6233 in LMS red and wider livery debate of locomotives/stock

I don't see what's extreme about the point that it's as easy to paint a loco right as it is to paint it wrong...

So anyone who prefers a black 5 in black has an extreme viewpoint..?

Think we might have to agree to disagree here, before it becomes even more repetitive.

 

Ahh! The fire. Yes it did start a fire. It was one of several as Leander had recently burnt down 3 acres of plantation at Eldroth in mid April and there were more. It was a particularly hot April and got very dry. I could tell you who the driver was on 4498 but I won't to save his blushes. I can say that when we took Leander in convoy to Rainhill, he got on it at Blackburn and introduced himself "I'm xxx xxxxx, you might have heard of me, I'm the one 'as burnt the garage down at Darwen". It certainly brought the curtain down on steam running on its own to and from Rainhill.

Regards
Bob

 

With respect, how is it an "extreme" viewpoint to want to see - for example - an LMS built and British Railways operated locomotive to be painted in a livery correct for its LMS and British Railways days?

I'm interested as to how that's an extreme viewpoint. I thought the entire point of railway preservation was to preserve the working past?

 

Thanks for that Bob. I seemed to remember that she had set fire to something or other in the Darwen area. I know when 46229 moved to Carnforth she had a diesel pilot and then a few days later she moved from Carnforth to Rainhill in convoy with 850 and 5690 but they had a class 40 towing them.

 

Logically for anything there are varying opinions on, there will be a range of opinions from one extreme to another. In this case presumably they range from "paint her green with purple spots for all I care so long as she doesn't rust" to at the other extreme, well, you tell me what the other extreme is...

 

Thank you, Bob. I don't think any of us passengers on the train were aware of the fire at the time, but I'm not surprised in view of the weather conditions at the time.

I heard that story too. Whatever the truth of the matter, one way or other, she made it under her own steam. The other steam train running on the Hellifield-Blackburn line that day defintely had a 47 on the front. I think it was the train moving Leander which Bob mentioned above, but I've lost my diary for that year and can't make out from my negative what the engine was.

 

35028 went home from Rainhill on her own apart from a shove up Miles Platting. She worked a Liverpool - Hereford tour on June 21st but being three weeks after the big event, I assume it must have rained in the meantime. The day itself wasn't exactly sunny IIRC.

 

You should pop into the Talyllyn thread where a quote fromTom Rolt has been produced. He said "the choice was between death and a new life." If those pioneers had stayed true to the TR of old, the current one would have been ramshackle and have only the two locos running so are you saying those pioneers got it wrong by turning the TR into something it had never been? The same could be said also of most/all of the rest of the heritage lines. If you really are that concerned about "authenticity," it goes way beyond the colour of a coat of paint.

 

Some, indeed sometimes the majority of the "authenticity" issues disappear when you step into the carriage and the train pulls out of the station. Not all, by any means. Even on heritage lines, you can point to where there were once lineside telegraph poles. Furthermore, some single-track lines were double track in the 1960s, occupation bridges no longer of any use have been demolished and houses built after 1968 may occasionally appear through the carriage windows. On the main line, there are additional factors - overhead catenary that wasn't there in the 1960s, goods yards replaced by car parks, modern stations replacing steam-age structures and so on. However, in the main, once your train is on the move, in my experience, these things don't really bother most of us, nor indeed the colour and livery of the locomotive.

It's perhaps when we point a camera at a train that perhaps the "authenticity" debate gets a bit more heated. At the end of the day, how much compromise we are prepared to accept is a very personal and subjective matter. This particularly applies to the main line. As far as absolute authenticity is concerned, I think that I could pick holes in virtually every picture I've taken of main line steam since my earliest attempts in 1979 but my best attempts, I believe, nonetheless convey the atmosphere and grandeur of a steam-hauled express. I'm grateful to the hard work of loco owners and tour operators whose efforts mean that I and many others can still enjoy - both as a pasenger and a linesider - the magnificent spectacle of big steam locos doing the job they were designed for.

