Currently a display at Swindon, here at Cheltenham in 1949:

http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?j ... y_1949.jpg

And here's her/his sister/brother quite quite recently-

http://www.heritagerailway.co.uk/current/ft1-1.jpg

More here-

http://www.heritagerailway.co.uk/article1.htm

Joshua

Pretty amazing work on King George II. Last I had checked some years ago, they were still working on getting a new pair of drivers cast to replace those cut when it derailed at Barry. Engines that are missing major parts do not seem to phase groups over there, simply astounding.

It's a real slap in the face for we Americans as an awakening. When you visit Britain and not only see huge numbers of well stocked railway museums, but vast numbers of locomotives being eagerly rebuilt from what was butchered scrap. Over here, we are stymied by insurance litigation, liability, raising seed money, political vendettas, and a general lack of will to undertake restoration. The question for me is , why? Is it a lack of interest from the public? Is it the lack of a historic reservation trust? Is it a viscious need for everyone to "make a profit or die"? Of course, there are notable exceptions, like the CNJ 113 crew, who are dedicated to getting that little switcher up, hot, and running, come Hell or high water (which they may have had their share of already).

Kudos to our colleagues in G.B. How about coming over here and jump starting our steam restoration movement?

I think it's all these combined along with the NIMBY factor. We saw the NIMBY thing when the restoration of passenger service to Atlantic City was first proposed. It was mostly histeria type reactions such as "All the houses along the line will be rumbled and shaken apart",this is not to mention most all the structures saw PRR K-4's,E-6's and RGD G's making 80 mph on the same track before most of the cry babies were born. The there was the "There will be thousands of deaths from this horrible train and our children will live in fear and have psychlogical problems", none of which has happened. Insurance is probably one of the largest factors, with outrageous premimums being demanded for excursion operations. I have been across the pond and have ridden behind quite a few of our British bretheren's engines and the do indeed deserve kudos for thier efforts.

Not having been abroad I can only offer a few questions. First,
mechanicallly, the brit engies are smaller lighter and
cheaper to repair. The do not appear to be as robus
however. But they also require the loco to be
majored every 7 years for mainline work or 10
years working on a perserved railway. You can
find locos that have been restored several times.
The preservation movement in the UK is better
organized and certainly better funded than here.
They get government money through the
Heritage Lottery fund often times. They
get political support as they generate cash
flow for the local economy. Population
density is much higher than most places
in the US, helps in ticket sales and in
finding willing vollies to run the show.

I disagree. There's no absence of the "NIMBY" element in Britain targeting railway preservation. The ongoing smoke complaints at the Great Central Railway, even as additional new housing is approved for a site adjacent to the engine shed, is not unlike the current situation in Durango. The British rail-to-trail brigade has successfully blocked or hampered the efforts of several preserved railways to extend along existing trackbeds, many of which were actually sold by the Government to "Sustrans" (in essence, a company that exists to build bicycle trails with Government grants) a few years ago. These are only several examples, not to mention a huge central planning bureaucracy that makes approval of a minor building extension, to say nothing of the Severn Valley Railway's 50-coach stock shed, an extemely lengthy and expensive process (but at the same time manages, by and large, to keep the countryside rural and housing developments congregated in town areas, by way of highly restictive land-use policys which the American property-rights mindset would find quite astonishing).

One consistent element an American might notice in British railway preservation is what might simply be termed "seriousness" - in common with the larger heritage movement. I can perhaps give examples easier than I can define this. For instance, there may be deeply-felt differences of opinion among British enthusiasts on whether a given steam locomotive should appear in the livery of its pre-1948 private owner, or in various post-nationalization guises. But you certainly will not see an LMS Black Five done up as "Hillbilly Valley #1" and hauling passengers on converted flat wagons, or accompanied by folksy "atmosphere" over a P.A. system. Unlike more than a few American "tourist railroads" (note the difference from the British term, "preserved railway"), the typical British steam railway runs from authentically-restored Station "A" to Station "B" (sometimes original, sometimes brought in stone-by-stone, or built entirely new to a correct design), hauls carriages displaying liveries ranging from quite plausible to exquisitely accurate, and has well-informed goals of a highly authentic experience rather than simply a "train ride."

This degree of "seriousness" is apparent, as well, in the restoration process. If you need a new driving wheel, well, you simply figure out how you will achieve it. But while the Great Western Society's newly-cast "King" rear drivers are certaily impressive, we should not lose sight of the fact that the same thing was done by Dave Conrad and crew with ex-Aberdeen & Rockfish #40 at the Valley Railroad 20 years ago .....

One thing you are not likely to see in England any time soon is a big mainline locomotive (e.g., "King Edward I" or "Sir Nigel Gresley") done up in drag as the "Stiff Upper Lip Subway Bombing Anniversary Express," or with garish Union Jack livery, as "British Empire Train No. 1" or whatever, let alone very many people in the steam railway community impressed with such aesthetic concepts. Such ideas would generally be considered to have very little to do with the concept of "railway preservation."

