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

[Calthrop]

A railway-enthusiast friend of mine has an unusual, and rather highly individual, "angle" on a preservation-related issue. The question of how much -- if any -- of a preserved item (locomotive, or whatever) is, physically, what was originally part of said item when it entered service; is important to him. It's more "gut feeling" for him, than serious reasoned opinion; but he cannot help harbouring the sentiment that the greater a quantity of original material remains as part of that which is preserved, the better and more worthwhile is the preserving of it -- and the converse, correspondingly.

He readily admits that in feeling this way, he is in a very small and rather strange minority; and that it's not a concern for the overwhelming majority of folk who are "into" preservation -- who, I reckon it fair to say, subscribe to the opposing "William the Conqueror's penknife" position: just as with living creatures, preserved "transport gear" items in the widest sense, keep their essential identity, no matter how much their physical makeup may change over time (the Conqueror's knife still deserving its place in the museum despite its having had two new handles and three new blades since 1066). Nonetheless, people are allowed to feel the way they do; and my friend does find himself wondering, for instance, whether the owner(s) of a preserved locomotive know the origin and identity of every component part of their loco -- which, if any, are still there, the very parts as were when the loco first emerged from the works where it was built?

My friend is a bus, as well as railway, enthusiast; he ascribes his sentiments as above, in part to his ruminating in childhood and adolescence on London Transport's procedures in those times, with overhauling of their buses -- he experienced some discontent at the fact that a bus would come out of the works, fitted with body, seats, etc. different from those that the vehicle bearing the same fleet number and licence plate, had had pre-overhaul: this raised for him unwelcome problems and conundrums concerning vehicles' true identity. Realising that things were thus could, one feels, have inclined him strongly to the "W the C's penknife" attitude; but it so happened that his thoughts on the issue went in a diametrically opposite direction.

My sentiments are: I can see, cerebrally, where my friend is coming from in his view of this matter; but it's a thing which, personally, doesn't bother me in the slightest -- I am totally, and happily, in the "W the C's penknife" camp. I raised this matter tangentially in a past RailUKForums thread: what responses there were, reflected the majority view -- i.e., if it were of vital importance to many people, that an item should contain material from when it was first made; then not a lot of stuff in the transport field, would be saved at all. I find myself wondering just how rare and "fringe" my friend's "take" on this issue actually is -- whether a significant number of other transport enthusiasts may feel twinges of regret / distaste, as regards the circumstance that most or all of the item is not the original -- and the older it is, the more likely this is to apply (while, presumably, recognising that "it keeps its identity while changing physically", is the only approach to this question, which "works"). Would be interested in people's thoughts on the subject.

 

[Shenandoah]

I am not the friend mentioned by Calthrop, however I do often wonder, when reading threads about restoration of locos, buses and cars of how much is restoration of originals or are some of these things virtually replicas?

 

[43096]

I doubt there is a single vehicle on the railway of any age that is "original" in terms of original engine, traction motors etc. as they get swapped during overhaul. Going further how do you define "original" - do you include wheelsets, in which case nothing is in original condition.

If I take the example of 41001, it doesn't have its original engine (long since gone) - it actually has the final production Valenta, and even that is different to how it was built as it has the later NA256 turbocharger. Bogies and cooler group are probably original, but the control cubicle has as much in common with a Class 57 as it does with its original design. Does it make it any less "complete" - not for me. And if it hadn't been done this way it would not be running now.

 

[yorksrob]

There's obviously a balance to be struck between complete authenticity and having materials that aren't expired etc. Ideally, you want as much that was in service as possible, however things will need replacing, particularly if the vehicle has been out in the cold for a while.

Anyway, for a passenger vehicle that has been in service for forty years or more, it's likely that it will have gone through many refurbishments and updates while in service anyway.

 

[Dai Corner]

I'd say a loco was 'original' if it had components of the same type as were fitted new, even if they are serviced/refurbished having spent time in other locos. With all the improvements and modifications made over the years I doubt if there any at all that fit that definition. A preserved loco will be a representation of how it was at a particular time in its life, at best.

 

[xotGD]

Hurrah! Classical philosophy on Rail Forums!

"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Cretehad thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, in so much that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."

I take the view that if there has been continuity of existence then you have the same ship/locomotive/bus or whatever. After all, the same applies to my body, and I still consider myself to be the same person born several decades ago.

 

[yorksrob]

Hurrah! Classical philosophy on Rail Forums!

"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Cretehad thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, in so much that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."

I take the view that if there has been continuity of existence then you have the same ship/locomotive/bus or whatever. After all, the same applies to my body, and I still consider myself to be the same person born several decades ago.

Nice to see the classical foundation of Trigger's broom !

 

[EbbwJunction1]

In 1972, the 6000 Locomotive Association published a book by G C Wood called "6000 King George V A Chronology".

This was the story of the great locomotive from it's building to it's restoration, including accounts of the first special trains - "The Return to Steam" - in October 1971. Mr Wood had access to the loco's record cards, and included a description of the GWR's standardisation policy which saw parts switched from one loco to another when being overhauled.

