Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Many people define the identity of a steam loco as being in its mainframes.
Because this loco's frames were condemned as beyond repair a while ago, new frames have been obtained. Does this make 65033 a new-build replica as opposed to an an actual restoration?
To assist in thinking this through, has anybody knowledge of how much of the other main stuff is restored rather than replaced (wheels, motion, boiler, cab etc)? I think the firebox is something else which has been scrapped and replaced.
Bits and pieces of steam loco were often swapped or replaced during major overhauls. Boilers corroded and new boilers were fitted, so it is sometimes questionable how much of any loco was part of the original build when a steam loco was withdrawn. Some locos had several different numbers stamped on various components if you examined them closely.
If you google the history of this loco you'll see it started off as a compound, got rebuilt as a conventional loco, had at least one boiler replacement (probably more), cylinders replaced, has the wrong cab fitted (from a different production batch) and seems to have been lashed up to get working again after WW2 following a long period of abandonment presumably using any spares that could be found.
In reality there's probably very little left of the original loco. New frames doesn't really change its status.
But does that matter? Not really - it's a simple fact that locomotives are simple kits of parts that can be reassembled as many ways as you like. At any given time one individual set of parts is referred to by a number in a stock ledger, with a matching identification number on its cabside. Beyond that there's no significance to a specific loco's identity other than that the number represents an object that's continually in change, not a specific fixed item
By definition, a class of locomotives are (with a few exceptions) pretty similar and enjoy interchangability of parts. You'd have to go a long way back to find locomotives where the principal parts are unique to each machine. Craven on the LBSC has a reputation for building no two locomotives alike and painted them in widely different and colourful liveries as well - in total contrast to his reputedly tyrannical style of management, which was deemed more than severe even by the prevailing standards of his day.
To me, it's still a J21 and still a "Worsdell". Selfishly, I'd love to see a new-build J25, to show how Wilson Worsdell evolved the J21 design of his elder brother, Thomas. I am a realist and I don't think the general public's interest delves into such nuances, so I am happy that the J21 is with us in its current incarnation.
As a mere youth was involved for a while with one of the surviving S15's when it (and several sisters) were in Barry scrapyard. A degree of parts swapping/collection went on (cough, cough!) ours being the only one reserved at the time, so certain parts on 'our' loco came from some of the others - all of which are still in the land of the living today as it happens. I well remember lying in the four foot under one of the other loco's with a rope hung over the middle axle and the far end wrapped around the piston rod of the middle cylinder, so that when its retaining bolts were removed, muggins at the other end of the rope took the full weight to prevent the whole thing crashing to the floor and (potentially) damaging same.
Also remember one area where proof of swaps in BR days were the con rods, those on one of the locos being clearly stamped as coming from a-another loco at some time prior to Barry days.
Triggers broom in essence in many cases. As long as replacement parts are made to original spec, as far as can be, so be it, it's still the loco it was built as. It's just gone through a host of repairs/mods. Too much focus is put on (painted running number) identity from a 'spotting' point of view I believe.
Think of main line registered steam - they now have GSMR equipment fitted I believe, so that is an additional add-on, to which I would say all well and good, just part of progress that would have taken place anyway, if steam had survived to this day in the wider context.
Thinking on a more major possibility, the sole remaining Isle of Wight 02 (sole remaining 02 should I say!), W24 was kept in service in to 1967 for electrification works trains, as was W31 'Chale'. If only a very wealthy benefactor had stepped forward so the fledgling Isle of Wight Preservation guys could have bought W31 as well....if only!
If a new build W31 was to happen, the only visible change, other than any modern day safety requirements, might just be the name - 'Chale II' (perhaps?) as a nod to its long gone original cousin.
My introduction to the NE/E 'J' classes was as a kid looking through my dads 'Railway magazine's' in the 60's and seeing pictures of the J27's (and Q6's) around Sunderland/Ryhope etc in their last days, and I was hooked - don't know why, being a life long Southern man (career wise), but there it is. Have since come to appreciate some of the other J classes as well, probably in a roundabout way from a passion for 30A back in the day, leading on to other matters of ER interest, all probably started by an acquaintance/work colleague from the 70's who was an ex ER chap.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
An afterthought to my comments above, but in more recent times of the diesel era many folk have a liking for specific individual loco's, be that by painted number or a name (plate). In some cases this is aligned with perceived performance of a loco (the thrash factor), but the lumps (power units) were sometimes swapped between locos - of the same class - in BR days, which makes a mockery of that following, and that's before individual driver performance is taken in to account!
With that I will now put my hat and coat on and depart the room....
By definition, a class of locomotives are (with a few exceptions) pretty similar and enjoy interchangeability of parts. You'd have to go a long way back to find locomotives where the principal parts are unique to each machine.
However, some key parts (connecting/coupling rods are a classic) were stamped with the loco number, as although supposedly common they in fact were individually made, and then filed, balanced, had bearings lapped to fit, etc, so ended up just a bit different, which is why they were numbered, so you didn't have to go through all that again, especially if these were taken off by fitters at local sheds well removed from main works facilities.
Much as locos of the same class are supposedly identical, crews will confirm they often have different characteristics, some stronger than others, some renowned for running hot, etc.
There was/is an old school attitude amongst some preservationists that the frames define the locomotive's identity, and if you replace them it isn't truly that locomotive any more.
