest to an original "Duchess" we have got and because of that alone, should remain like that. We have 46233 anyway for the mainline and we should be thankful for that. As for 46229 "Duchess of Hamilton", well she never been put in streamline condition to begin with reagrdless of the arguments but hey its happened!

 

Re: the future of A2 Blue Peter ???

Despite the fact that you've quoted Wiki which cannot be relied on, perhaps you should actually read what you've quoted - it does not say that the boiler was lowered in the frames - it says the boiler mountings and the cab could be modified to bring the loco back into gauge. This has also happened with other locos and the 'mountings' part refers to things like safety valves - nothing to do with lowering boilers!


Keith

 

Not sure if you mean "should never have been put into streamline condition" - however she was definitely streamlined to being with. Last of the second batch of five streamliners I believe.

The cosmetic restoration done by Tysley was - is - phenomenal and makes her a terrific exhibit. It helps people like me experience something not seen in Britain for decades. Nobody had seem a streamlined LMS engine since just after nationalisation in 1948 when City of Lancaster was de-streamlined.

With Sutherland probably staying LMS red and non streamlined for the rest of her life (bar the current stint in green), and CoB in Think Tank staying BR Green, why is it such a big deal that Hamilton was re-streamlined? They can always put it back later on. She was a working engine before and hardly original in preservation by the time of her cosmetic overhaul. It all comes across as a bit of a dog in the manger attitude I dare say. Nobody who has seen it in the flesh has anything bad to say about the job.

 

Pix of 46235 in Thinktank a couple of years ago may be of interest:

Birmingham: Thinktank Museum, 2011 - andrewstransport's Photos

Cheers

Andrew N

 

I'm actually curious as to why you feel that way about 6229 - after all, as S.A.C. Martin has pointed out, she wasn't 'original' in the same way as 46235 is, ie pretty much 'ex works', when they started the job of restreamlining her. I'm firmly in the 'this was a good thing' camp regarding 6229, and now we have all 3 major 'variants' of the class, if you discount the odd-looking 'defrocked' locomotives still with the tapered smokebox, of course... Streamlined (6229), originally streamlined with the tell-tale cut away front footplating (46235) and never streamlined (66233). What's not to like? (There's the Ivatt modifications, but they were visually 'different' at the rear, & to me were somewhat ugly, with their squared-off cab sides).

Each to their own, of course, but to see 6229 in her new (original) guise is, to me, a delight. I'm looking forward to seeing her back out on the main line at some point too, as, I suspect, are many others.

Mark

 

I'm in the "re-streamlining was a good idea camp". I'm all for conservation and interpretation of an artefact on its merits, putting emotion aside as far as is possible - obviously in our game emotive and commercial factors inevitably come into it as well, which is sometimes a bad thing and sometimes good.

With Hamilton, as an interpretative artefact she is better re-streamlined, as it enabled the story of streamlining and competition to be told by the NRM. Conservationally, as an already run locomotive in preservation, and with 46235 as the "untouched" example, to me there was no problem. If 46235 did not exist, then I would have been much more uncomfortable with it.

 

Does it have the dreaded "A" word underneath that cladding ?

 

I wouldn't be surprised, as it's not been touched, like the wandering A4s, since the mid-1960s. Another thing best left undisturbed if possible.

Mark

 

A big difference between 6229 and CoB is that 6229 had run in preservation in the 1980s. So the changes made to streamline her result in less irreversible change to "original" material. I believe that the NRM have also been careful to ensure that any changes made are documented and, as far as possible, reversible. The interpretation gain in presenting the loco in that form I think are considerable, and well worth the modicum of change to originality engendered. And I query Neil Scott's view the he has never seen anyone react to a steam engine in a museum "and see people react the same way that they do when they go up to a one in steam at Bridgnorth, Tywyn, Porthmadog, Aviemore..." Presumably he has never had the role of "chief picker-upper of jaws" in the vicinity of 6229! ;-)

As for 84A: I'm awaiting his view about whether, on the same grounds that CoB should be steamed, so Lancaster S-Sugar should be flown.

Tom

 

Yes I know she 46229 was streamlined before, I am aware of the history of the Class but was refering to her present state. I have seen her at the NRM and yes a good job has been done but still does not mean I like it or what has happened to her. I have many a good memory of this locomotive on the mainline in the 80's / early 90's, it was no doubt a favourite of mine plus the fact she was an ex Edge Hill (8A) loco, just like 46233 during the early 60's in the twilight of their careers. As some would say, 'each to their own" but all the discussions / arguments in the world won't change my feelings or thoughts. Sorry. For added interest, here is 46229 at Allerton T&RS Depot in 1990 in just how she should look -- 46229 "Duchess of Hamilton" | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Fair enough 8A, I appreciate your candour and your point of view.

 

6229 can be destreamlined... It has been once before.

its impression in its current form conveys a much stronger confident message of British industry in the 1930's if lined up with its other competing products, then the neglected postwar nationalised image presented in so much other railway material.

who knows some day we may have a"British Bank" and hark back to the early 2000's era of a confident British global banking system we once had, and a collection of museum banks recalling the old days on the high st.

 

No problem for me, I think all three are being presented to maximum benefit as they are. Icing on the cake would be to see 6229 running streamlined on the main line. I do find it difficult to comprehend why anyone wouldn't want to see a streamlined Duchess in the flesh. :emptybath:

 

Because of what you infer, it looks like a bathtub and Stanier didn't like the streamlining himself, so re-streamlining it was a bit of an insult to him. I do find it odd how the NRM sway from you can't do this and you cant do that, it ruins the archaeology of the locomotive, then they can completely cover a loco with new metalwork! The argument about not replacing Green Arrow's cylinder block doesn't stand up does it? There that should encourage a few more posts!

 

We don't sway from one argument to the other - each vehicle is taken on its own merits. I'd better finish this article. Oh, and we've never said we won't replace the V2's cylinders. They might be repairable yet...

 

Fair enough 8A rail, from an emotive perspective the re-streamlining is bound to be divisive.

The argument that the NRM sways from one argument to another is hopelessly naieve - as Anthony says, each artefact has to be taken on its own merits. So what is right for one isn't necessarily for another.

And Anthony...please finish that article!

 

I agree. As has been said before, we are fortunate enough to have three surviving Coronation pacifics, whereas there is sadly only the one V2.

 

Indeed - hence why, in my opinion, it is an entirely consistent opinion to believe that Lancaster PA474 is kept flying indefinitely, even if in 100 years or more it no longer shares a single rivet with the aeroplane built in 1945, while at the same time believing S-Sugar in the Hendon Museum should stay as a time capsule for ever more.

Tom