There's also a list of the major parts of the motion (wheels, coupling rods etc.) which, from examination of the stamps on each part, revealed that hardly any (in fact, just four) of the twenty six parts examined were original to KGV at that time. The other twenty two parts came from a variety of other locos - six other Kings, six Castles and two Stars, with 6020 King Henry IV having "donated" six separate parts.

In addition, it was known then that three different bogies were fitted at different times, and it also had several different tenders. In fact, there was some doubt as to the actual identity of the tender that then accompanied to loco.

It goes to show, therefore, that the loco as preserved wasn't the original, and I'm sure that this situation has changed a lot since 1972. I agree with xotGD above ... "Trigger's Broom" rules!!

 

[a_c_skinner]

I knew this paradox as "George Washington's Axe", but there are lots of variations.

 

[Calthrop]

Thanks, everyone. As I'd been expecting -- the majority of posters take the more usual view, which I subscribe to: as with living creatures, machines' physical make-up changes over time, but the individual identity remains the same; with a feeling that taking the other tack, carries some risk of driving yourself crazy ! The sentiment expressed, though, in one or two posts, of a little uneasiness experienced in reflecting "it's not materially the same as when first built".

Hurrah! Classical philosophy on Rail Forums!

"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Cretehad thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, in so much that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."

My friend will no doubt be heartened to find that a certain section of the Athenian philosophers, were on his side !

I knew this paradox as "George Washington's Axe", but there are lots of variations.

I got "William the Conqueror's penknife" from one of the "classics" about narrow-gauge preservation in North Wales -- forget which book -- not, I think, Rolt's Railway Adventure. With my having been lifelong "one of those snobs who have never owned a telly"; I've never seen Only Fools and Horses, so had to Google "Trigger's Broom" .

 

[AndyY1951]

My view is that the important thing to preserve is the design, so parts can be replaced as necessary, but they should all be manufactured 'to the drawing'.
I was heavily involved in ex-working canal boat restoration during the 80's and 90's, and it was very important to me to rebuild 'to the drawing'. I became increasingly annoyed that so many people would, for example, replace wooden components with steel look-alike fabrications, or riveted parts with welded parts, and still pretend it was restoration, which in my book it was not.
Andy

 

[a_c_skinner]

This is always the issue, curation of the original versus display for interpretation, which in the case of machinery of any sort means running it.

IIRC Lode Star is the last locomotive with original GWR Swindon paint, so NRM has decided that overhaul is not the right way to go. I suppose some of each is the thing to do, some artefacts simply conserved, some displayed working and so needing overhaul.

Personally I didn't favour the re-streamlining of Duchess of Hamilton (not that they asked me!) but now we've created a replica it seems to me that it would be good to steam it.

 

[AndyY1951]

Duchess of Hamilton is very much a 'George Washington's Axe', having been restored to steam in preservation and reduced in height to suit the modern loading gauge. So I would be very much in favour of seeing it restored to steam again, with the streamlining. But the NRM don't seem willing for some reason, even if the money could be raised.
Andy

 

[mushroomchow]

I can understand the sentiment from the position of a heritage railway, but if we strived to retain authenticity on the mainline, there'd have been no Duke Of Gloucester or Tornado.

What's most important for me looking forward is that necessary advances are made to keep steam on the mainline a viable prospect. At some point that may require greater focus on modern efficiencies and development of the steam engine itself - whether that be finding a way to use renewable fuel, increasing boiler efficiency or even developing a whole new locomotive. There will come a time in the next couple of decades when coal becomes a niche product and prohibitively expensive to source, at the rate Europe is going.

It's a shame the Wardale 5AT never got off the ground.

 

[Robin Edwards]

so another related question : As preservation societies find the means to replace major components including the locomotive frames (example P Class 31027) with new, should the "preserved" outcome justify a new identity or does it even matter? We are seeing new build locomotives taking on new identities even though they have parts that are not new. If the identity of the assembled parts, new or old is not important, why do most preserved locomotives stick with their identity at withdrawal rather than have their identities more transient for their class?

 

[pdeaves]

so another related question : As preservation societies find the means to replace major components including the locomotive frames (example P Class 31027) with new, should the "preserved" outcome justify a new identity or does it even matter? We are seeing new build locomotives taking on new identities even though they have parts that are not new. If the identity of the assembled parts, new or old is not important, why do most preserved locomotives stick with their identity at withdrawal rather than have their identities more transient for their class?

Could we end up with a situation where loco 12345 has a new boiler, cab and frames, then the 'scrap man' sells the old bits to someone else to restore as loco 12345? Both could be considered authentic. Which is the real one?

 

[Flying Phil]

Could we end up with a situation where loco 12345 has a new boiler, cab and frames, then the 'scrap man' sells the old bits to someone else to restore as loco 12345? Both could be considered authentic. Which is the real one?

I believe that situation has already happened in "Classic Car" circles - needless to say the only winners are the lawyers.......as usual.
I think that whoever has raised the money to own the locomotive and get the work done, has the right to call it what they like - there is a precedent for most things anyway!

