Possibly class O4 repatriation idea.

I'll put it another way - if someone has spent the money to make something happen, why should he have to pay attention to being told how to spend his money by a group of people who have contributed nothing?

 

or you could just overhaul 63601 ?

What happened to the one in Libya ? that people were talking about a while ago ?

 

It's not a group of non-contributing people telling him how to spend his money - its a moral obligation to look after what he has because of its historical value. Otherwise you are insinuating that heritage - or alterations thereof - lies in the hands of the rich.

 

Most people setting out to buy a locomotive would accept that with ownership comes responsibility, but moral repsponsibility isn't enforceable in law I suspect, and if someone has spent a large amount of money to achieve their aim, in the end it is their prerogative what they do with their property. They certainly aren't obliged to listen to people telling them it should be converted to a GWR-ified example if they don't want to. That's the reality of the situation as it stands.

Let's not forget, before going any further, there is no sale as yet in Australia, afaik, and may never be.

 

It is a shame that artefacts cannot be 'listed' like a building.

True. If someone coughed up £2 million for a replica 30xx I'd support it and donate. But if someone desired to change one of these Aussie RODs to something it wasn't, I would oppose it, no matter how much money they put into it. I just don't think that you can pay for the right to do as you please with a historical artefact.

 

I would say there is a moral obligation not to effectively condemn half of an artifact of historical interest/importance, but there you go, moral standards are different dependent on the money in one's pocket, it seems!

Of course, I note that:

Absolutely, and you will hear no argument from me on that point.

But I personally would feel uneasy of buying into something with a distinct and colourful history, and then proceeding to cut and shut it into something it never was, for the purposes of "filling a gap".

As I said previously, the GWR classes are an exception due to the sheer interchangeability of common components.

 

I don't know. It seems to have become de rigeur at the moment, what with the two Counties, the Grange, the Saint and the 47xx, all of which will require manipulation of existing locomotives. It may very well have become the aim of the preservation movement... As for the RODs in Australia, I'd personally leave them where they are, and spend the money on something like unrebuilding an MN, either from scratch or through manipulation of an existing chassis. But at the end of the day, if we don't have a financial stake in something, we are but speculators and spectators in a rapidly changing movement.

I take a more positive view of such manipulation in that its beginning to look increasingly unlikely that many of the ex-GWR types yet to be restored will ever be so treated, and this 'playing' around with the parts may be their only chance to run at all. As much as its difficult to stomach with our preservationist's hat on, reducing the number of non-remunerative wrecks languishing in sidings around the country by converting them to fully-functional replicas of scrapped classes is surely the most economic way of ensuring that all locomotives will steam in some shape or form.

This is merely a discussion point and a personal view, as I have noticed that some previous posters have already decided to take a negative approach to my last post on the RODs, so can we please nip the usual yah-boo point-scoring and the 'any suggestions other than restoring a locomotive as built are the work of Philistines' band-wagoning exercise in the bud and keep this civil? If you don't agree with something someone has said, just say so and give your reasons without resorting to the personal slugging-matches that this forum has become famous for.

 

The traction engine world is quite clear about converting road rollers into tractors and tractors into showman's engines - Its vandalism pure and simple, and anyone setting off down that road is a philistine. We are but the ephemeral custodians of any piece of history, and future generations would have every justification for judging us harshly if they find themselves having to undo works of pure fiction to recreate real history.

I am firmly with those of that point of view - especially when we are talking about classes where only one or two exist. A GWR Manor to a Grange - or even an 8F to a County because they aren't exactly in short supply, I can understand; but Gorton built RODs from almost a century ago - why would anyone suggest modding such museums on wheels?

 

IF repatriating it and restoring it as a GWR/LNER/GCR example is its best hope of surviving long term, surely its the best course of action to take? Its not a perfect solution - removing it from Australia isnt - but you have to make compromises and losing one element of its history to preserve the rest of the loco and recreate a lost class of loco seems one worth making to me.

The alternative is having it sat outside somewhere with more historic loco's than the resources to look after them; a situation thats only going to get worse, especially for a loco with a sister at the same site, another under restoration elsewhere in Australia and one working in the UK.

