THE LAST KING : 6018.

Why does there need to be consistency? Why can't both approaches be valid for different bits of kit in different circumstances? Is it really desirable to say that there's only one right way of doing things and force every aspect of the preservation/steam running etc game into a single procrustean bed? I think its great that I can go and see a Star that's pretty much as she left Swindon works for the last time, still with the pride that those guys put in their work and I think its great that I can book a ticket and take a run behind a Castle on the mainline forty odd years after steam was officially abolished.

 

How dare you call me ignorant - and don't pretend it wasn't aimed at me. In your earlier posts, you consistently attacked Thinktank's policy of keeping 46235 out of service in a museum. You consistently attacked museums more generally for adopting this policy. I inferred from this that you would prefer to see 46235 steam than sit cold. If that is not the case, say so. Would you like to see 46235 steamed? There are precious few locos on the ground, that haven't been through the scrapyard path, that haven't been steamed in preservation.

I'm off to the 'things that wind me up' thread; as has been said this is a 6018 thread - it would have been lovely for her to have been saved.

 

When I first saw this thread opened, I was very interested because that is my "era". I was around during the early 60's (& late 50's) when BR (WR) steam was being phased out. Among the many hours spent on Reading Station during this time I actually saw this tour in April 1963. Unfortunately, like so many others on here, this thread has now descended into a bitter & personal argument about museums & their contents. Nothing at all related to 6018 or even WR steam in general. Every time this topic shows a new post (in bold) I am now reluctant to open because it will be another slanging match.
Mods, please intervene.

 

I believe most of the points in this thread were raised in the thread I started a while back about L&B coach 2, about the differences between a heritage railway and a museum. personally I agree with neil and ten wheeler, that 46235 should be running and not stuck in the think tank. as an item such as this is better interpreted to the public as a working exhibit rather than sitting cold. watch the you tube footage of the night owl and sutherland departing crewe if you dont agree. if the think tank want a loco to display, then there are plenty of other locos lying around not doing anything that could be restored and displayed there (thornbury castle, 249 squadron or even the 2-8-0 rusting away at moor street) are ones that come to mind.

of course, not everything should run, and older locos of the 1800's such as hardwicke, stirling single etc should be kept as they are, more than anything because they are so fragile.

I dont think antony does a disservice to heritage railways. infact I believe the man himself was at my local line the GWSR the other week inspecting the progress of the 4F being restored there. I hope you were impressed antony!

As for 6018, a shame she wasnt saved, but so many locos came close. I read somewhere that the A4s kingfisher and silver link nearly were saved but eventually got cut up. and of course there was chale on the isle of wight. ah what might have been...

 

You still haven't read and understood properly have you. What I commented on was the mentality and the lame excuses they use. Nothing to do with the policy itself. This followed some information that I provided regarding the background behind Butlins interest in 6018. It's not me who has diverted this from a 6018 thread to a 46235 thread. It's relevant in the sense that the discussion revolves around a class of locomotive that was preserved instead of 6018.

Incidentally I have no idea how the deal for the sale of 6018 fell through. All I know is that it happened on the Swindon side. Maybe due to some pressure from Derby once they got to know, because exactly the same thing happened at Doncaster over Silver Link.

I already said I'm not bothered

Granted ignorant is a bit strong. But if you read something and still don't understand it, and worse, grossly misrepresent. What would you call it?

Perhaps you would like to suggest a more appropriate word to use when someone spouts such nonsence.

 

Unfortunately Kingfisher was the only one of the last few A4's in service that had an older boiler. But for that it would have been saved. It was the favourite. Whenever I ask someone who actually worked on the class, which was the best A4, they nearly always say Kingfisher. As it was, Bittern has one of the last A4 boilers made and Geoff Drury had to choose between the two. (he didn't know about the broken frame)

 

I have had a day to mull over this thread and the discussion generally, and I apologise if I have been too harsh. However, I have read over your comments and would highlight this as the point that I 'jumped on', as it were:

I interpreted this quite strongly as your considering that 46235 would be more useful/intelligently interpreted in service, and therefore an opposition to static display - in this particular case, and perhaps more generally. It was to that which I responded so strongly, although I - naturally - don't think that I was spouting nonsense.

Anyway, in answer to your points: I would suggest that the mentality of static/non-operational display that you are suggesting in museums, ThinkTank in particular, is not the case. Thinktank has many steam powered stationary steam engines and mechanical machinery in service every day, which have presumably been assessed as OK to operate - whereas 46235 has been ajudged to be too precious to return to steam and all the changes, replacement etc. that that would entail.