 

[a_c_skinner]

IIRC aircraft preservation has defined very closely which bit of the fuselage makes "it" authentic, even defining how much is needed. I had understood it is the frames for a locomotive.

 

[bonzawe]

IIRC aircraft preservation has defined very closely which bit of the fuselage makes "it" authentic, even defining how much is needed. I had understood it is the frames for a locomotive.

I am sure I remember reading that after the Castlecary accident in 1937(Scottish collusion in snow) Grand Parade (a3 2744) was largely "repaired" at Doncaster before the damaged wreck had arrived. Spare frames, spare boiler etc. Effectively a replacement locomotive..

edit found picture on goolgle and confirmation
http://www.railuk.info/steam/getsteam.php?row_id=14863

"Was involved in an accident on evening of 10 December 1937, at Castlecary, Scotland was badly damaged and although 'rebuilt' at Doncaster was actually a new build from spare parts"

 

[AndyY1951]

I have always understood that it is the frames of a locomotive which effectively carry the number, and hence its identity. However this does break down in the case of the example above built up from spare parts, which should really have been given the next number for the class. Similarly this would require a locomotive given a completely new set of frames in preservation to be treated as a new example of that class, but I guess that isn't going to happen. In the field of maritime preservation, I believe the 'Medway Queen' has a completely new hull. Is that preservation or is it really a new build? There's no simple answer when parts aren't replaced piecemeal as they wear out.
Andy

 

[HLE]

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.

 

[xotGD]

Could we end up with a situation where loco 12345 has a new boiler, cab and frames, then the 'scrap man' sells the old bits to someone else to restore as loco 12345? Both could be considered authentic. Which is the real one?

Philosophy has also covered that one as an extension of the Ship of Theseus:

"Centuries later, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced a further puzzle, wondering what would happen if the original planks were gathered up after they were replaced, and used to build a second ship. Hobbes asked which ship, if either, would be the original Ship of Theseus."

 

[Pinza-C55]

I suppose the flip side of this argument is when you have iconic engines like Mallard sitting in the NRM - they are all original but they sit there dull and lifeless like polished vases and nobody can ever be hauled by them. What is the point if they are just stuffed exhibits ?

 

[AndyW33]

I have always understood that it is the frames of a locomotive which effectively carry the number, and hence its identity. However this does break down in the case of the example above built up from spare parts, which should really have been given the next number for the class. Similarly this would require a locomotive given a completely new set of frames in preservation to be treated as a new example of that class, but I guess that isn't going to happen. In the field of maritime preservation, I believe the 'Medway Queen' has a completely new hull. Is that preservation or is it really a new build? There's no simple answer when parts aren't replaced piecemeal as they wear out.
Andy

Why would you need to treat a locomotive given a new set of frames in preservation as a new class member, when the company that built or ordered the locomotive originally had the opposite policy? Just to give one example, Crewe Works from LNWR though to BR days kept spare frames in stock for classes known to be prone to breakage or severe wear. As locos came in for overhaul, if the frames were in poor condition, a new set was used and the overhauled components assembled onto these. At the end of the process, a loco emerged with the same number as the one that went into works. Only if the overhaul also included modifications that effectively transferred the loco to another class altogether it might be renumbered, but even that didn't always happen - Patriots were rebuilt with taper boilers, even changed power class, but remained in the same number series as the ones that were never rebuilt. If it was normal practice when the loco was in service, why is it so bad in preservation?

 

[AndyY1951]

I'm not advocating that a loco should be renumbered, as I said, it isn't going to happen. I was just pointing out that it a logical conclusion of the philosophy that the frames carry the identity.

 

[bangor-toad]

In one of the railway museums I've visited, I think it's the Midland Railway, there's what if effectively a decayed huik of a carriage on display. It has the museum notes next to it explaining it's significance and another block of text saying that they had decided not to rebuild it to pristine condition as it would contain almost none of the original build.

They had decided to just preserve and maintain what was left instead.

I think that there is certainly scope for both approaches and I was interested to see what was essentially a hulk.
Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm not advocating that a loco should be renumbered, as I said, it isn't going to happen. I was just pointing out that it a logical conclusion of the philosophy that the frames carry the identity.

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.

 

[Darkinsider]

deleted

 

[Robin Edwards]

I also read recently on Bulleid rebuilds where 34005 Barnstaple went into Eastleigh works in original design and came out as a "rebuild" consisting of wheels, motion and buffer beam only from it's earlier self. It kept the same number but received new frames and what would have been the norm, exchanged boiler and tender as well as the new components for the redesigned design. The point here is whether the Rebuilt 34005 could or should have gained a new identity? As earlier post from Peter says, Albert Hall reverted to Rood-Ashton Hall when the identity of the frames were confirmed even though the locomotive withdrawn as 4965 Rood-Ashton Hall had long been scrapped. I guess it matters little yet as enthusiasts we like to pigeon-hole and identify what we're seeing.

 

[EbbwJunction1]

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.