Preservation -- concern about how much is, physically, the original?

[AndyY1951]

A similar thing happens in the field of aircraft spotting. If an aircraft passes way overhead, so all you see is a shiny dot with a con-trail, but you can positively identify the identity of the aircraft then you can claim to have 'copped' it. Not all spotters accept the idea, but it's called 'dot spotting'. I used to work at Warton Aerodrome, and if a 'dot' passed overhead there were those who would contact the control tower and get them to confirm the identity of said dot!

Andy

 

[sprinterguy]

On a slightly different tack, when I was a trainspotter (a long time ago!), there was always a debate about at what point did you "cop" a locomotive?

This was particularly relevant when you went around (say) Crewe Works. Someone would say: "That pile of steel over there will be 50037 when they start work" .. but at the time, they hadn't, and we had no idea whether they'd actually use that pile of steel, or another one next to it. Similarly, you might see the cab of one loco in one shop, the body in another shop, the engine in yet another shop - but you'd never the see the complete loco on that trip.

I think that the general view was that you had to see a high percentage of the loco in one recognisable form and place to be able to count it.

I'd be inclined to agree with that, which again comes back to it being the loco's frame that is the important component: Whether you've seen it as a selection of metal sheets prior to construction or as a dismembered cab end at Vic Berry's at the end of its life, it doesn't count as a complete, working locomotive, does it?

 

[pdeaves]

Whether you've seen it as a selection of metal sheets prior to construction or as a dismembered cab end at Vic Berry's at the end of its life, it doesn't count as a complete, working locomotive, does it?

I see it that rail enthusiasm is individual, not competitive. Therefore, any given individual can 'count' whatever they want to count, whatever anyone else does. Thus, in this case, you may not count just a cab because it's not a complete locomotive (and that's fine); someone else may count it because it's a substantial chunk and has the engine number painted on it (and that's fine, too). Each to their own, whatever you want to do!

 

[341o2]

I can think of many candidates for non originality. Talyylyn nos 1 and 2 must be high ranking as they have both been "extensively modified" TRPS website, and their performance totally changed since the railway passed into preservation. No1 soon was rebuilt from a 4 coupled loco to an 0-4-2ST with new frames in the pre preservation era.

I doubt whether much is original of Ffestiniog's Prince

Wroxham Broad on the Bure Valley started as Tracey - Jo, and while externally unaltered, was originally a diesel replica, while one of the German diesels on Fayle's tramway at Norden has been rebuilt as a steam locomotive.

The T9 is an amalgam of several parts from other scrapped locos of the class. When it was decided to preserve one, the best bits were used from several locos

 

[IanXC]

Renumbering has happened when the frames on a preserved locomotive were found to be from a different number than the one everyone thought it was. 4983 Albert Hall became 4965 Rood Ashton Hall - although I believe it does on occasion run as the former.

In this instance I believe a rebuild of the two locomotives into one, by Swindon in around 1962 was the route cause of the confusion. Swindon for whatever reason, chose Albert Hall to be the 'surviving' locomotive. As I recall the final outcome of restoring the locomotive as Rood Ashton Hall was based counting up how many parts were from each locomotive - and as principally the frames and the tender were from that locomotive that outweighed nearly all the other parts being from Albert Hall.

At the time there was a rumour that some of Rood Ashton Hall's connecting rods and valve gear were found in Tyseley spare parts stock (which reputedly made its way over the wall from the mainline depot at the end of steam) but I have no idea how true that is!

Coming back to the original point, as someone with a rather GWR view of things, I tend to think, would Swindon have done this? I see very little going on in the preservation movement that fails the test so am generally satisfied with the 'original proportion' of preserved stock.

 

[nferguso]

I once did an exercise for a customer who rented-out industrial equipment and, upon return, would refurbish the kit ready for further use. In the end, I realised that the only part that could be considered original would be the maker's plate!

 

[Flying Phil]

Does this come down to establishing the "provenance" ie history of THE object and, provided there is not a duplication of that object's identity, then the originality of the parts is not significant for objects that are actually in use and subject to needed repair/refurbishment/replacement.

 

[Shenandoah]

I guess the big four railways - and maybe their constituents - just got on with keeping their locos and rolling stock in an operational condition. They never gave it a thought that some of their rolling stock would become part of leisure activities, rather than a public service. There are, I believe, some items best left as exhibits: there are enough unrestored locos and rolling stock in the ubiquitous linear scrapyards of many heritage/tourist lines.

 

[Willr2094]

Flying Scotsman is a good example. How much of that is original - the frame and that’s about all I would think.

