| Welcome to Miniature Railway World Forums, the leading miniature railway forums on the internet, with over 1400 members. The forums are full of discussion ranging from current activities to historical research. There is also member-only access to a trip-report, photos & videos section, sells/wanted rooms and the off topic discussion areas. So why not join in? Registration is quick, easy, and of course free! If you have any trouble, email us at info@miniaturerailwayworld.co.uk Click Here to Register at Miniature Railway World Forums Please note, you must be registered and logged-in to access all the forums |
| Dougal [Merged] | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 18 Apr 2009, 09:28 PM (2,170 Views) | |
| DevilDrummer | 22 Apr 2009, 05:07 PM Post #31 |
|
Director
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I know theirs been discussion but i dont think anyones really said you shouldve done this or that, as what David said in his reply. Plus no one's come out and said thats completely wrong you can't do that! |
|
"Humans are so smart, they dont even need a meteorite to destroy themselves, like the stupid dinosaurs did!" http://devildrummertom.fotopic.net NYMR Fireman - "More in the back end!" | |
![]() |
|
| banksy | 22 Apr 2009, 05:46 PM Post #32 |
banksy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
certain mods like fitting air brakes to Sutton stock is acceptable, In a modern safety conscious world it only going to be a mater of time until you can't run stoke that's not got continuous braking |
![]() |
|
| Murray Tremellen | 22 Apr 2009, 05:52 PM Post #33 |
|
Director
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I only meant this as a throw-away remark, I didn't think I'd spark a serious intellectual discussion! ![]() Of course, I completely accept that Dougal's owners have the right to do whatever they like to her, but nevertheless, I think there is another side to "engine enhancement" debate. I take Craig's points about "progressive enhancement" and not preserving the past, but Dougal is now almost forty years old. This was probably the intended lifespan of most full-size engines (though of course, things often worked out differently in practice!), so personally I reckon she can be considered "heritage" at this point. I expect there would be an outcry if Little Giant, aged 104, were to now recieve a larger boiler...so were do you draw the line? Personally, I think each case must be judged on its own merits; so, if an engine has been "progressively enchanced" throughout its working life then personally I think further modification is more acceptable. But Dougal has had no major modifications until now...it therefore, IMHO, seems a shame to suddenly make lots of drastic changes at this stage. I also completely understand the arguments in favour of improved performance and operating conditions, and must also admit that I don't know the first thing about technical matters (not for lack of interest, but because I unfortunately find anything maths-related extremely confusing). Nevertheless, they can be taken too far. Witness Merddin Emrys, which was "modified" by Boston Lodge in the '60s and '70s with a new, longer boilder and a horribly utilitarian superstructure. Of course, I completely understand that the FR had motive power needs to fulfil on a limited budget; and the loss of Merddin's original material is to some extent compensated for by the fact that Livingstone Thompson survives basically intact. But nevertheless, an important piece of our railway heritage was effectively destroyed. That's not what railway preservation aims to do! Now, I know miniature railways are not trying to recreate the past, but they should be railways with a human face. Enthusiasts started running their own railways, of all sizes, because they rejected Beeching's cold, impersonal BR, obsessed with modernity and efficiency at all costs. Now I think it's fair to say that most MRs that run steam are motivated to at least some extent by sentiment and enthusiasm, otherwise they would most likely have switched to diesel for economy. They can be idealised to some extent, embodying not the way the railways are but the way we would like them to be - indeed, it's good for them to be idealised because the public like this too. That being the case, I think aethestics are a valid consideration. Taking Little Giant as an example again, I think it's only partly on grounds of authenticity that people would object to her being drastically modified. It's also because she's a thing of beauty, and as enthusiasts we appreciate that. Of course, aesthetics are a matter of opinion and Dougal is not universally recognised as a particularly beautful engine. Indeed, some have already said you prefer her with a tender, but personally, I think it makes her look a bit odd. I can't stress enough that I completely understand that practicalities must be considered. I just feel that we should never let them be the only considerations, or else steam railways, of all sizes, would become less interesting, less beautiful, and less human places - exactly what the pioneers of preservation wanted to avoid. All just my personal opinions, of course... |
![]() |
|
| banksy | 22 Apr 2009, 06:06 PM Post #34 |
