Original VS Rebuild?

  Serviceton_Kev Chief Commissioner

Location: Fecking here!
Earlier, xxxxlbear mentioned PBR, and that railway is indeed worth a look.

The NA's all have turbo generators and electric lighting - that is a modification from the original kerosene lamps.

The NA's also have "remote control" greasing points - a lot of grease nipples mounted externally, carrying grease to hard-to-reach places - that is another modifcation.

They all have steel cowcatchers, when the originals were wood; 8A has the stovepipe chimney; 14A has an all-welded boiler, 6A has a modified front end, and so it goes on.

They show railway progress over the years, and that, in itself, is history.

Just one thing I'm wondering...what parts of the NAs that are currently running are still the original parts from when the locos were first put into service? Be just the frames, driving and pony wheels and some of the rods? I know that poor old 3A was cannibalised to keep some of the others going. What is actually wrong with 3As frame for it to be no good? Wasn't 12A's fame restraightened at one stage? Where do i go on faecesbook to have a look at this "discussion"?

Sponsored advertisement

  fokkertism Station Staff

I think 4903 and 4906 were originally MM01 and MM02 of the Manildra Group, unless I'm thinking of some other loco.* Also, I read on WIkipedia that most of the ex-FreightCorp PL class were scrapped except 1 and 4. I know the PLs are rebuilt 48s with short noses, but that doesn't mean that "I want them rebuilt to 48s NOW NOW NOW NOW NOWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!"

*just checked Wiki - the MMs were originally 4907 and 4913
  Barrington Womble Photo Nazi

Location: Banned
Please, take your meds. Too much foam in the last post.
  TheDeadman Locomotive Driver

Location: My Own Private Hell
I raised a point that I believe warrants further discussion in this thread. Rather than derail the existing thread (as I believe the OP was just asking an innocent question about "is it possible" rather than making a profound statement that "this should happen and if it can't then all locomotives everywhere should be scrapped"), I figure I'd open it up for wider, hopefully proper mature debate.

At what point does preserving a rebuilt locomotive stop being about what it was rebuilt FROM and become about what it was rebuilt TO?

A great example that has been mulling over in my mind for years is the preservation of LVR's 4903 and 4906.

[img]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5234/5871585773_c31497b4f2_n.jpg[/img] [img]http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6021/5938785800_6010d9e3c5_n.jpg[/img]

For those not familiar with the Sydney-scene, a bit of background. 4903 and 4906 were purchased by Patrick PortLink from Interail/QRNational. As part of their return to service, the short-end nose was cut down to better improve visibility from the leading end of the locomotive. For the majority of their career, the two 49's operated in back to back service in Sydney on port shuttles, although they were occasionally sent further afield as required. They were withdrawn in mid-2009 when Patrick closed down their rail services. The pair languished at Port Botany until they were sold to LVR in 2011.

Fast forward to today. These two locomotives are now preserved. However, they are no longer in their original condition. I realize there are purists out there that would like to see the noses rebuilt to their original forms. Why? There are already two 49's preserved (4916, preserved at the NSWRTM in SRA "Candy" livery and 4918, preserved by 3801ltd in NSWGR Indian Red livery) in the original form.


Historically, 4903 and 4906 represent so much more than just "two 49 Class with short noses". They represent the ever changing nature of the railways as they have evolved from government services to private industry. They represent the place that old motive power, withdrawn by their previous owners, has had to play in this brave new world of private operators. They represent a significant stage of life in the 49 Class - privatization.

I just use this as an example though. There are so many rebuilt classes that have made just as much of a contribution to the railway "scene" as rebuilds than they ever did in their original forms. Consider the CL to CLF/CLP classes? Perhaps the CLF class have not made as much of a mark, but the CLP's were *the* streamliner in charge of the iconic Indian Pacific. I don't think anyone could honestly say that the current NR Class motive power is a replacement (as far as style goes).

Consider the P Classes in Victoria. Would one argue that a P Class needs to be "regressed" to a flat-top T Class? I realize this argument is slightly flawed in that there ARE original flat-top T Class in preservation. The argument still stands on the question "has the P Class not contributed to history?". Consider their role in commuter rail services with the HEP generators. The same goes for the A Classes. Would one need to regress them to be B Classes to preserve them? The 900's (rebuilt 830's) and PL's (rebuild 48's) follow the same logic.

I fear that preservation is constantly fighting a battle against itself. There is very little money going around, to spend it effectively erasing history to capture older history just seems a fallacy. I'd put it up there alongside "only preserving steam". Today's modern GE/EMD products might seem sterile and boring to those who were around to witness the glory days of history, but consider things from the point of view of today's young enthusiast, who is growing up with these trains. Is it not important to preserve all aspects of history, rather than just those that are selectively interesting to people looking at the past with rose tinted spectacles?
An interesting question you raise there Raichase, I would suggest the anwser lies in the reasoning and or arguments of why an item that has been rebuilt would and or should be preserved in the first place and what it is intended to be utlised for. From an operating point of view, a rebuild may be better economics in the long term or as a static exhibit may tell a more interesting and or historical narrative. I would suggest that it would be the person or group preserving the item that would have to define the reasoning for it, be it right or wrong. Rebuilds can be just as historically important as well, example is Flying Scotsman more important as an A3 class or in original form as an A1 class....I would suggest it is more important in its A3 form as it tells the story of its evolution and the evolution of the class as a whole.
  Barrington Womble Photo Nazi

Location: Banned
As they only ran like that for a short time, there are cases for and against. People generally like to see a loco restored to the condition they mainly spent their working lives in, in this case it's with the high nose at the short end.

Perhaps one of the two could be kept as it is, and the other return to the higher nose, and wear the green livery some of the class were painted in?

That way everyone would be happy.
  fokkertism Station Staff

There's already a 49 still in FreightRail green; 4902, at the SRHC.
  Barrington Womble Photo Nazi

Location: Banned
There's already a 49 still in FreightRail green; 4902, at the SRHC.
It's not operational though, is it. Rolling Eyes

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.