The same could be said for the older units and loco’s currently in service, certainly some of the BR stock. For example the BR generation DMU’s spend half their life with various bits and pieces sprayed purple under the underframe.

With Flying Scotsman I believe the only remaining parts which are original are the underframes from about the first pair of driving wheels back (the frames had to be extensively rebuilt in the recent total rebuild) , plus the upper half of the cabsides (at the beginning of the 2006-16 restoration, brass strips were found in the cab window frames which were stamped with the number 1472 - Flying Scotsman's initial number during its first year of service with the LNER when it was simply the anonymous third Gresley Pacific).

 

[mushroomchow]

It's daft to even think of locomotives as not being "original" if they've simply had new components made for them.

Let's say you own a car and you resist the urge to trade it in to the dealer for a new model. At what point does it stop being that car over time? You could replace the tires, the brake pads and discs, the wipers. You might have a window chip and replace that. The stereo on its last legs? You get a new one. You might want to improve performance, so you make some intake modifications or change the suspension. Maybe you even have the engine conk out but, because you love that car so much, you source a new one. It is by most respects a completely new vehicle, but...

...It's still your car, and it's still legally that car.

Its numberplate hasn't changed (well, unless you personalised it down the line). Unless you physically replace that whole bodyshell (even a partial reconstruction is still for all respective purposes a restoration rather than a rebuild), or at least modify that bodyshell beyond recognition so much that you legally have to declare it a kit car and get a "Q" numberplate, it's still the same tin box you fell in love with.

That's how I think of trains, too. You can modify them all you like, replace components from the top to the bottom, tweak and improve their performance and reliability. But until that frame on which they sit is rusted into the earth and completely unusable, it's still the same locomotive.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

I'd rather see an engine running. You learn more from seeing a steam engine work than just by seeing it stuffed and mounted. I don't buy the whole "you're preserving authenticity from the past" argument as with Lode Star or Mallard. I always feel overwhelmingly sad every time I learn of an engine that's almost certainly not going to run again, be it Green Arrow with its corroded cylinder or Union of South Africa and The Great Marquess with John Cameron's (selfish imo) decision to lock them up in a barn in a field in Fife because he doesn't want anyone else to ever take them on when he can't run them himself

But on a tangent, what about Royal Scot? It was built as 6152 The King's Dragoon Guardsman, but swapped with the "real" 6100 to go to North America. They never swapped back, it ran for most of its service days as (4)6100, and it is the engine that went to America, so it has historical significance. But it's not the engine that was built as 6100. The same thing happened with other engines too - some we know for definite, others just rumour. I heard gossip once that 6000 KGV is not the "real" 6000 KGV. I've also heard rumour that two of the last Small Prairies out of Barry - 5553 and 5538 - had their identities swapped. I guess we may never know

 

[IanXC]

I heard gossip once that 6000 KGV is not the "real" 6000 KGV. I've also heard rumour that two of the last Small Prairies out of Barry - 5553 and 5538 - had their identities swapped. I guess we may never know

If the locomotive could be dismantled to examine them, given that these are GWR locomotives every part will be stamped with the locomotive's number. It's not unusual for the outer view to be misleading - see Rood Aston Hall and Albert Hall for that - but examination of which parts carry what number ought to show whether we have locomotive A with a heavy overhaul using lots of B's parts or vice versa.

 

[EbbwJunction1]

I'd just refer you to my post no. 8 on page one for more details on how much of KGV was original in 1970.

The situation must have changed since then, given that it's nearly 50 years since that list was complied. However, I've not heard that two locos were swopped - although two Castles (4082 and (I think) 7007) definitely were in 1952 - and not swopped back again.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Even the bell on KGV isn't original! Although it's never been stated officially that it isn't

 

[Cowley]

Even the bell on KGV isn't original! Although it's never been stated officially that it isn't

Good call. I think it’s the third or even fourth maybe?
I remember reading about a Hunslet narrow gauge Quarry Tank that was found along with some others a few years back (in Canada/America maybe?) and it was so original - even down to the original paint and various little dents and scratches picked up during use in quarries in the 60s.
That before restoration they 3D scanned every inch of the old girl to keep a digital record of it.
I hope I’ve got that right and my memory isn’t making things up.

 

[43096]

Good call. I think it’s the third or even fourth maybe?
I remember reading about a Hunslet narrow gauge Quarry Tank that was found along with some others a few years back (in Canada/America maybe?) and it was so original - even down to the original paint and various little dents and scratches picked up during use in quarries in the 60s.
That before restoration they 3D scanned every inch of the old girl to keep a digital record of it.
I hope I’ve got that right and my memory isn’t making things up.

