Back Of The Shed

Very unlikely. With 3 (soon, sadly, to become only 2) A4s still being overhauled and operated on the main line, what would there be to gain? Bear in mind the point that you would have to replace a lot of metal to restore 4468 to working order again; indeed her running in the 80s was very tightly controlled and very much "Do just enough to make her safe, but no more". In addition, the modifications to take modern equipment like TPWS would be required. I just cannot see Mallard steaming ever again, tbh - not even for 2038.

Scotsman was actually operational (just...) when she was purchased by the NRM. Different scenario altogether.

 

Scotsman is being "milked" simply because the NRM was made aware by the public that it was expected to be seen around the network hence the decision to undertake the expensive overhaul which must now be paid for - plus earn income to pay for its next overhaul. Since this was overhauled to meet public expectations it is surely fair for the NRM to expect that same public to help defray the expenses and build up a reserve to pay for future overhauls. In many ways that is assisted by restricting the operating days, train loads and lines visited in order to create a rarity value that justifies the premium on both fares and marketed items.

Whilst I disagree with the phraseology - especially "milk what it can from Scotsman" - it is surely essential that those wishing to see Scotsman working and hopefully travel behind it should be willing to meet the cost of providing the event(s). The same criticism could be levelled at A4s @ 75 when the bringing together of 6 A4s cost a great deal but many of us were prepared to pay the (high) prices in order to sample an event that is unlikely to be repeated at any time; was the NRM "milking us" or simply expecting us to pay a proper contribution towards an expensive event that required a great deal of time and finance to arrange ?

 

I tend to agree with you about continuity of existence rather than continuity of components. The point I was making was to refute the widely held, but erroneous, view that “frames = identity”. I could cite examples where pairs of locos entered the works, one was “scrapped” and one “refurbished”, but where the refurbished loco that emerged for further service clearly had the identity of the scrapped sister, if you base identity as synonymous with frames.

In the end, the identity of a loco is whatever is written in the works record, and painted (or bolted) on the side.

Tom

 

Albert/Rood Ashton Hall being a case in point, only discovered during restoration, because OFICIALLY it never happened, in My view, the effective identity is that of the frames, so IF, again heaven forbid No.27 was reduced to parts, and the major components used to re-build a P class on an existing set of frames then the identity SHOULD be that of the loco that supplied the frames, whether the frames were 'original' to the loco or not, if fully traceable then the original loco/frame number should be used. Thankfully this is all hypothetical.

 

I was thinking along the lines of where such identity swaps officially happened - such as in the 1960s when pairs of long and short frame M7s entered the works for overhaul / scrapping, and on at least two occasions the loco that emerged clearly had the long frames but carried the identity of the short framed loco, with the official mileage adjusted. (Meanwhile, a set of components equal to one loco, including the short set of frames, were scrapped but the identity recorded of the scrapped loco was the long framed example).

Tom

 

So 30841 will continue to "exist" for as long as its frames remain extant?
If replacement frames are constructed to replace the set said to be beyond economic repair, what loco identity should be applied when components are assembled to form a complete machine?

 

If they construct replacement frames and then build the loco back up, the identity would continue to be 841. The same has happened to other locos in preservation.

Tom

 

This entire debate is entirely academic, anyway, because so many loco owners give an engine a spurious identity whch has absolutely nothing to do with its real one.

 

Janitor's Broom. "He's only ever had one broom for all 40 years he's been here, aside from the four new handles and six mop heads."

 

Example?

 

When I took my children for a run on the main line behind Flying Scotsman two years ago I doubt if much - if anything of the machine my father saw at Wembley in 1924 remained BUT I dont doubt that it was the same machine with all the history and glamour attached.

 

34046/52 I guess would be one example that seems to have gone beyond a short term ID change for a gala or photo charter.

Tom

 

Hogwarts castle and a lot of ‘Thomases’ and 2890, some engines that have been painted red and sometimes called James

 

Union of Osprey? Ok it was for political reasons (and perfectly good ones) but still.

 

These are hardly permanent and easily changed back. Seems petty to start whinging about this when said characters help keep said railways running.

Thank you for a sensible answer Tom.

 

I made no comment on whether it is a good or bad thing, simply to give examples of locos changing their identity. I believe that 80104 ran as 80146 last year.

Didn’t 60019 run as Silver Link and also Dominion of New Zealand?

Is 5521 still running as LT150?

 

Not quite in the same league surely, given that Osprey was the locomotive's original name and it reverted to that for a particular period of time to avoid unnecessary political problems during a time when anything supporting South Africa was at risk of damage / destruction.

 

60019 was painted as Silver Link but AFAIK only during a period out of traffic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Said political reasons are now persecution of white farmers. Our media ignores this, but apparently its worse than Zimbabwe was. Sadly Mandela's dream failed- it should be renamed OSPREY for good!