G.J. Churchward

George,

You are so right! They take Historic Preservation very seriously in the British Isles. Starting with the fact that they still publish a Railway Heritage magazine, as we all know ours did not make it over here.

Another example of doing something that we here in the US have not even tried is the Autocar project at the Didcit Railway Centre where the Great Western Railway Society has been replicationg a whole steam locomotive for what amounts to a steam rather than electric powered Interurban car from 1908. They have a great web site.

Terd Miles

I agree on much of what you have to say. But it isnt
all historically correct all the time. They are kit bashing
a class that no longer exists from another loco. Not
all trains and services are correct, some are just
little industrial tank engines hauling a car or two.
Their enviro red tape is not so different than here
in that on one hand lottery is giving them 30k quid
and on the other another branch of government is
dragging their feet. Politics is the same on both
side of the pond.
Remember too steam and the railway era lasted
until 1967 where here it was gone by the
early 50's, at least in most places in the northeast.
They may well be at their high water mark or
close to it.
There need be no argument about all this. We can
all just look and see if any ideas of theirs might
work here.

Certainly the Heritage Trust is an important factor. It supports the rebuild of both abandon railways and abandoned locomtives. Some excellent point above regarding the serious nature of making it a national pride thing. Paint schemes are authentic and often "revolved" to appreciated different eras of the rail system. The Midlands Railway Centre has a huge shop with heavy equipment to rebuild locomotives, while on the sidelines are locomotive boilers, spare parts, and volunteers, volunteers, volunteers. Museums are not afrais to employ the right shop personnel, either. Bluebell Railway keeps most of it's locomotives under a shed roof, whether serviceable or awaiting a crack at service. When I visited in 2003, a stripped down 4-4-2 stood with a donation barrel and a request for donations. Brits in general, love their trains and cultivate that love amongst young children.
As somebody mentioned above, instead of whining about how impossible it would be to get a missing art made, British railfans, owners, and railway collaborate to make the part appear. While at one time, I swore I could never love European steam, once you are amongst English railfans who share the thrill of bringing them back to life, you cannot help but become equally enthused and infected with that joy.

Interesting that the cylinders are offset rearward on many British locomotives.

An American design would have centered the cylinders above the pilot truck.

Since the shorter main rod on this design is lighter than the longer rod of equal strength that a "conventional" American style engine arrangement would use, George V could run more smoothly at higher speed, with smaller dynamic augment.

Imagine all the stack talk with a smooth cab ride....

Bruce Manwiller

Bruce notes above:

"Since the shorter main rod on this design is lighter than the longer rod of equal strength that a "conventional" American style engine arrangement would use, George V could run more smoothly at higher speed, with smaller dynamic augment."

No doubt true, but the smooth running of the "King" class (and its progenitors, the "Stars" and the "Castles") are even more fundamentally attributable to their four-cylinder design. The inside cylinders are placed forward of the bogie, and are coupled to the leading drivers. As Bruce notes, the rearward placement of the outside cylinders allows a relatively short connecting rod to reach the middle drivers. This location also accommodates the valve gear, which is situated between the frames and operated via eccentrics from the leading axle. Portions of this are visible in the photo Bob posted.

Actually, the Great Western built a far greater number of engines with two conventionally-located outside cylinders, for duties other than express passenger service, including the "Saint," "Hall," Grange," and "Manor" 4-6-0 types, and numerous unnamed 2-8-0s, moguls, and tank engines. These required far less effort and expense to keep in proper order than the more complicated four-cylinder design.

G.J. Churchward

Not an argument, Onder.

But what isn't "historically correct" about accurately recreating extinct classes of locomotives from standard components taken from a derelict, umpteenth extant example of another, over-represented type? "Kitbashing" (a model railroad term for those unfamiliar) is not at all an innacurate description of this, but we're certainly not talking about the equivalent of making the hot-rod ex-Grand Trunk Western 2-8-0 in Arizona, or fixing up an LS&I 2-8-0 to make it look more "Western Maryland" (don't get me wrong though; that one sure looks nice to me...).

Currently, the Great Western Society is building a "Saint" 4-6-0 out of the frame and boiler of one of many surviving "Halls." As the "Saints" were the direct ancestors not only of the "Halls" but of all modern British outside-cylinder 4-6-0s (a highly characteristic type), there's little debate that the sacrifice is justified. This project that has required new larger drivers, new correct cylinder block, and numerous smaller new components to be made from scratch to the original design.

Nothing "historically incorrect" about this in my view; certainly no more so than restoring a steam locomotive - American or British - to, say, its 1930 appearance, even though it went through several boiler swaps, etc. since that time and is thus no longer the same object that existed then. Besides, the GWR itself built several locomotive classes out of recycled components- notably "Grange" and "Manor" 4-6-0s out of the remains of obsolete Moguls. As did the Reading when it built the T-1s, the D&RGW when it cut down engines to 3' gauge, etc., etc.

G.J. Churchward