Class 14 D9502 retained its original paint (from the mid 1960s!) until it started its current overhaul at the ELR. I don't think anyone is proposing keeping its paint, though!
http://www.elrdiesel.info/fleet-d9502.php#start

 

[Cowley]

Class 14 D9502 retained its original paint (from the mid 1960s!) until it started its current overhaul at the ELR. I don't think anyone is proposing keeping its paint, though!
http://www.elrdiesel.info/fleet-d9502.php#start

Amazing. I don’t think my paint jobs will last that long.

 

[Tom B]

A similar thing happened with LT's bus works at Aldenham. Bus RT123 would come in that morning, and be stripped of its identity. The chassis and body would be separated and go away for overhaul.
At the other end of the production line that afternoon, a fully refurbished bus would have the plates for RT123 attached and take the identity of that bus.
I believe this was since the chassis and body took differing amounts of time to be overhauled, and everything was standard, and it saved paying exise licenses on buses in the works!

Cars can usually be identified by the VIN on the body plate. Recently, VIN plates for cars scrapped have appeared on eBay, for vehicles where prices are high - eg Mk1/2 Escorts. Criminals can then steal a correctly registered vehicle, change the VIN plate over, and then it adopts another identity.

 

[Calthrop]

Recent reading of Narrow Gauge Railways -- Wales and the Western Front by the late Humphrey Household (one of those past-generations enthusiasts whose date of birth -- 1906 in this gentleman's case -- one envies: Mr. Household managed, in the course of a summer holiday in 1925, to cover the majority of the Welsh narrow gauge, including Glyn Valley and Corris) has prompted me to revive this thread.

The author also includes in his book a brief history of the Ashover Light Railway, of which he had slight first-hand experience during its working life. This line is renowned of course, for having been Britain's biggest single user of ex-War Department 600mm gauge 4-6-0Ts built by the US firm of Baldwin for World War I use. The Ashover owned in its life-span, a total of six "Baldwins" -- the idea being a working fleet of four, plus the excess (one of the originally purchased ones, already heavily-used and wearing out; another acquired in the first place, for spare parts) to be "cannibalised" at need. Household puts matters nicely, telling of how at the works of the Ashover's parent undertaking the Clay Cross Company "parts were so freely transferred from one engine to another that the last in service probably retained little of its original material except the name plates".

One feels that -- supposing said last Ashover "Baldwin" in service had managed to survive to be preserved -- here if anywhere, would have been an instance in which the preservers might understandably have done some agonising over the question of exactly which machine(s) they were, or were not, preserving !

 

[341o2]

A similar thing happened with LT's bus works at Aldenham. Bus RT123 would come in that morning, and be stripped of its identity. The chassis and body would be separated and go away for overhaul.
At the other end of the production line that afternoon, a fully refurbished bus would have the plates for RT123 attached and take the identity of that bus.
I believe this was since the chassis and body took differing amounts of time to be overhauled, and everything was standard, and it saved paying exise licenses on buses in the works!

Cars can usually be identified by the VIN on the body plate. Recently, VIN plates for cars scrapped have appeared on eBay, for vehicles where prices are high - eg Mk1/2 Escorts. Criminals can then steal a correctly registered vehicle, change the VIN plate over, and then it adopts another identity.

I'm not sure this applied to the RT family, I thought the chassis and numberplate stayed together, but certainly the RM's used this system, the bodyshell number would be more appropriate than the fleet/registration number for records. The following is an example, that, say RM 500 with body B782 entered the works for overhaul, while at the other end, another bus with body B685 has been reassembled and is now RM500 with its registration number.

To stop changing the identity of cars, those scrapped, ie destroyed, are recorded as such, and the VIN has to be stamped on a chassis member of modern cars. Not sure regarding Series Landrovers, as when the "Historic vehicle" class was announced, many old Landrovers reappeared on the roads (the VIN plate was riveted to the bulkhead).

To get back to rail, one locomotive which just made it into the preservation era only to be scrapped was the Welsh Highland Moel Tryfan. The remains languished on the Ffestiniog until scrapped, one reason was because it was already a rebuild of both Moel Tryfan and Snowdon Ranger

 

[gaymale]

Looking at the records of Clun Castle 7029 it can be seen that it had 6 different boilers between 1950 and 1962, and one particular boiler had been on as many different locos. It had 9 different tenders, 4 Hawksworth, and 5 Collett, and again one of those tenders was associated with 9 different Castles.

