Good friend and fellow railway preservationist Jim King shared this with me from a modeling group's email list that brought a smile to my face. Perhaps this winter, whilst giving BC&G 4 her 15-year inspection, we'll learn she's actually a Southern Railway Pacific! Jim

From BBC:

Steam railway enthusiasts spent 28 years restoring a historic locomotive -
and then found it was the wrong one.
For almost three decades the train buffs believed they were working on Great
Western Railway locomotive number 4983 Albert Hall.

But days before the massive restoration job was complete, staff at
Birmingham Railway Museum discovered the engine was actually number 4965
Rood Ashton Hall.

The Hall class were all built in Swindon between 1928 and 1943.

The museum bought the 4-6-0 mainline locomotive from a steam engine
scrapyard in Barry, South Wales, for £3,000 in 1970.

Fund raising and dedication helped restore the rusting hulk but as the
painstaking work neared completion, engineers spotted tell-tale signs which
showed the locomotive was an imposter.

Many internal components on the engine were stamped "4965" - the number of
Rood Ashton Hall.

An investigation revealed the Albert Hall locomotive was scrapped by British
Railways at Swindon Works in 1962 and its identity, including name and
number plates, switched to Rood Ashton Hall, which was in for repair.

The Editor of Steam Railway magazine, Robin Jones, said: "It a tribute to
the professionalism of the restoration team at the Birmingham Railway
Museum.

"They spotted the tell-tale signs which indicated that Albert Hall was not
as it should be.

"It is remarkable in view of the fact that most of them were aged 19 and
under, and would not have been alive when this 'error' occurred at Swindon
works."

Museum staff have now nicknamed the engine Rood Albert Hall.



Wrinnbo@aol.com

Jim-

The most remarkable part of this story to me was this:

"It is remarkable in view of the fact that most of them were aged 19 and under, and would not have been alive when this 'error' occurred at Swindon works."

So much for the idea that has been pushed around by a certain writer for Trains Magazine that because those of us under 30 never had the chance to experience steam in main-line/ everyday operation, that we can't "appreciate" it. Hmmm. Now how can we get a similar group of nineteen year olds that dedicated to steam preservation? Hey Jim, ask Hays if he's got any ideas ;-)

T.J.G.



Port Huron Museum
peremarquette@hotmail.com

Somebody's a bit late. "Rood Ashton Hall" has been back in service since 1998, originally rebuilt for a regular Birmingham - Stratford upon Avon service' the "Shakespeare Express."

Quoting from the March 1998 "Railway" magazine:

"While it was common for boilers to be interchanged, the exchange of other parts was less common, and generally, sets of motion and valve gear were kept together. The locomotive is, in fact, a complete mishmash, but Bob [Birmingham Railway Museum engineering manager Bob Meaney] is adamant that the frames - which are traditionally considered to be the means of identifying the loco - are not those of "Albert Hall," which was built in January 1931. They have none of the modifications for the equalising beams which were introduced for the second batch of "Halls," and so, he says, must come from the first 80 built, thereby excluding 4983.

"The cylinder covers, buffer beams, dragbox, spring-hangers and motion are all stamped 4965 (some of the motion is in fact, overstamped 4983 but has 4965 beneath), while the side rods and valve gear are stamped 5910 ("Park Hall").

Two sets of wheels are from 5914 "Ripon Hall," and other parts, common to many GWR [Great Western Railway] locomotives, have been found to come from 'Castles' 5006 "Tregenna Castle" and 5069 "Isambard Kingdom Brunel."

During its life, the boiler now on the engine has been on two "Saints," a "28XX" and four other "Halls" and was once on no. 5995 "Garth Hall," which was converted to oil firing in 1946. Ironically, this is exactly what is planned for "Albert Hall."

. . . Bob takes the light-hearted view that perhaps it should be named "Patchwork Hall." Bob's own theory, however, is that the Western Region made on good loco out of the two.

In April 1961, "Albert Hall" underwent a heavy general overhaul lasting 78 days. It spent three months in traffic before returning to works for what is termed on the record as a 'light casual' repair, but spent a further 74 days in the works. In the meantime "Rood Ashton Hall" was allegedly condemned and cut up, but Bob suspects that because it was suffering from a major mechanical defect it was stripped. As the boiler on "Albert Hall" was still relatively fresh from overhaul, it was placed on no. 4965's frames but with "Albert Hall's" identity, the real "Albert Hall" then being condemned in its stead, carrying the identity of no. 4965.

