| Welcome to Miniature Railway World Forums, we hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing MRW Forums as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join MRW Forums now! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features. |
| Originality of miniature railway locomotives | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 19 Sep 2008, 03:47 PM (1,341 Views) | |
| davidgwr | 19 Sep 2008, 03:47 PM Post #1 |
|
Guard
  ![]](http://209.85.48.18/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
I was thinking that although it is claimed that River Irt is the oldest miniature loco operating. I wonder how much of the original 1894 loco is left now, as she has been major rebuilt twice (with hindsight I wish that the Heywood locos and the scale model locos that ran at Ravenglass had been preserved, but I suspose in the 1920s people didn't think about the historical aspects). Incidentally what was the reasoon behind the Irt's 1970s rebuild. Similarly how original are River Esk, the original Romney locos and Count Louis as they have been overhauled several times (and The Bug was restored from a rotting hulk). Indeed I once read that Talyllyn and Dolgoch on the TR and Prince on the FR are actually replicas of the 1860s locos as so muich has been replaced. The same could be said about the standard gauge locos that have been rescued frolm Barry and then rebuilt - very few of the original remains. |
 |
 
|
| glastonrail | 19 Sep 2008, 04:11 PM Post #2 |
Dommo
|
River Irt retains her original frames, most of the motion and cylinders, along with her wheels. Her 1970's rebuild was coincided with a replacment boiler, reduction of cylinder diameter and chages to general appearance. The tender got restyled too I believe. Not sure about Count Louis, but I believe Esk and the Romney locos are about as original as any other 80-year-old locomotive would be, and similar to Irt: original frames, wheels, motion. Esk has had a new tender, I believe she's on her third, since the first was replaced with a Poultney powered tender, which subsequently becamse River Mite (again, mainly the cylinders and motion, not so much the frames). As we all know the Romney tenders have been replaced with larger and safer examples as the years have progressed. Interesting comparison to standard gauge restorations there, but you have to remember that most (but not all) historical miniature railway equipment is not preserved in the classic sense, just kept running, and is still performing the task it was originally built to do - classic examples ARE the Romney Pacifics and the Ratty locos, along with Rhyl's Joan and the Suttons stock, albeit in a different location. But then, the Basset-Lowke's were regularly moving from railway to railway. [Admin hat on] Have we not had this, or a similar, discussion before??[removes Admin hat] Cheers, Dom Greenop DMR |
|
"There's no such thing as sanity, and that's the sanest fact" M. Knopfler, 1985 Dragon Miniature Railway, Stockport http://www.freewebs.com/dragonrailway | |
|
|
|
| colinpeake | 19 Sep 2008, 04:16 PM Post #3 |
MRW Digest Editor
|
How much of any working steam engine over (say) ten years old is original? A lot is made of (whisper it...) Flying Scotsman but very little of the original Gresley locomotive is there. Steam locomotives are 'living' machines, bits break, bits wear down, better parts are devised or rebuilds carried out to improve looks, performance etc. It is the nature of the beast. We are not takling about glass case models here! Dom, I think we have been here before, I think there was a Digest.... Colin |
|
Colin Peake MRW Digest Editor Miniature Railways - Colin Peake's Photos | |
|
|
|
| cheekylittlemonkey81 | 19 Sep 2008, 04:18 PM Post #4 |
Porter
|
Dare I say it? Yea, go on then... IMHO the loco takes it's identity from the frames, everything else, is (not quite so) simply attached to the frames. |
|
Phil Cheekylittlemonkey81 Photos Cheekylittlemonkey81 Videos Wimborne & District Society of Model Engineers | |
|
|
|
| glastonrail | 19 Sep 2008, 04:58 PM Post #5 |
|
Dommo
|
http://s9.zetaboards.com/MRW_Forums/topic/98333/1/ Not specifically locomtives, but it is mentioned. I thought the issue came up here on the main Forums too but then again this is me talking... ...  :p4472, as a piece of engineering, seems to be a taboo and has a similar status to "The Scottish Play"... ...   Cheers, Dom |
|
"There's no such thing as sanity, and that's the sanest fact" M. Knopfler, 1985 Dragon Miniature Railway, Stockport http://www.freewebs.com/dragonrailway | |
|
|
|
| Timbo | 19 Sep 2008, 05:04 PM Post #6 |
Timbo
|
