At what point is rebuild a new build

[Londontram]

About ten years ago I was watching a TV program on Spitfires and jolly interesting it was too and one thing that's stuck in my mind was the interviewee asking a famous Spitfire re builder a question which was how many more spitfires are there left to rebuild and the chap said as long as it contains at least one original component its classed as a rebuild to which he pulled a hand full of credit card sized spitfire chassis plates out of his pocket saying here you go here's another dozen or so Spitfires awaiting rebuilds here in my hand!

 

So reading on another thread that Tornado is a new build in everything but its whistle but then does that one component actually then make Tornado technically a rebuild not a new build? Discuss please.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Londontram

[10000]

OK for me your 2 examples are not rebuilds. The spitfire would be a new build with some small heritage pieces added. Tornado is a new build but using a heritage whistle. Arguing they are rebuild's is like saying a modern Ford Focus is a rebuilt Ford GT40 because you added an old GT40 Horn.

 

As for heritage locos I suppose it comes down to what you consider to be the main aspect of the loco, because so many parts were interchangeable, e.g boilers, wheels, cabs, motion etc or could be replaced with new items, e.g boilers.

 

So if you consider the frames to be the main aspect then keeping the original frames is a rebuild, but constructing new frames is new build.

 

I'm sure we'll get plenty of different views and opinions

 

edit: for missed out words

Edited June 14, 2017 by 10000

[jjb1970]

This question is quite a hot potato in applications where grandfather rights apply and where the decisions as to what constitutes a major conversion have huge legal implications.

[JDW]

Can of worms opened...

 

<fetches popcorn>

[PatB]

IMHO (and it is only my opinion), unless the item (car, plane, locomotive, boat/ship or whatever) slots into the place in the universe once occupied by an original it is a new build. If it does occupy that particular space in the universe and the original can be said to have had a continuous existence in some form, it is (or can be reasonably classified as) a rebuild. This is my own definition and is more philosophical than technical so does not necessarily dovetail with any legal or technical definitions in use.

 

For example, I don't believe that you can take an original component (let's make it a major one like a boiler) from a preserved steam locomotive, reboiler the donor with new and then use the donated kettle as the basis for a locomotive bearing the identity of a previously scrapped member of the class and then call it a rebuild. I would consider that to be a new build replica, even if the donated boiler had spent time, pre-preservation, on the locomotive it purported to be. IMHO the scrapped loco's identity was erased at the point that it got turned into 15,000,000 bean cans. It has now spent decades not existing. There is no longer a space in the universe that is that loco. The new build has its own slot.

 

In the classic car world, I remember a few (worryingly quite a few) years ago when the market was undergoing one of its periodic booms, there was a joke circulating that the were then considerably more "geniuine" T35 Bugattis (or whatever was being discussed at the time) in existence than had actually been made in the 1920s. This being a result of unscrupulous types taking a complete car, dividing up the major components into two piles and building/having built, two "genuine" cars with the addition of replica parts. How true this is, I've no idea but, given the ludicrous heights to which some values occasionally climbed, I can see it being potentially profitable, although the T35 population might have been a bit too thoroughly historically documented to get away with it.

 

However, let's run with the example for the time being. Anyway, even if technically feasible and financially viable, this sort of thing clearly leads to a ridiculous situation. Ettore Bugatti only created a certain number of T35 shaped spaces in the universe which could reasonably regarded as genuine cars. If the number of T35 shaped objects exceeds this number, the excess cannot, ipso facto, be "genuine". Defining exactly which ones are the real ones (and so rebuilds) and which ones are replicas (and so new builds) could probably occupy  a substantial number of Horsetan's colleagues for decades to come .

 

The other example I've used before is good old 4472. Since the early 1920s there has been a Flying Scotsman shaped space in the universe. There has been no point in the last 95 odd years when there has not been such a space. Equally crucially noone, AFAIK, has claimed there to be another space in the universe with the identity of 4472, so there is little doubt over which space is actually FS. Whatever is done to that particular space in the universe, short. perhaps, of simultaneous replacement of every component it contains, it remains FS, because that is what we, as a community, have regarded it as for almost a century.

 

I hope this makes some sense. It's all a lot clearer in my head than I seem able to make it on the page.

[LMS2968]

As far as the railways were concerned, a loco was an assembled kit of parts, any or all of which could be replaced. It is generally considered that the frames were the items from which the loco took its identity, but these too were replaceable in part or in whole; I understand that it was LNER practice to replace the frames once they had reached a certain age.

 

As I've said on another thread, different works operated different systems, sometimes within the same Railway. Crewe and Horwich stencilled up all non-wearing parts to ensure replacement on the engine from which they were removed on strip down. I'm not sure about Derby, but the Midland rebuilt its engines sometimes multiple times so possibly not. St Rollox tended to attach anything that would fit (or could be made to fit) and an ex-St Rollox repaired Black Five might have a boiler never designed for it. But a lot of engines still carry many original components. Valve gear was always stamped with the number of the loco to which it was originally fitted. All 2968's gear is stamped with its number, either 13268, 2968 or, in one case, 42868; there are no parts of the valve gear stamped with the number of a different class member.