As far as the average trainspotter in my youth was concerned, what was of importance was the number on the cabside (a brass plate as per GW locos or simply "painted on" in most other cases) or the front number plate on the boiler in the case of steam locos. It was only when neither was available, as in the case of many GW locos whose plates had all been removed, that trying to get a number from other remaining parts such as coupling rods was resorted to. We did sometimes find the number on the coupling rods on the other side of the loco didn't match when we took the trouble to double check we had got the number correct, or compared notes with our mates!

In general the number of a loco going through works will not have changed but the loco frame, boiler and everything else could potentially have been replaced, or swapped with other locos over the years. There is nothing to say, of course, that the number plate on the firebox were all originals as a few may have had to be replaced due to damage or other loss (theft?). So it is, of course, in preservation where many plates are duplicates as the original is lost/destroyed/stolen or owned by someone unwilling to part with it. With that possibility virtually nothing is left of the original, beyond it's record card if that exists.

The fact that the number/plate was about the only thing which didn't change possibly explains why some smokebox plates (and GW cabside plates, though of course there were two of those per loco!) fetch such a high price - name plates even more so - as they are more or less guaranteed to be original (though some may sadly be fakes!). I gather that firecut diesel loco cabside numbers are of similar interest. Can't say that I've seen one from a steam loco cab.

As spotter we didn't even consider the chance that two or more locos of the same class in works at the same time might have accidentally (or deliberately e.g. 46152/46100) acquired a change of identity after a repaint where the cabside numbers were temporarily lost and smokebox numbers exchanged. Apprentices are renowed for their tricks!

Personally I stopped adding further steam locos numbers to my "combined volume" in August 1968. What was underlined up that point is, for me, my definitive list of what I've seen. It's of no real interest to anyone else and, although it may not be 100% accurate, it is one of my treasured possessions. Even 60008 (the A4, not the diesel!) which I saw for the first time when it came back from the USA won't get underlined! I keep a separate list of the numbers seen on preserved locos.

The changing of numbers (e.g. another preserved loco appearing as 44984 for an anniversary of the last day of the GC in 2016), or for that matter such as D123 carrying the name plates of D163, I find irritating but won't lose sleep over it! At least we have preserved members of many classes and whether the number they are were allocated when built is the one they normally carry isn't that important to me personally. Just a big thank you to all those actively involved in preservation. Without you we'd have nothing.

The one plus side of new builds (45551, 60163 and others) is that their identity will never be in doubt! Personally I would have allocated a new number to such as 1014 County of Glamorgan rather than taking the identity of one scrapped but am thankful that a "new" County Class loco is being created so it is not meant as a criticism.

Finally - in case anyone has read this far - if anyone wants to cop a Standard Class 2-6-4T I have what I believe to be an original firebox number plate (Pity I have nothing else of the original but, there again, if I'd had the money to preserve the loco to which it was attached immediately prior to its demise there is nothing to say I'd have much of the original beyond my number plate).

 

[Calthrop]

To get back to rail, one locomotive which just made it into the preservation era only to be scrapped was the Welsh Highland Moel Tryfan. The remains languished on the Ffestiniog until scrapped, one reason was because it was already a rebuild of both Moel Tryfan and Snowdon Ranger

A bit off-at-a-tangent from the thread's primary theme; just, this fact found interesting. I was aware of the Ffestiniog Railway's preservers having, early in their saving of the FR, sold Moel Tryfan for scrap; but not of the loco's "confused identity" having been cited by them in support of this action. I would be rather disposed to -- cynically -- suspect those responsible, of coming up here with a scrupulous-sounding rationalisation for a regrettable deed, which they were forced to by great shortage of money. It seems to me that it might have been more honest of them to state that their action was compelled by an urgent need to raise cash; with maybe a rider that the Welsh Highland was dead and gone -- and their mission, already difficult and ambitious enough, was to try to revive the Ffestiniog.

Of course we are not entitled to condemn, from our position nowadays, those who sixty-five-odd years ago had what must have been a very painful decision to make; and I would suggest that few of us have never excused less-than-noble behaviour, with lofty justifications. One is inclined to reflect, though, that it is perhaps a good thing that in the early stages of the Ffestiniog's revival, Russell was elsewhere.

 

[StoneRoad]

As I am more involved with carriages ...
I can safely say that although we do our best to retain as much original material as possible during a restoration, and thanks to modern glues and so forth, that is far more than previously.
However, if a vehicle is to be returned to running condition (even in the far future) then quite often some material that would be acceptable for static use has to go.