Bob has opted for "Rood Ashton Hall" and the number 4965. "It's a nicer name than "Albert Hall," he says."

[Well, as long as you have a high-minded reason . . . ;-)]

(Kind of like finding parts from numerous different Class As when 1218 was returned to service - I believe over a dozen were represented, including an almost-complete front engine from another locomotive.)

It occasionally still runs as "Albert Hall," and ran as recently as October (as "Rood Ashton Hall" up the Lickey Incline - the British Saluda - with a rear pusher). And I may be wrong, but I don't think the oil conversion ever took place.

JAC

Now how can we get a similar group of nineteen year olds that dedicated to steam preservation?"

Part of the answer is to let them get as dirty as they want on interesting projects, rather than try to relegate them to the jobs the older volunteers don't want. Exciting, important feeling projects will stoke their enthusiasm, while those boring flunky (albeit necessary) drudge jobs will quickly drive them away.
Another part is to pair them up with an older volunteer who actually likes working with young people and is willing to address them as an equal while teaching them the ropes.
Perhaps larger organizations could even consider sponsoring an Explorer's post

If the boiler originally came off a "SAINT", wouldn't it be fairly old? I believe most of that class were constructed around 1910 or 12.

By-the-by, another "HALL" has temporarily been renamed. No. 5972 "OLTON HALL" is the "HOGWARTS CASTLE" in the Harry Potter movie.

> Somebody's a bit late. "Rood Ashton
> Hall" has been back in service since
> 1998, originally rebuilt for a regular
> Birmingham - Stratford upon Avon service'
> the "Shakespeare Express."

> Quoting from the March 1998
> "Railway" magazine:

> "While it was common for boilers to be
> interchanged, the exchange of other parts
> was less common, and generally, sets of
> motion and valve gear were kept together.
> The locomotive is, in fact, a complete
> mishmash, but Bob [Birmingham Railway Museum
> engineering manager Bob Meaney] is adamant
> that the frames - which are traditionally
> considered to be the means of identifying
> the loco - are not those of "Albert
> Hall," which was built in January 1931.
> They have none of the modifications for the
> equalising beams which were introduced for
> the second batch of "Halls," and
> so, he says, must come from the first 80
> built, thereby excluding 4983.

> "The cylinder covers, buffer beams,
> dragbox, spring-hangers and motion are all
> stamped 4965 (some of the motion is in fact,
> overstamped 4983 but has 4965 beneath),
> while the side rods and valve gear are
> stamped 5910 ("Park Hall").

> Two sets of wheels are from 5914 "Ripon
> Hall," and other parts, common to many
> GWR [Great Western Railway] locomotives,
> have been found to come from 'Castles' 5006
> "Tregenna Castle" and 5069
> "Isambard Kingdom Brunel."

> During its life, the boiler now on the
> engine has been on two "Saints," a
> "28XX" and four other
> "Halls" and was once on no. 5995
> "Garth Hall," which was converted
> to oil firing in 1946. Ironically, this is
> exactly what is planned for "Albert
> Hall."

> . . . Bob takes the light-hearted view that
> perhaps it should be named "Patchwork
> Hall." Bob's own theory, however, is
> that the Western Region made on good loco
> out of the two.

> In April 1961, "Albert Hall"
> underwent a heavy general overhaul lasting
> 78 days. It spent three months in traffic
> before returning to works for what is termed
> on the record as a 'light casual' repair,
> but spent a further 74 days in the works. In
> the meantime "Rood Ashton Hall"
> was allegedly condemned and cut up, but Bob
> suspects that because it was suffering from
> a major mechanical defect it was stripped.
> As the boiler on "Albert Hall" was
> still relatively fresh from overhaul, it was
> placed on no. 4965's frames but with
> "Albert Hall's" identity, the real
> "Albert Hall" then being condemned
> in its stead, carrying the identity of no.
> 4965.

> Bob has opted for "Rood Ashton
> Hall" and the number 4965. "It's a
> nicer name than "Albert Hall," he
> says."

> [Well, as long as you have a high-minded
> reason . . . ;-)]

> (Kind of like finding parts from numerous
> different Class As when 1218 was returned to
> service - I believe over a dozen were
> represented, including an almost-complete
> front engine from another locomotive.)

> It occasionally still runs as "Albert
> Hall," and ran as recently as October
> (as "Rood Ashton Hall" up the
> Lickey Incline - the British Saluda - with a
> rear pusher). And I may be wrong, but I
> don't think the oil conversion ever took
> place.