I think also that 'lame excuses' is too strong. We are not privvy to the decisions behind 4003, 46235 and others. Find me written evidence that the aforementioned locos are kept out of service only due to their paint jobs and I shall eat my words. I think that it is much much more than that. Crewe/Swindon workmanship, totally unaltered since BR days (I know that such locos underwent fairly extensive work in the works prior to their entering the museum world, but that is part of their value). Perhaps enthusiasts - and the enthusiasts media - has focussed in indignant outrage on the paint jobs?

As you say though, this is supposed to be a 6018 thread, and I'm sorry that I and others have taken it so far off course. TenWheeler, Crazy Train29, if you'd like to continue the debate I've laid out a few of my thoughts on the 'Things that wind me up' thread.

 

I was just stating a fact that's all.

There's a Lancaster Bomber that fly's around. It attracts far more attention than all those in museums and static display put together, and there's nearly 20 of them.

I don't have it in front of me, but that's clearly stated in a piece that was done in one of the railway mags (I nearly said rags!) a good few years ago. Specifically applying to 46235. It might have been one of those Wilcock interviews. Anyway it stuck in my mind because it so typified the stupid rubbish some of these jobsworths utter. Particularly as I had seen 46235 when it was taken from Crewe down to Nuneaton and seen the poor job they'd done on the paint then, first hand.

 

There is a picture of 46235 stuck on a back road in Nuneaton shed waiting to go to Newhall St and it does not look very elegant, the book is Steam around Nuneaton.
I too believe it should be restored to running order, tears ago I was lucky enough to see the last two beam engines working in Cornwall they were the South Crofty and East Pool they were so majestic working thast I have always thought where practical these large steam engines should tell their own tale, how better than by working.

Cheers Dave

 

You were most definitely not stating a fact, you were stating an opinion. In your opinion, 46235 would be a better interpretative device in service than in a museum. But it isn't all about interpretation - a museum has a duty of care to its charges. Between 46229, 46233 and 46235 we're able to cover everything - a streamliner, a steaming rebuilt, and a static 'preserved' example. Surely between the three that constitutes better interpretation than all three being streamlined, all three being static, or all three being in steam?

I can remember visiting the old Birmingham Science Museum, and as a six year old standing next to 46235. It struck me then how BIG it was. I wouldn't have gotten that from a brief lineside glimpse or from a platform, where locos always look so much smaller because a third of them is hidden. I have since visited Thinktank, and been able to see so much of the locomotive UP CLOSE, which you rarely get with an in-service loco unless you're involved in it.

Re: Lancasters - yes, City of Lincoln is a beauty and it is wonderful to see her flying. But see one seen them all. Do you really need to have more than one flying, really? Would you advocate the restoration to working order of S for Sugar in Hendon - arguably the more historically valuable aircraft?

You've just highlighted the issue with what you've just said: 'I nearly said rags!' - there is a lot of criticism as to the accuracy of railway magazine reporting. May I suggest that the report that you read fixated on the paint issue to the detriment of other equally or even more valid factors?

Once again, my apologies for continuing off topic on this thread.

 

46233 was never streamlined. Hence, it was never rebuilt.

 

That's rather superficial from someone who presumably would claim to take more than a passing interest in transport engineering.

You asked for a quote in writing. That's all I have to hand. I assume that if it was incorrect, then whoever it was interviewed in Birmingham would have had something to say about. In any case I don't suppose you're interested in the facts, you just want to smother everyone with your opinion.


I must say I'm beginning to subscribe to the view that there are too many people on here that are argumentative and confrontational. I started off providing some background information about the subject of the thread, and quickly end up embroiled in all this stupid nonsense. Clearly anyone who's got anything new or interesting to say soon gets shouted down by the lowest common denominators. I've got better things to do frankly. I was only on here for a few days because I'm recuperating. I'll leave you rabble to get on with it.

 

I did point out the way this thread was turning out in post 43 & asked the mods to intervene. Unfortunately they chose to ignore the request. This is now what happens.

 

That's interesting - why was Kingfisher considered the best? It was one of the single chimney A4s originally and received the double chimney in BR days. Wouldn't one of the original double chimney A4s get that accolade...?

 

Perhaps it gained the accolade after its fitting with the Kylchap?

 

Fair enough, but reading through my books, Seagull seems to have been the best representative overall in terms of the exchange trials and specific trains. Just surprises me, perhaps you (as in me) had to be there to understand.

In contrast, 60010 Dominion of Canada seems to have had a poor reputation amongst the A4s.

 

Not wishing to second guess TenWheeler, but one could infer from his comment that he was talking about the last A4s in service, perhaps in Scotland in 1964-66 - whereas Seagull went in '63?

 

Ah, I see. Fair comment.

 

Oh well, if it was written by Wilcock in a railway mag, it MUST be true