There are boundaries and overlaps between repair, restoration, rebuild and replica ... where you draw those dividing lines can be heavily and vigorously debated.
I think I have listed the four cardinal points on a continuum, to be honest. Whilst it might, theoretically, be possible to put those points as ratios or percentages of new to original material, it is often better to take a relaxed view ... surely, since in the working life of a carriage, some parts will have been repaired or even replaced, then the continuation is the important part.

I agree with the "conservation only" of unique examples - in that case, find the funds and build a replica.
To me, a replica is 100% new material and there is a sliding scale between minor repairs and replica for the rest, especially between restoration and rebuild.

 

[pdeaves]

To me, a replica is 100% new material

Even that is open to dispute! Does it mean that the broad gauge "North Star" in Steam museum is not a replica as it contains a very small amount of original material? - wheels and motion, if I remember correctly.

 

[Robin Edwards]

An interesting thread for me who has at different periods in my life been a collector of 'numbers'. It is this that I believe drives a desire or 'need' to know what I've seen or am seeing simply because shifting identities would make collecting numbers slightly silly I guess () As an enthusiast I am happy to see memories recreated and if this means New Build locomotives in the guise of something that existed previously, so be it. I am also interested when I see a restored steam locomotive that spent time at Woodhams, to the numbers stamped on some of the component parts to get a feel of which 'beast' they may have ended their working life with BR on or behind, even though those parts will have moved between the identifiable locomotives.
There will of course be other reasons why engineers and accountants need to track origins of locomotive frames, boilers, tenders, power units etc but I think the slight irritations that I/we may feel if we underlined the 'wrong' number in our book is pretty insignificant in the greater scheme of things, if not for the avid boy with the red pen!

 

[341o2]

A bit off-at-a-tangent from the thread's primary theme; just, this fact found interesting. I was aware of the Ffestiniog Railway's preservers having, early in their saving of the FR, sold Moel Tryfan for scrap; but not of the loco's "confused identity" having been cited by them in support of this action. I would be rather disposed to -- cynically -- suspect those responsible, of coming up here with a scrupulous-sounding rationalisation for a regrettable deed, which they were forced to by great shortage of money. It seems to me that it might have been more honest of them to state that their action was compelled by an urgent need to raise cash; with maybe a rider that the Welsh Highland was dead and gone -- and their mission, already difficult and ambitious enough, was to try to revive the Ffestiniog.

Of course we are not entitled to condemn, from our position nowadays, those who sixty-five-odd years ago had what must have been a very painful decision to make; and I would suggest that few of us have never excused less-than-noble behaviour, with lofty justifications. One is inclined to reflect, though, that it is perhaps a good thing that in the early stages of the Ffestiniog's revival, Russell was elsewhere.

I believe the overriding reason was the state of the locomotive by the time the Society took over, and its destruction did indeed raise much needed cash. The fact that it was a rebuild was of secondary importance, but has been mentioned in defending the decision to scrap it

 

[Harbornite]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Joe public helps to keep preserved lines afloat and they don't care about the percentage of original components, they just want to travel behind or see a steam loco puffing along. It's not possible to entirely recreate the past so you have to make do with what there is.

 

[Bedpan]

Didn't you just have to see the number to be able to write it down and then underline it in your combined volume? There must have been times (coming into a station on a train for instance) when just the front of the loco in a different platform was visible, with the rest obscured by something alongside it, but we would have still taken the number down.

 

[Calthrop]

I believe the overriding reason was the state of the locomotive by the time the Society took over, and its destruction did indeed raise much needed cash. The fact that it was a rebuild was of secondary importance, but has been mentioned in defending the decision to scrap it

It could also be figured that as at the mid-1950s, there might well have been a consideration about the impossibility of Moel Tryfan's fitting the Ffestiniog's tight clearances. (Is that still much of an issue on the modern Ffestiniog? I honestly don't know.) And if anyone had started talking 60-odd years ago, about revival of the Welsh Highland Railway in its entirety -- their sanity would have been doubted, big-time.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Joe public helps to keep preserved lines afloat and they don't care about the percentage of original components, they just want to travel behind or see a steam loco puffing along. It's not possible to entirely recreate the past so you have to make do with what there is.

Now don't come along here being all common-sense-ical -- as everyone knows, railway enthusiasm and common sense do not mix ...

 

[Merthyr Imp]

Re Moel Tryfan, in at least two of the books by Peter Johnson about the Festiniog it's mentioned that after being cut down to fit the loading gauge it worked regularly to Blaenau Ffestiniog - although apparently there are no known photographs of it beyond Portmadoc - so it seems that wouldn't have affected the decision to not restore it.