J94 68081

dforrest · Post by **dforrest** » Mon May 16, 2005 6:44 pm

A nice reskin but unfortunately a fictitious number.

trainmad · Post by **trainmad** » Mon May 16, 2005 7:02 pm

Yup, I know.
Nene Valley painted their J94 as 68081 around 1991.

rwaceyw · Post by **rwaceyw** » Mon May 16, 2005 7:03 pm

"J94 68081, as once seen on the Nene Valley Railway."

David

davidaward · Post by **davidaward** » Mon May 16, 2005 9:00 pm

Yep its common practice to give ex Industrial J94s ficticious BR numbers, although most often they mascurade as genuine numbered exBR ones.

dforrest · Post by **dforrest** » Mon May 16, 2005 9:29 pm

rwaceyw wrote:"J94 68081, as once seen on the Nene Valley Railway."

David

I didn't realise the meaning of that statement!

.

eddief · Post by **eddief** » Mon May 16, 2005 10:47 pm

I prefer them to carry proper BR numbers, gives me an excuse to underline them in my Ian Allan ABC

MuzTrem · Post by **MuzTrem** » Tue May 17, 2005 3:34 pm

I don't like them wearing BR identities at all if they're ex-industrial. Changing numbers breifly for a photo-charter is one thing, but tricking Joe Public into thinking they're ex-BR defeats our role as guardians of heritage-we should tell railway history properly. Also, many industrial paint schemes were very colourful, and the children in particular are more likley to prefer a brightly coloured engine to a drab, black one. They're just being painted black because of a few narrow-minded enthusiasts who will refuse to ride behind anything that's not in BR livery, it's absolubtley ridiculous.
Sorry that ended up turning into a bit of a rant, but it's something I feel strongly about.

chrisj94 · Post by **chrisj94** » Tue May 17, 2005 3:41 pm

I agree with you there.
I can understand if they have a reasonable explanation however.
Peak Rail painted there two austeritys to represent the C&HPR 68006 and 68012,but this was to celebrate the C&HPR,as it was just up the road,but i find the current War Department livery far more appealing,and i often here people asking about its livery.

fairlie · Post by **fairlie** » Tue May 17, 2005 4:46 pm

Narrow Minded Enthusiasts?

I prefer them in BR Black, and they look a bit more period running on a Ex-BR Railway then some random industrial thingy. On railways such as Middleton or Foxfield I understand them running in Industrial guise, but on other railways? No.

And the public (except for the enthusiasts) doesn't really care what loco's pulling the train...

Rfairlie · Post by **Rfairlie** » Tue May 17, 2005 4:50 pm

At the end of the day the colour and the number are pritty minor things you should be thankful they still exist.

Tim

JonPotter · Post by **JonPotter** » Tue May 17, 2005 6:34 pm

Granted, I think that the Industrial liveries are much more colourful, though (especially some of the more well lined out ones, like yellow lining on green)! I don't think it really matters, as Joe Public is not going to really know much about BR, are they?

thenudehamster · Post by **thenudehamster** » Tue May 17, 2005 6:40 pm

It matters not, IMHO if one loco can be 'dressed' to represent a number of variations that the class as a whole may or may not have had during its life. J94s were a standard Hunslet offering adopted by the WD and subsequently bought/transferred/given (I'm not sure how the inter-departmental government finances worked) to BR as a class of shunters.

That many industrial concerns might have had them too is serendipitous. It can represent any one of a dozen different guises; paint the thing in whatever colour suits the occasion. Without very close, detailed examination of the locomotive and reference to some strict historical documents, who's going to know which loco it 'really' is anyway?

And Muz-Trem? Lighten up. If it were your loco, that you'd paid a lot of money for, and put a lot of work into the restoration, you might have cause for dragging out the soapbox. It isn't, I'm guessing you didn't, and therefore you have no case. Half the preserved locomotives in the country go around wearing liveries they never wore in service. Go tell David Shepherd he can't call his loco 'Black Prince' because it never carried a name in service, and see where it gets you. You own it, you can do what you like with it.

Give it a rest.

MuzTrem · Post by **MuzTrem** » Tue May 17, 2005 7:20 pm

I would agree with that to an extent, but if an owner were to paint an engine pink because that happened to be thier favourite colour, I don't think that would go down to well with enthusiasts. I'm very grateful that they survive, but we have a duty to educate the public, and industrial railways played a massive part in the railway story. We should celebrate these engines for what they are, not for what something else was simply because that's what we happen to remember. I think Black Prince is slightly different because we're not trying to pretend it's something it's not. OK, Shepard added a name, but it's still BR 9F No 92203, not NCB No29. With the Austerites, NCB No.29 (or whatever-number picked at random for sake of example, not refering to any particular loco) might as well not exist.

duncharris · Post by **duncharris** » Tue May 17, 2005 8:04 pm

MuzTrem wrote:...if an owner were to paint an engine pink because that happened to be their favourite colour, I don't think that would go down to well with enthusiasts...

like this you mean:

chrisj94 · Post by **chrisj94** » Tue May 17, 2005 8:15 pm

MuzTrem wrote:With the Austerites, NCB No.29 (or whatever-number picked at random for sake of example, not refering to any particular loco) might as well not exist.

You trying to say something about the austeritys

Or have i got the wrong end of the stick?