 

Regarding the photographer's view, a well respected lensman said to me at the time of 4771's visit to the GWSR, "It doesn't bother me that I'm photographing an LNER green loco on chocolate and cream Mark Ones. I'm photographing the GWSR in the 21st century, not BR steam in the 50s. A good photograph is a good photograph no matter what livery the loco and stock carry." There's a lot to be said for that viewpoint.

 

I don't disagree with the above. However - and maybe I am missing the point! - surely when we take part on a forum called National Preservation, when we call the collective we all belong to in some way "railway preservation", part of that is preserving as much of the past as we can? And a painted livery is part of that.

We're not talking about a railway teetering on the brink though. We're debating why exactly certain locomotives in the modern day are not painted in "authentic" or "accurate" liveries. As I've said many, many times on this thread I am happy with a great deal of the compromises quoted in this thread - practical compromises such as disabled access, mainline systems, reduced height cab roofs etc, but the problem with the livery is that is a very noticeable external factor of the appearance of the whole thing.

I respect that too - but you're describing a locomotive in an authentic livery pulling coaches in their own authentic liveries! The combination may be "wrong" but all of those vehicles are individually correct. Whereas if the V2 was painted red with LNER on the tender, do you think the photographer would have said the same thing? I do wonder.

 

For for those of us who like LMS red I pray that we shall have 2 Stanier pacifics gracing the rails. Half of the praying is over(01)waiting for the next(33).

 

It would seem that along with many others, you're idea of authenticity doesn't extend beyond a coat of paint.

 

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what he meant despite this line in his post - And a painted livery is part of that....

 

So what was your view regarding the NNR painting two of it's industrials in NNR ochre? No loco survives that could authentically carry this livery so for the public to experience it in its full glory a compromise had to be made. And returning to SAC's post, of all the "inauthenticity" to be found around the heritage railway scene, it's almost always loco liveries that spark off the debate and pretty much always 45699 and the red 8F. Someone else mentioned the myriad of false identities that have been forced upon industrials over the years but these hardly ever get a mention from the paint purists.

 

Maybe that's because they're the worst offenders in terms of the livery? I should state that I think the absolute worst offender was 6100 - previous repaints into LMS crimson lake bearing absolutely no connection with the more accurate shades and depictions on the Stanier Pacifics we have.

You have to concede that the livery is one of the first things you see on a steam locomotive. It's a big part of the aesthetics of a steam locomotive - why wouldn't people feel strongly about something which is such a big part of the overall locomotive? Yes, it's a layer of paint but it changes the way a locomotive is seen. Since a big part of our hobby is seeing them, then surely how they're potentially perceived is important?

...Except I did mention industrials previously and explicitly stated I'd prefer them in authentic liveries than the BR liveries or similar hoisted on them. That includes the NNR liveried industrials (however I will concede they looked very smart and it was well done on the part of the painters).

The history of Britain's pre grouping and grouping railways, and later British Railways, includes an awful lot of attention to branding and livery details.

It was the liveries that were seen on the head of a train, on the locomotives, that made an impression, and the designers, painters and cleaners which gave their full attention to those liveries and the locomotives which wore them deserve to be treated better by history.

Otherwise you're saying that none of the painting of locomotives in the steam era mattered - and it clearly did, particularly if you look at the LMS and LNER's 20s and 30s liveries and experimentation with train designs. Corporate branding is a part of our history and the railways played their part in that.

 

It's okay - whenever his argument starts to fall apart, he resorts to insults and attempted undermining of one's character. I've seen it before, no skin off my nose. Anyone with a fair and reasonable mind can read my posts and make their own minds up.

 

What a pathetic post.

 

Not really, and you may have just proven SAC Martin's point.... But it's far from ideal for posts to degenerate into this kind of thing.

Maybe it's time for further thread drift...

 

Case in point. You keep moving the goalposts and stating quite generic things - who are these people who have criticised Galatea and the 8F specifically and not given a full account of their points on this forum?

Truth be told I don't think it's worth debating anymore. Whenever evidence that points towards the contrary of painting locomotives in spurious liveries is given, it's dismissed out of hand. Perhaps leave it at that.

Though I do wonder if describing differing viewpoints as "extremes" is entirely fair or reasonable in the context of what is being discussed.