7027 Thornbury Castle

With implications for railways tax bills, why do I suspect any necessary arbitration concerning what constituted entries in capital and renewal acounts would fall to the Director of Finance ?

 

As this is going very off topic, I've answered in a new thread:

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/renewals-repairs-and-other-such-accountancy.1421648/

Tom

 

How many museums are deaccessioning artefacts so that they can be turned into replicas of something else? I imagine not a lot...

 

Worse things can happen. Paddle tug Reliant for instance.

 

Still makes me angry 15 years after it happened.

 

Has any museum done that?

 

Did anyone criticise (at the time) the use of major parts of two Hunslet Austerities to build the bg "Iron Duke" replica? No, because they were members of a class of which there are many examples already and the outcome was the recreation of a loco that no longer existed, albeit one that never had Auseriuty boilers or cylinders etc. 48518, Willington Hally, 7027 etc. on the other hand .... oh wait!

 

I wouldn't be altogether surprised if it has happened in the aviation side. From a distance they appear to be much less doctrinaire about rebuilds and reconstructions than hereabouts.

 

Plenty of Spitfires that have been converted into different marks, low backs into high backs, etc., plus all the two seat conversions.

 

My late grandfather did criticise it at the time. I wish I had been a little older to understand. I don't think that thinking was correct and quite frankly I wish it hadn't been built as it was, particularly in light of what has happened since with the creation of the Planet replica, Steam elephant, and more.

 

Not for a working aircraft in the UK. For example, a UK-registered Hawker Sea Fury can only fly with a Bristol Centaurus engine. In the US these aircraft can fly with a Pratt & Whitney 2800 or anything else deemed suitable. One was converted to a 2800 at Duxford but that was for a Swedish customer and later crashed near Duxford.

 

It seems to Me that there are two types of 'New Builders', there are those who really take things seriously and truly create a new locomotive, thus effectively increasing the number of locomotives in existence, then those who 'want what they can't have' and attempt to convert what they can have into what they can't which seems to take much longer, leads to a compromise of the type that the first group would find unacceptable and at best leaves the number of locomotives in existence the same or worse reduces the number of existing locomotives.

 

I don't think that there's too many examples of Spitfires changing marks, if any. The two seat conversions are reproductions of the original two seaters. The CAA are very strict on what can fly in the UK. For instance, you'll never see one of the FW190 reproductions with a Chinese engine fly in the UK.

 

Examples?

48518 - the firebox for 1014, the boiler barrel to another 8F.
7927 - the frames for 1014, the boiler for 6880.
5227 - axleboxes to 4709, boiler to 3840.
That's three into six, I think, with other parts left over.

 

I wonder, what is the reasoning behind the building of an 47xx replica, they were only a small class to start with, was it just one person's own wish list, to build as many missing links as possible,? and at what cost of being an authentic recreation, the A1, has several differences from the originals, because it's a new build from ground up, but looks the same, even if it's not, A 47 using the wrong type of boiler, won't be authentic, The only authentic 47, could be if done as 4700 with the Number1 boiler , with extended smokebox, even if the original only ran for a few years in that form, whilst an castle boiler might be very similar, to the number8, no 47 ran with a number7 boiler.

 

RW382 was a low back MkXVI rebuilt as a high back MkIX, complete with different tail, full wing tips, different canopy and different engine. Though how much of it is original after being crashed into a mountain in America is another matter!

 

Correction: "whilst an castle boiler might be very similar, to the number 7, no 47 ran with a number 8 boiler."

 

Strictly, it's not a rebuild. It would have been a completely new airframe, probably built by Airframe Assemblies on the IOW.

https://www.facebook.com/AirframeAssembliesLtd/

 

Yes, actual flying aircraft are subject to a lot of regulations, and rightly so, but that wasn't what I had in mind.

 

A few things I’ve noticed going round aeroplane museums recently (so primarily concerned with static exhibits):

1. Replicas are quite common, even in what you might call “teir 1” museums. Quite a number of the World War 1 planes at Hendon are replicas. Given the scarcity of genuine aircraft, that’s understandable, but still quite notable.
   
2. Hybrid airframes reconstructed from two or more aircraft are quite common, not necessarily even from the same type. The star exhibit at the Yorkshire Air Museum is a Halifax that I believe consists of the wings and under carriage from a HP Hastings transport and a fuselage that I believe contains sections from two different wreck sites.
   
3. “Fake” identities are not unknown, i.e. an exhibit painted in markings that aren’t those of the specific airframe. Aircraft that were delivered too late for the war carrying wartime markings aren’t unknown.

There are plenty of examples of aeroplanes with genuine provenance, and a few still with a complete wartime patina (the Yeovilton Corsair, for example). But in general it feels to me that aeroplane museums are not so hung up on precise identity.

Tom