 

 

This is the LH union link having new bushes fitted, It is marked L (left); 13268 (original LMS number); 2968 (second LMS number); L (again); and C136 (Build Number at Crewe Works, 1934).

[black and decker boy]

Wasn't there a tax / accounting reason for the phrase rebuild being used when it was in reality a new build.

[Talltim]

Outside preservation, the choice between rebuild or new build was normally made by deciding if the cost should come from the revenue or capital budget and was nothing to do with the percentage of original content

Edited June 15, 2017 by Talltim

[David Bigcheeseplant]

Welsh Pony on the Ffestiniog is being restored, it has a new boiler, frames and cylinders and tender, but is still the original loco!

[Dunsignalling]

The crucial thing is that, at any given overhaul / rebuild, the loco leaves containing a significant proportion of what it arrived with. Nowadays this usually means the frames, the outer shell of the boiler, wheels, axles, cylinders and valve gear. I refer to the overhaul of an active engine, not the restoration of one from scrapyard condition, where much of it will not be there!

 

However, modern welding techniques allow things to be fixed that would have, during the age of day-to-day steam locomotion, been beyond economic (or even practical) repair.    

 

To cite a topical example, at its most recent overhaul, Flying Scotsman was found to have severe deterioration in the forward area of the frames. These were replaced with new metal, welded to those existing sections which remained usable. In former times, if the originals were made in one piece, the whole lot would be replaced.

 

Thus, in this respect (and possibly others) the loco is more "original" (in terms of what Riley's started with) than it might have been after being overhauled by the LNER or BR. 

 

That said, the loco was about 40 years old when it was first purchased for preservation and any loco in Top-Link service for so long would inevitably have required at least one new set of frames prior to that. It was also commonplace, when locos were overhauled, for parts replaced with new on one loco to be refurbished and re-used on another. This practice cut down the time locos were out of action quite considerably. 

 

There will undoubtedly be something remaining from the day FS emerged new in 1922 but how much, and exactly what, must be difficult to establish beyond doubt. 

 

John

Edited June 15, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

Wasn't there a tax / accounting reason for the phrase rebuild being used when it was in reality a new build.

Notable examples being the LMS Patriots (supposedly rebuilt Claughtons) and the first batch of SR-built King Arthurs, (allegedly rebuilt from Drummond 4-6-0s, but re-using very little apart from the tenders).

 

It may well be that this reflects the fact that both were replacing types that were only about 15 years old so still retained some book value,

 

John

Edited June 15, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[woodenhead]

Trigger's Broom - 20 years service, occupied the same space in all that time 

[Dunsignalling]

Welsh Pony on the Ffestiniog is being restored, it has a new boiler, frames and cylinders and tender, but is still the original loco!

Allegedly.............

[Dunsignalling]

This question is quite a hot potato in applications where grandfather rights apply and where the decisions as to what constitutes a major conversion have huge legal implications.

The key words there are "major" and "conversion" which, by definition imply departures from the specification to which the grandfather rights apply.

 

The straightforward position is that anything replaced like-for-like (i.e. to the original design and made of the same stuff) isn't a problem unless it needs changing to conform with modern operational regulations, in which case the requirements will be specified/agreed 

 

Issues do arise where an owner/operator wishes to significantly alter the specification of a machine other than for regulatory reasons. In essence, if you want to materially change something off your own bat, it needs to be approved. The obvious example is fitting air braking to steam locos that never had it. The absence of a specification qualifying for Grandfather Rights means that each design needs to be approved anew, but will presumably be okayed for repetition  on further locos of the same class.

 

The new-build P2 will be an interesting case in point as grandfather rights supposedly relate to locos etc. that operated on British Railways.There was no such thing as a P2 In BR days, so there may be "grey areas". However, I have no doubt that those behind the project established where they stand before embarking upon construction. 

 

John

Edited June 15, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[John_Hughes]

The GWR's alleged rebuilds of the Vale of Rheidol 2-6-2T locos were, it has recently transpired, completely new engines on which no part of the originals would fit. This was allegedly done for accounting reasons.

 

So - were they really rebuilds or new engines? And how long is a piece of string?

[Edge]

in my opinion, if 51% of the engine/plane/etc. (how I can measure this has not yet been thrashed out ) is constructed from scratch then it is a new build. It may incorporate elements of original machines but it has been newly constructed.

 

Although, it may also be valid to classify a steam loco as a rebuild if the frames are not newly constructed as these are traditionally the basis for the engine's identity, and in practice whatever parts fitted were bolted on

[mcowgill]

Allegedly.............

 

There was the slightly amusing sight in Boston lodge last month of both Welsh Pony's sitting next to each other in the erecting shop...