It's no different to a full size loco... in that case, what about Taliesin or the L&B loco at the Ffestiniog - both incorporate an element of the original and I think are often referred to as rebuilds rather than replicas. My own view is that every loco evolves and that it's entirely down to each case. If there are significant parts from the original then it's a rebuild. If there are only tiny elements eg nameplates and a con rod or a horn then it's a new build using original parts. Where are my conservation textbooks when I need them...?! Let's take GAT, being restored by Kelvin off of here. Is it a rebuild or a new build? Well, the skeleton is still there. It's probably a rebuild albeit an almost complete one. What about a miniature loco that is unrecognisable - such as the Malden Miniature Railway Carland Royal Scot... just the tender remains but became an electric loco. Is that a new loco? Or is it still the Scot? And if someone decided to build a new boiler and "power" element to accompany the tender, do you sit on a complete rebuilt Carland Royal Scot or do you end up sitting on a new loco with a tender behind? (Fnar fnar)... It's an interesting point, but one must also ask why we need to define things. All miniature locos have evolved as each owner customises and develops them. They will usually contain elements of the first iteration, but part of the joy of miniature railways and their stock is their ability to morph, adapt, disappear and be resurrected in an entirely different form - it is this fact and the stories that go with them that make them interesting, not necessarily whether they need to be picked apart and catalogued as hard fact. |
|
Tim Dunn MRW Moderator www.bekonscot.com www.meteorite.co.uk | |
|
|
|
| dereksmith | 19 Sep 2008, 05:27 PM Post #7 |
Cleaner
|
I can't answer for some of the locos mentioned but where the RHDR locos are concerned there have been lots of changes over the years. The early pictures of No.1 at Paxmans show it with an air pump, the tenders were fitted with handbrakes, the Mountains had longer boilers (instead of longer smokeboxes), sandboxes were fitted between the frames of the Pacifics, both third cylinders and motion have been removed from 7 and 8 - the list goes on. And when you get to The Bug then you might have to search a bit to find too much from the original - including the tender which was not only new but also larger than the original. I would question the idea that the replacement tenders on the RH&DR locos are that much safer - in fact if you look at it the last fatality was with Hurricane, which has one of the two biggest tenders, which aren't being replaced as far as I know. For my money if you are hit by a car and it swings you round and you go on your side then you don't stand much of a chance in any tender - but the lower sided old tenders or the TMA tenders did give you a chance to get out if you had the time. I remember once coming round the Warren with the sun in my eyes and suddenly seeing a farm stock truck across the track unloading cattle into the field - I immediately applied the brakes and went to back gear but it took forever to slow down and I thought I was going to hit, so prepared myself to jump (I had the Chief with a TMA tender) - fortunately I did stop and didn't have to bale out but I was certainly glad I had the low sided tender! We reported it to the police but very little action was taken apart from a warning not to use the occupation crossing for that purpose again! But perhaps we have to forget 15" and go down to 10.25 to find the strangest redesign, which was Brian Hollingsworth regauging of a Bullock loco down to 7.25". I know they were designed to be regaugable between 10.25 and 9.5 but the work needed to go down further was considerable. Fortunately I believe it is now back to 'proper' gauge, but it was certainly one of the strangest modifications I have seen. |
|
Derek Smith dereksmith@whitstablepier.com | |
|
|
|
| MuzTrem | 19 Sep 2008, 05:30 PM Post #8 |
Operations Manager
|
I'd agree with Tim to some extent, but sometimes there are particularly significant items that need to preserved more carefully, and where perhaps it is not appropriate to keep it running if it means replacing too much original material. The Heywood collection stock is a case in point. But on the other hand, Romney was built as a complete miniature main line, and personally I would argue that the preservation of that unique concept and experience is more important than retaining the exact metal set out by Paxman's in 1923. So personally I would not have a problem with the Romney pacifics recieving major renewals if that were necessary to keep them running. Similarly with River Irt, the rebuilt engine is old enough now to be an important peice of history in it's own right, so I think there would be no great value in rebuilding her back to original condition. Edited by MuzTrem, 19 Sep 2008, 05:31 PM.