Chris

 

That's fair enough, and in general terms I agree with you, but as I have implied, the world isn't a perfect place where everything is happily black and white and clear-cut; there always will be an economic element involved in any argument regarding the benefits of restoration or modification of wrecks. However, I'd personally leave the O4s in Australia, as its their heritage as much as ours, particularly as we already have one preserved Gorton-built O4 in this country, albeit almost out of ticket.

 

I hope that you had not got that impression from my posts. I agree with you regarding the rebuilding of many of the languishing wrecks (mainly of GWR types) to fill gaps - a perfectly sensible notion.

As with all people, I have my limit - and I can't tell you where that is, as it varies from case to case. For example, painting 4472 LNER green with deflectors doesn't sit well with me, whereas I have no problem with cutting down locomotives to operate on the national network. Considering the history behind these RODS, Swindonising one doesn't sit well with me, even considering the fact that if it happened to one two would still remain in original condition.

 

Don't worry, I'm reasonably thick-skinned, but we all have to watch with emotive topics that we don't let our hearts rule our heads to the extent that we say something overtly offensive. There's a case for both camps, and that's the problem:

If the 'purist' (and I don't mean this in a derogatory sense) would rather a locomotive remain in original condition, then there's always the risk that it won't get restored at all due to a lack of interest, and that it might eventually deteriorate beyond restoration, but at least the moral high ground has been defended (this may sound simplistic/callous, but I'm merely trying to illustrate things as I see it) to the hilt for the benefit of future generations. If those with the economic hat on take a locomotive and modify it to produce a long-scrapped class of loco, then we have a fully-functioning locomotive earning its keep as it should do, although it'll upset the purists and may incur the wrath of future generations. Its a balancing act that the heritage movement as a whole needs to get right before its too late. I hope no-one takes offence to my ramblings .

 

Good grief, will everybody take a chill pill!!!!
This is getting like the 4472 livery debate.
All we're talking about here is a coat of paint, and at most a coat of paint and a shiny dome cap, hardly sacrilege of a historical artifact. This sort of thing has been done before: look at 8624. That's a historical artifact as much as any ROD in Australia is and it isn't strictly how it used to look. Same with 4472, 6100, 3672, 90733, 90775 and 60019, etc. Painting an ROD in green or black or whatever colour isn't destroying it. IF one is repatriated, and the thread title states it is just an idea, surely the owners can paint it whatever livery they like.

Remember, all, that this is just a coat of paint at the end of the day, and GCR, GWR and LNER liveries are all still sticking within reasonable limits. If it was suggested that they should mount the boiler vertically, bend the barrel, build a giant clock on the smokebox, have the tender playing fairground music as the wheels turned, and paint it pink with purple and bright yellow spots [or something like this], that WOULD be sacrilege of a historical artifact.

Let's all calm down, please, and have a reasonable rail-related discussion.

 

Damn, I was just about to suggest one of those myself!

 

In this instance, assuming it were changed to either GWR or late-LNER/BR configuration, it would not be just a coat of paint, it would be reasonably significant alterations to the boiler fittings (different chimney, dome, safety valves and (for GWR) top feed, although this could be cosmetic only) I believe the rods on the front of the cylinders would have to go too.

The more I think of it, the more reversible those changes would be. Whilst I still feel that it would be a shame for it to be repatriated and changed into something else, it wouldn't be quite the issue I have been making out. To quote modern parliamentary parlance, I might have made a U-turn!

 

I hope this is not aimed at me - I don't believe I was partaking in any mudslinging?

In fact, reading back this thread, I don't think there's been any postings which I would describe as "personal slugging matches". Simply passionate debate on a topic people feel strongly about.

By all means, when someone does step out of line, say so, but I feel this to be an overreaction to the contents of this thread thus far.

 

I don't want to single anyone out at this juncture, but I thought it was best to post a timely reminder to pre-empt any unpleasantries before anything happens. As I've already added my penny's worth to the debate here, I'm moving on from this thread.

 

Fair enough, my apologies for the abruptness of my own post.

 

About half of the 100 30xx RODs purchased by the GWR were not modified/Swindonised apart from a coat or two of black paint. However these engines which retained their original steel fireboxes, did not have a very long life and were all scrapped within ten yeas or so. This batch might turn out to be a reasonable match to the Australian survivors ?

 

Despite it being sacrilege of a historic artifact, I would actually pay good money to see that, i must admit