However as steam locos get older a more pragmatic approach seems to be coming in that says if the frames need replacing you replace them and don't worry too much about the whole restored/replica thing. After all if you don't replace the frames when the old ones are beyond repair you condemn the loco to life as a static exhibit.
Speaking personally I don't mind whether the frames were made 100 years ago or yesterday. But of course others will have a different opinion, and that's okay, each to their own!
There was/is an old school attitude amongst some preservationists that the frames define the locomotive's identity, and if you replace them it isn't truly that locomotive any more.
However as steam locos get older a more pragmatic approach seems to be coming in that says if the frames need replacing you replace them and don't worry too much about the whole restored/replica thing. After all if you don't replace the frames when the old ones are beyond repair you condemn the loco to life as a static exhibit.
Speaking personally I don't mind whether the frames were made 100 years ago or yesterday. But of course others will have a different opinion, and that's okay, each to their own!
IIRC, back in the day, there were a number of instances where locomotives were rebuilt and retained their old numbers, but the rebuild was so extensive that precious little of the original machine remained. This would certainly apply to some of the products of Boulton's Siding. Others may well know of further and newer examples.
IIRC, back in the day, there were a number of instances where locomotives were rebuilt and retained their old numbers, but the rebuild was so extensive that precious little of the original machine remained. This would certainly apply to some of the products of Boulton's Siding. Others may well know of further and newer examples.
In fact, a number of those "New loco pretending to be rebuild" instances were not connected with any engineering consideration, more accountancy, whether the expenditure was going to be counted as Capital Increase or Repairs & Renewals. This in turn impacted the railway's end-of-year profit calculation, on which tax was paid - the profitable railway companies were significant tax contributors - and the financial rules on this likewise changed from time to time. There were opposite occasions as well, with rebuilds being counted as new.
There were batches of locos built, maybe 10 of them, where say 6 were counted as Capital, and numbered together after the previous highest number, and 4 as Renewals, numbered randomly where lower numbers had been withdrawn. But all 10 were the same.
In fact, a number of those "New loco pretending to be rebuild" instances were not connected with any engineering consideration, more accountancy, whether the expenditure was going to be counted as Capital Increase or Repairs & Renewals. This in turn impacted the railway's end-of-year profit calculation, on which tax was paid - the profitable railway companies were significant tax contributors - and the financial rules on this likewise changed from time to time. There were opposite occasions as well, with rebuilds being counted as new.
There were batches of locos built, maybe 10 of them, where say 6 were counted as Capital, and numbered together after the previous highest number, and 4 as Renewals, numbered randomly where lower numbers had been withdrawn. But all 10 were the same.
Examples of "rebuilds pretending to be new" were the GWR Dukedogs. These were (mostly) given new numbers, but were built from recycled "Bulldog" frames along with ex "Duke" boilers, cabs etc. IIRC Collett got into a bit of trouble by naming these archaic looking "new" locomotives after certain directors of the company!
.
Examples of "rebuilds pretending to be new" were the GWR Dukedogs. These were (mostly) given new numbers, but were built from recycled "Bulldog" frames along with ex "Duke" boilers, cabs etc. IIRC Collett got into a bit of trouble by naming these archaic looking "new" locomotives after certain directors of the company!
.
while for "new" pretending to be rebuild, a good example seems to be GWR 111, "The Great Bear" pacific.
It was "rebuilt" into Castle class 111 "Viscount Churchill" and wiki has this to say:
"The front portion of the original frames and the number plates were used again but probably little else".
To reduce the time spent in works locos. would have the old boiler removed and a repaired one fitted because overhauling boilers took time. There were spare boilers made to enable this. Crewe Works, under pressure to reduce time spent in works, went a step further. Earlier Black 5s had a problem with frame cracking around the horn guides and this also took time to weld, so, to speed up overhauls, 2 spare frames were made so that an already-repaired frame could be fitted to a loco. needing more attention to frames.
There are also photos. of locos in Crewe Works with the wrong number on the smokebox so possibly these were swapped as well. All in all, there was little in common between the Black 5 that went into works and the one that emerged. The cab might be the same...
4Fs and other Midland designs had weak frames, and 4Fs were routinely fitted at Derby Works with new 'half-frames' - the front end, because of stresses from the cylinder block and driving axle.
There was/is an old school attitude amongst some preservationists that the frames define the locomotive's identity, and if you replace them it isn't truly that locomotive any more.
However as steam locos get older a more pragmatic approach seems to be coming in that says if the frames need replacing you replace them and don't worry too much about the whole restored/replica thing. After all if you don't replace the frames when the old ones are beyond repair you condemn the loco to life as a static exhibit.
Speaking personally I don't mind whether the frames were made 100 years ago or yesterday. But of course others will have a different opinion, and that's okay, each to their own!
A view that was mistaken, in that the longest lived part of a locomotive on (I think) the LMS was deemed to be the wheel centre (60 years) - double the working life of any other component.
A view that was mistaken, in that the longest lived part of a locomotive on (I think) the LMS was deemed to be the wheel centre (60 years) - double the working life of any other component.
Indeed - I've seen the distinctive Claughton wheels (large centre boss with the balance weights inside) on a loco in service (45501) although most Claughtons went for scrap before the last War, and the very last one was withdrawn about the time I was born.
You could send your Austerity to Hunslet for overhaul, you got one back but apart from the name and numberplate - if fitted what you got back may never have been anywhere near your site until it arrived
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
