Possibly class O4 repatriation idea.

Saw in one of the comics recently that theres the possibility of at least 1, possibly 2 or more ex-gc, LNER class O4 type loco's being repatriated, anyone thought of rebuilding one as a Thompson class O1?

 

Agreed and IMHO they should stay in Oz as they are as much a part of that country's history as it is of ours.

 

Never being owned by the LNER or BR, they're not O4s.

Meanwhile, rebuilding into a Thompson O1 would require you to scrap half the engine you've repatriated, and built half a new one. It's a non-starter from that angle too.

 

Apparently, because there are three RODs in Oz, the Government there is willing to allow one to be repatriated, but whether the owners will is a different matter!

 

IIRC they still have all steel fireboxes. I wonder what sort of condition they will be in after all this time.........

 

The steel firebox in my steam roller is still sound after 52 years of dereliction, and it was 20 years old when laid up. You can still count the threads on the stays and see the caulking marks on the plate.

 

The O4's where imported to Australia between 1919 and 1927 for use on the James brown Collery near Newcastle in NSW. They ran up to 1979 and where the second last class of steam locomotive in use in Australia. The retain they're original boilers which had past their used by when the last of the ROD's was withdrawn in 1979.
If they where to be repatriated they would most likely require a new boiler depending which one of the three you got.
There are three left in Australia, two at the Dorrigo Steam Railway in northern NSW and one at the Richmond Vale Railway near Newcastle. The locomotive at Richmond Vale Railway is in the best condition and is being resored slowly to working order. So good luck negotiating with Dorrigo to get one of the other locomotives. Would be good to see them all restored though. However Dorrigo could be considered Australia's Barry's scrapyard.

 

Why not import one of the NSWGR AD60 Garrets... Imagine one of those over the S&C.

 

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5229598423_287be6edcf.jpg (not my picture)

Here is one of them at Dorrigo - looks like the "World Class" Museum they were planning to build there is still a while off yet.

 

Don't forget the different climatic conditions there though to Barry. Although they may look rusty externally they ain't been sat in a damp salty sea breeze for years.

 

What was a knackered boiler in 1979 may be salvageable today using modern techniques. If what is said about the Government's decision to allow one out is true, excellent!

Looking at the photo the locomotives are in very original condition - Robinson chimney, dome and safety valves, rods on the front of the cylinders (forgotten the name?).

If restored it would be best to go down the Turkish 8F route and restore to Australian livery (overall black?), alternatively lined GCR black or ROD khaki would be appropriate and very unusual and appealing.

 

IF this is a starter for ten, and we do see another O4 back in Britain, I wonder if it would be worth 'Swindonising' it to resemble 30xx class as operated by the GWR? I don't know what number it could be, as it would overlap the Churchward 31xx class if it was numbered as the next in line (I can't believe I'm making a suggestion for a GWR locomotive!)...

 

The alterations required would detract from the locomotive's history (top feed, chimney, dome, safety valves, cylinder rods) etc. Personally I feel that it would be nicer to capitalise on the original nature of the locomotive as a member of the ROD class rather than as a GWR 30xx.

 

I don't understand the desire to chop and shut these locomotives anymore than I understand the suggestions to put the ex-Turkish Railways 8Fs in BR livery. None of these engines were owned by the GWR or LNER, (or in the case of the latter, owned by British Railways), they have their own histories and tell a story rather important to both the history of this country, and their adopted homes. That story is the exporting of locomotives to foreign countries, something Britain was exceedingly good at.

If one is repatriated, it should tell its Australian tale as much as it should also tell its story as a ROD/GCR built example, and nothing more or less.

Anything else isn't preservation - it's vandalism. The clear difference between the idea posted in the OP here, and that of the many GWR "new build" projects which use old wrecks to recreate lost classes, is the standardization of parts the GWR went to, to allow all their different variants to be built under the same roof.

If it were a case of just the locomotive frames and a tender to speak of, then you could pretty much put anything you liked on top as most of the locomotive would have to be built from scratch in any event. But to cut and shut one almost complete locomotive to create another class...?

It doesn't sit well with me. My apologies gents, not intending to put anyone's noses out of joint, just how I see it.

 

A quite agree with the above. "If" a locomotive is repatriated I am sure that the Australian's will insist that it is looked after, and that won't include major modifications or inaproprate liveries. Therefore its original ROD livery should be restored. This was carried by these locomotives both overseas and in the UK after the war.

Suggesting that it should be painted BR black is like suggesting that a Bulleid Pacific should be painted in SE&CR or L&SWR colours, because if the grouping had not taken place, this is what they would have looked like. [Assuming of course that Mr. Bulleid had still left the Great Northern Railway to work south of the Thames.]

 

SAC Martin, Its an Honest and valid point of view to be sure.

 

.................... but irrelevant. Presumably whoever is funding the repatriation and restoration of this engine will have their own views on how it should be turned out, and it is their prerogative to do whatever they like.

 

Do they not have a duty to the history of the artefact that they possess?

The attitude you are presenting is very Victorian: 'it belongs to me so I can do what I like with it'. It's why the scheduling of ancient monuments in this country lagged behind Europe until the inter-war period, and the post-war introduction of listing to buildings.

If you are in the possession of a historical artefact, you have a duty, I think, to look after it for future generations. This doesn't mean that you must keep it EXACTLY as it is - the line is shaky and will differ from personal attitude to personal attitude, but alterations can be necessary. It doesn't mean you should restore an artefact to exactly as it was when built - the alterations it receives over its history are a part of its story. But to alter it in preservation to tell a story that does not belong to it - that's wrong.

 

When did it become the aim of the preservation movement to recreate every lost GWR class of engine?