 

Actually each component is being assessed and reused where possible.  The frames are an interesting conundrum as with modern CAD systems and laser cutting it's quicker and cheaper to replace the frames than repair them.  Cab, tanks and many other components are being refurbished and refitted so it's still a rebuild, you wouldn't expect much to be reusable on a loco that's been out of traffic for 70 years.

 

I was told by the person who organised the last couple of overhauls that probably the only components that left George England's works in 1863 remaining on 'Prince' are the wheel centres, but then the FR renewed three of the small England locos by replacing almost everything in the late 19th C. to a different design based on Welsh Pony & Little Giant.   

 

For a proper 'rebuild' take a look at Welsh Pony's stablemate Taliesin.  'Dismantled' in the 1920s and then rebuilt to different dimensions in 1999, it's still a rebuild (the works plate says so) as it reused the original reversing lever (since broken and replaced). 

 

Martin

[Pete the Elaner]

Technically the identity should remain with the frames but this rule has been bent many times for accountancy purposes.

If a loco receives a new boiler, tender, cab, wheels & cylinders during an overhaul, there will not be much left of the original. On the other hand, if you have a class of 70 & after swapping bits about you still have 70, what extra have you really built?

 

Then you have oddities like LMS Fury & Turbomotive. Both of these were rebuilt into almost stand locos & everything which made them different was removed. Calling their conversions to standard steam locos rebuilds rather than a conversions is stretching things a little.

[Edwin_m]

The key words there are "major" and "conversion" which, by definition imply departures from the specification to which the grandfather rights apply.

 

The straightforward position is that anything replaced like-for-like (i.e. to the original design and made of the same stuff) isn't a problem unless it needs changing to conform with modern operational regulations, in which case the requirements will be specified/agreed 

 

Issues do arise where an owner/operator wishes to significantly alter the specification of a machine other than for regulatory reasons. In essence, if you want to materially change something off your own bat, it needs to be approved. The obvious example is fitting air braking to steam locos that never had it. The absence of a specification qualifying for Grandfather Rights means that each design needs to be approved anew, but will presumably be okayed for repetition  on further locos of the same class.

 

The new-build P2 will be an interesting case in point as grandfather rights supposedly relate to locos etc. that operated on British Railways.There was no such thing as a P2 In BR days, so there may be "grey areas". However, I have no doubt that those behind the project established where they stand before embarking upon construction. 

 

John

Grandfather rights don't go with the design, they go with the actual hardware.  So you can't build a new P2 or indeed Tornado and claim it's allowed to run simply because some like that ran several decades ago.  And if anyone wanted to build a new batch of class 47s or HSTs they wouldn't be able to run them as they would need to comply with or obtain specific derogation from all current standards.  However, nor can you operate a preserved loco on the main line on the basis that it did so safely before the end of steam - for example 9Fs are no longer allowed because of incompatibility of flangeless wheels with modern switches and crossings. 

[Enterprisingwestern]

for example 9Fs are no longer allowed because of incompatibility of flangeless wheels with modern switches and crossings. 

 

I believe the fact that there are 2 different flange profiles on the remaining 8 wheels comes into it too, or have they been to comply with each other?

 

Mike.

[woodenhead]

For a proper 'rebuild' take a look at Welsh Pony's stablemate Taliesin.  'Dismantled' in the 1920s and then rebuilt to different dimensions in 1999, it's still a rebuild (the works plate says so) as it reused the original reversing lever (since broken and replaced). 

 

Hmm does that mean it is no longer a rebuild, can you remove the status once it has been assigned it.

[Chameleon]

Re: the accountancy or tax reason, in Germany, during the Soviet era, the DR weren't allowed to build new locos, hence the REKO era of reconstruction. Most of the Saxon Meyer IVk locos were classed as rebuilds even though they might have only reused the bell and some small components. They were brand new locos but not officially...

[jjb1970]

Deciding when a rebuild or major conversion becomes in effect a new construction for regulatory purposes can be quite difficult as assets can evolve significantly over their service life and still retain grandfather rights.

[Reorte]

Are Class 57s rebuilds, or do they not even go that far?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

In UK commercial railway operation the prevailing asset accounting system with the taxation consequent has been the differentiator between new build and rebuild. As already remarked above, operational locomotives and indeed all working railway assets were not of any romantic significance, but solely gear from which the revenue was earned. It was Maunsell I think who told the directors that naming pieces of machinery wouldn't improve their performance, (so he was deffo an engineer) it simply is equipment built to do the work at lowest cost, and that last consideration includes schemes to maximise tax efficiency .

 

Other sectors have different practise. Non-commercial aviation enthusiasm has always revolved around getting teh old crate going again if there is a surviving rivet from the 'involuntary conversion'. It already had some doggerel when the plane was in its teens; 'The Bold Aviator lay dying'

 

http://beyondthetrenches.co.uk/the-bold-aviator-lay-dying-carefully-contrived-callousness-in-airmens-songs/