banksy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't have a problem with the modification being made to Dougal at the end of the day there were 3 examples made of that type of locomotive Dougal, Which has been modified before by making it a through cab and now with tender and soon to be larger boiler. Zeberdee, Which was converted to 0-6-4 and has had large weights added to the front to make it more balanced and the 3rd which i can never remember what its called or where it is, but that is still in fully original condition. So at the end of the day there is one of this type still fully intact and serviceable as built, so it make sence to modifie Dougle to better suit the line where it is now running than to let it sit at the back of a shed never being used, going from owner to owner line to line never finding a proper home. it could even get worse and end up going to the big scrap bin in the sky. I know which i would rather see happen to it. (Good luck with all the mods at Evesham and i hope to come back and see it running there again soon) |
![]() |
|
| glastonrail | 22 Apr 2009, 07:23 PM Post #35 |
|
Dommo
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ivor at Shibden is the third of the type, isn't it?? Or am I completely off-track?? ![]() Talking of Little Giant, Murray, she has been modified, albeit subtly. She is what is known as a 'swinger' - piped but not fitted, for the use of air brakes. I don't think she has a compressor of any form fitted (Craig/Dave??), but there are reservoirs and a brake valve in the tender. Getting back to subject, Dougal's tender suits her - I like it. Well done to the team at Evesham. Cheers, Dom Greenop DMR |
| "There's no such thing as sanity, and that's the sanest fact" M. Knopfler, 1985 | |
![]() |
|
| AJcoulls | 22 Apr 2009, 08:23 PM Post #36 |
![]()
Director
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Third of the type is "Powys" at Rhiw Valley Light Railway |
|
I know where I can get an engine...any time I want | |
![]() |
|
| banksy | 22 Apr 2009, 08:26 PM Post #37 |
banksy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thats the one |
![]() |
|
| RichardP | 22 Apr 2009, 09:05 PM Post #38 |
Cleaner
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nice cosy cab ![]() more pictures on my fotopic site |
![]() |
|
| craiggluyas | 22 Apr 2009, 09:12 PM Post #39 |
|
Director
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now thats as original! Ironically more room as you sit sideways in effect! Don't also forget that they originally had Hackworth valve gear, as Powys still does. This included Muffin. Dom, totally off track. Ivor is very much a Brian Taylor machine! I think LG is only piped. Will check on Sat! Edited by craiggluyas, 22 Apr 2009, 09:16 PM.
|
|
Craig Gluyas Talking to one's self is a sign of madness. I talk to my imaginary friend. | |
![]() |
|
| Murray Tremellen | 22 Apr 2009, 09:19 PM Post #40 |
|
Director
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
IMHO this is a slightly different kettle of fish...it dosn't have a major impact on her appearence, and it could be removed without too much difficulty. With Dougal we're looking at more permanant alterations. |
![]() |
|
| Andrew | 22 Apr 2009, 09:24 PM Post #41 |
|
CME, Stackton Tressel Light Railway.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now, looking at the image of "Powys", is it wider across the cab or is 'Dougal' wider across the tanks? Also, whilst we are all passing comments. If there's one thing about Dougal that I would change it's the chimney. The lower part in particular looks awful, it looks like what it is, prefabricated. But with a larger diameter boiler it's another thing that will require alteration. I can't wait to see what the re-boilered loco will look like. |
| Andrew. | |
![]() |
|
| RichardP | 22 Apr 2009, 10:43 PM Post #42 |
Cleaner
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It looks as if Dougal's tanks are wider or have been moved outwards![]() Dougal ![]() Powys Perhaps someone could confirm this? Richard |
![]() |
|
| Andrew | 22 Apr 2009, 10:57 PM Post #43 |
|
CME, Stackton Tressel Light Railway.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I reckon that those are the same size tanks on both engines just set farther apart on Dougal. That's an interesting image for comparison. There are some very distinct differences between the locos. |
| Andrew. | |
![]() |
|
| Jordan Leeds | 24 Apr 2009, 09:10 PM Post #44 |
Director
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
is it possible the smokebox door is smaller on dougal thus throwing a illusion? |
|
JORDAN ASHLEY LEEDS Trains go into tunnels and come out but locos can go in sheds and never come out | |
![]() |
|
| Andrew | 24 Apr 2009, 09:18 PM Post #45 |
|
CME, Stackton Tressel Light Railway.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think that the tanks are set further apart on Dougal, if you look at both images the tanks on Dougal hang right out over the cylinders. The cylinder are definite, they can't be moved and must be the same width on both engines. I also reckon that the tanks are the same on both engines, so I would suggest that they are just mounted further apart to match up with the cab. Incidentally, does anyone have a time frame for the re-boilering? |
| Andrew. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · 15" + · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)









9:17 AM Jul 11