|
| |
|
|
|
| glastonrail | 19 Sep 2008, 06:07 PM Post #9 |
|
Dommo
|
Well oddly on that point, Murray, Irt has spent more time AS River Irt than she ever did as Muriel. Therefore using some people's logic, it would actually be less historically accurate (yawn) to return her to original condition. So that brings us full circle while throwing a massive spanner in the works if you wish to try and define historical accuracy/originality, etc. I personally would not think twice about modifying an engine if it means it would be better suited to the job asked of it, but I would preserve the bits I take off if the modifications are major, if possible, or at least make a thorough record of the machine's condition prior to overhaul. Interesting points being raised. Cheers, Dom Greenop DMR |
|
"There's no such thing as sanity, and that's the sanest fact" M. Knopfler, 1985 Dragon Miniature Railway, Stockport http://www.freewebs.com/dragonrailway | |
|
|
|
| Narrow Rails | 19 Sep 2008, 07:44 PM Post #10 |
Driver
|
Tim has an iteresting point. While I'm trying to reuse as much of the original material from GAT in the "rebuild", in reallity only the chassis side frames and name plates remain from the original loco. But you have to remember GAT was scraped and used in a childrens play park. The bodywork rotted away and the engine, transmition and wheels were robbed for another engine. So I have asked myself on several occasions "why bother", but I believe that the chassis is the sole of the loco and it's worth saving. I have also had to make some hard decisions along the way to make GAT a practical locomotive. In 10 1/4" form the chassis was unstable and I would have to scale the loco down to fit throught the tunnel at Kirkby Green. Secondly the 2 items of rolling stock I own are all 15" gauge. As I currently don't have any track laid the neatest lines are Sherwood 15", CCLR 15" and Kirkby Green 10 1/4", so that is why I have decide to widen the chassis to 15" gauge. I think you have to look at the project as a development/improvemnt. This is actually GAT's second rebuild as he was rebuilt during his time at the Lincs Light Railway anyway. For example I'm replacing the plywood buffer beams and chassis side plates with steel. That reminds me I must up date my rebuild thread.  Kelvin |
|
As you get older your toys just get bigger (and more expensive!) | |
|
|
|
| laalratty | 19 Sep 2008, 08:54 PM Post #11 |
|
Fireman
|
River Irt had a completely new tender, longer chimney and restyled cab in about 1973, the boiler came later im about 1977, and it was all done for practical reasons, better weather protections, better draughting with the taller funnel and looked a good deal better as well. I don't know how much Heywood has been removed after its latest (very) heavy overhaul of the chassis, there are 2 new axels and many other renewed bits, never mind correction of the quatering of the axels, after 118 years of being out by about 5 degrees (I think that was the amount anyway  )River Mite I belive was built with new cylinders, those on the old Poultney tender were either too far gone or too small, and again its heavy overhaul at TMA saw at least one pair of driving wheels replaced |
|
|
|
| little giant | 19 Sep 2008, 10:30 PM Post #12 |
leader RMR crazy projects
|
well with the barnes at rhyl most of them are original except the boilers and the tender have been swapped around but are still the original ones dont forget that taliesin is a scale mode more than a rebuild( they only have the regulator for gods sake) it has been built to 13 inches to the foot!!!!! 
|
| It may only be 15" but it is fun to play with | |
|
|
|
| Selsig | 20 Sep 2008, 08:38 AM Post #13 |
Guard
|
Not quite.... on Taliesin the regulator handle, reversing lever and quadrant and, of all things, the chimney are original, and the handbrake wheel is off *a* single Fairlie (Moel Tryfan, admittedly) - its about the same amount of original kit as is on Merddin Emrys, hence why it was qualified as a rebuild. |
|
John Savage Echills Wood Railway Assistant Yardmaster Signalling Designer and Installer | |
|
|
|
| little giant | 20 Sep 2008, 06:46 PM Post #14 |
|
leader RMR crazy projects
|
yes but when you rebuild a loco you build it the same not a bigger scale!! but who are we to argue as most loco in overhauls get lots of new bits so generaly you can same the frame are original but not in all cases (royal scot) and some rebuilds are paper rebuilds (VoR number 9) |
| It may only be 15" but it is fun to play with | |
|
|
|
| rough-shunter | 20 Sep 2008, 07:05 PM Post #15 |
|
Director
|
so all mainline steam are replicas then ? seeing as they have to be reduced in hight to fit in the 13 ft 1" |
|
JORDAN ASHLEY LEEDS Trains go into tunnels and come out but locos can go in sheds and never come out | |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Non Gauge Specific · Next Topic » |
2:02 PM Nov 23