> JAC


kenneth.willis@marad.dot.gov

> Good friend and fellow railway
> preservationist Jim King shared this with me
> from a modeling group's email list that
> brought a smile to my face. Perhaps this
> winter, whilst giving BC&G 4 her 15-year
> inspection, we'll learn she's actually a
> Southern Railway Pacific! Jim

I think you'll find from the time she was in Pennsylvania what you think is BC&G 4 is really a Reading I-8-s-d with the cab moved back. Remember where the headlight was located when you folks got it. ;-)


The Electric City Trolley Museum Association

C&O 2716 has parts from several other locomotives. From what I remember, I don't even think a single component of the rods or valve gear is actually marked "2716" There are a couple of rods off of 2789, and other locomotives of the class.

wilkidm@wku.edu

> If the boiler originally came off a
> "SAINT", wouldn't it be fairly
> old? I believe most of that class were
> constructed around 1910 or 12.

It probably wasn't originally a "Saint" boiler - that same boiler fit the freight 2-8-0s, if I remember correctly, and probably some other classes as well.

The GWR especially treated boilers like an air pump or tender. Yank one off, throw another already-overhauled one on. And put that one in the overhaul line to be used on some other engine when its turn came.

> By-the-by, another "HALL" has
> temporarily been renamed. No. 5972
> "OLTON HALL" is the "HOGWARTS
> CASTLE" in the Harry Potter movie.

They did that to 34027 "Taw Valley" a while back to promote one of the book debuts, as well. Maybe one day they'll do a real LNER engine (wouldn't "Blue Peter" look good like that? and kinda appropriate ;-) ) and run it up the ECML.

Now, if I can just find that Platform 9 3/4 at King's Cross . . .

JAC

> Part of the answer is to let them get as
> dirty as they want on interesting projects,
> rather than try to relegate them to the jobs
> the older volunteers don't want.

Gee, that's not the kind of primadonnas I want around-- Make sure the grunt work is rewarding or they'll leave. Wouldn't it be better to show them the value of their efforts to the overall workings and goals of the organization?
Exciting,
> important feeling projects will stoke their
> enthusiasm, while those boring flunky
> (albeit necessary) drudge jobs will quickly
> drive them away.

We're trying to represent history at our facilities. Throughout rail history apprentices paid their dues with "boring flunky" jobs. Many jobs are precursors to the more glamorous stuff. I prefer to test someone's resolve before including them on my team. Again, guys who walk away from the boring work make it difficult to plan and accomplish long-term restoration and preservation. Am I proposing a 100% steady diet of drudge work? Of course not, but more than 50%.

> Another part is to pair them up with an
> older volunteer who actually likes working
> with young people and is willing to address
> them as an equal while teaching them the
> ropes.

Before I get hammered for my previous comments, note that I regularly host 5 to 8 7th and 8th graders at restoration "parties." Because of our limited skills we are relegated to the grunt work. My guys (having been taught the value of ALL hard work) are usually rewarded with a cab ride on the demonstration railway or entrance into generally "off limits" artifacts coupled with large doses of compliments and encouragement by the older guys.

Put the focus on the goal and the teamwork and the mundaneness of the actual job fades into oblivion.

wyld@oc-net.com

Just because someone refuses to be treated like a "mule" doesn't necessarily make them a "primadonna", most people ARE smart enough to realise when they are really wanted or just being taken advantage of.... The sad reality is you're competing with a LOT of other activities that supply much more immediate rewards (positive reinforcement) than rail preservation can possibly provide. No I'm not saying that young folks should get the cherry jobs at the expense of your longterm volunteers, but one simply cannot treat ANY volunteers the same way a track gang boss traditionally treated his paid employees and expect them to stay, The average volunteer's reason for being there is MUCH different than the wage slave's (and the labor pool is smaller too). They require a subler approach.

IMHO: Making the volunteer feel WANTED and their contributions appreciated is the mark of a good team leader. Beyond that there are lots of ways to make "grunt work" less of a drudgery, and inspire team effort with young people. Something as simple as a pizza party to mark a milestone, or a certificate for mastery of a new skill is better than nothing. Regular seminars for your young/new people to teach them various needed skills is a good idea too.

I'm reminded of a live steam model rail club that "sentenced" all newbies to 4 or 5 years on the ballast gang (they called it "paying your dues" too) and wondered why most of the new people quit within a year or so. That club eventually nearly died of "old age" before the policy was modified.

