Re: mixing loco parts

["Derick Wuen" <cullend@webone.com.au>]

Agree with your conclusions re identity. Sorry to raise (inadvertently) a
probably resolved earlier thread.

Even the frame isn't sacrosanct, as you point out.... look at the reframing
program for 32 class.

32 class most were reframed, reboilered, retendered, superheated, revalved
etc, but were noted as "the successful 1892 design".

Maybe the brake hangers remainded original... see DM's post re 1210.

Stuart Thyer wrote in message <86ifch$k2o$1@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>...
>
>----------
>In article <388c3107.0@iridium.webone.com.au>, "Derick Wuen"
><cullend@webone.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>4. Makes you wonder what a "locomotive" is.... like my father's axe, which
>>has only had 2 new heads and 3 new handles, its as good as new.
>
>I have a feeling this concept has had a bashing on aus.rail before quite
>some time ago.  I think the general feeling was that if a locomotive can
>have tender, boiler, wheels, motion gear all changed over then the only
>defining part of a loco is the frame. In that case, what will puffing billy
>do with G42, which has a new frame.
>It's safe to say the only thing defining a loco at any stage of its life is
>the number the operator chooses it to carry for reference purposes. After
>all, numbers have changes frequently in some states to suit the railways
>numbering needs.
>
>Stuart Thyer
>Photographer
>University of Melbourne