I belong to a couple clubs where there is often a dearth of people willing to volunteer. And I've listened to people's reasons for not helping more. Much of it is traceable back to: 1. An overly critical "old head" who lacked tact and gave them a hard time over something relatively minor. 2. Feeling they were taken advantage of (especially during shows/open houses when their relief never showed up and they were stuck on some job for longer than they volunteered for, or they were treated like just a strong back without a brain) 3. Exclusionary "cliques" within the organization that make them feel unwanted.

I guess what I'm saying is rather than requiring them to prove their dedication before allowing them on the team, it mebbe makes more sense to make them part of the team and let them prove their worth. Yes, some will drift away, and some may be totally incompetent (in some areas), but you'll never find out if you push them away.

Dang, I broke my soapbox.

> C&O 2716 has parts from several other
> locomotives. From what I remember, I don't
> even think a single component of the rods or
> valve gear is actually marked
> "2716" There are a couple of rods
> off of 2789, and other locomotives of the
> class.

David: Our Chesapeake & Ohio 2-8-4 (#2789) also has parts from other C&O 2-8-4's and I've often wondered where some of 2789's parts went. David, you have at least partially answered my question (before I formally asked it again as usual!) One of these days I've got to make a formal list of just what engines the 2789 has parts from. Gee, and to think we could have made an exchange when 2716 was practically here in our "backyard" when at Ft. Wayne! Seriously though, it points out that it wasn't only the British that exchanged engine parts.

Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum)

midlandblb@cs.com

This didn't only happen with water heaters. Our MILW U25B, 5056 (original number 387), has a radiator fan gearbox marked for #389.

Todd Jones
IRM Diesel Dept

milw104c@charter.net

A string on another unrelated board got me to thinking.... Is there any such thing as a Railway Preservation merit badge in the BSA (Boy Scouts, not motorcycles..Girl Scouts, Explorer's & c. too for that matter...)?

If not, it just might be worth the preservation community's time to see what it would take to start and support one. The kind of young people who join scouts are mostly the kind of kids that are sorely needed.

Les, I have rods on our 103 / 403 stamped for at least 3 4-6-0s. This was a common practice and she probably didn't have all her own rods more than a decade after leaving Baldwin.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

(With apologies to Bede . . . )

> If the boiler originally came off a
> "SAINT", wouldn't it be fairly
> old? I believe most of that class were
> constructed around 1910 or 12.

Saints were developed in 1902 (100 "William Dean," later 2900, built with a 200psi saturated boiler) and 1903 (98 "Ernest Cunard," later 2998, and 171 "Albion," later 2971, built with 225psi saturated boilers). All engines eventually carried superheated boilers, and of course two cylinders (only the later "Castles" and "Kings" had four cylinders).

"William Dean" and "Albion" were converted to 4-4-2s as an experiment in 1904. In 1905 the experiment continued with six 4-6-0s and 13 4-4-2s constructed. The names for this batch (treated as one class) had no real theme, with names like "Lord Barrymore" (174/2974), "Robin Hood" (186/2986), and "Coeur de Lion" (180/2980). (The 4-4-2s were converted to 4-6-0s in 1912-1913.)

Ten "Lady" 4-6-0s, with further refinements, were added in 1906. 2907 "Lady of Disdain" may rank as the coolest loco name ever, though "Lady Godiva" might be more appropriate for an iron horse (ohhhh, bad joke, Craft) ;-)

Oddly, only the 20 constructed in 1907 were named after saints. (I wonder if 2926 "Saint Nicholas" ever worked a Santa train?) Ten more were built in 1911, ten in 1912, and five in 1913. These all got "Court" names ("Cefntilla Court," "Hampton Court," "Taplow Court"). So by rights it might be the "Court" class, not the "Saint" class, we talk about.

Over the years the earlier varieties got improvements to make the class more homogeneous - superheated boilers, cylinders, frame modifications, etc.

2925 "Saint Martin" became the prototype "Hall" in 1925, essentially a refinement of the Saints. While the 4-cylinder "Castles" and "Kings" get most of the glory, 2-cylinder refinements of the the "Saints" - "Hall," "County," and "Grange" classes - outnumbered them and worked the same lines.

22 had been withdrawn by 1939, with the rest being withdrawn between 1946 and 1953. 2920 "Saint David" was the last one in service.

None escaped the torch, sadly, though the Great Western Society wants to convert the remains of 4942 "Maindy Hall" into Saint (actually "Lady") 2999 "Lady of Legend." There was also some talk of it being convertible to a 4-4-2. Not sure where this project stands today.

JAC