The next newbuild

Forgive me for being a bit tart but this is pure gricerdom which does not make new boilers or cast new cylinders. Neither does it renovate or replicate rolling stock of a sensible tare weight in relation to its carrying capacity. If everything becomes inoperable there will be no galas for gricers to go to. I have every respect for the 3MT project but it is being done, I understand, largely in the open air and progress is necessarily slow. In order to speed construction times up as well as reduce unit costs, batches of such machines need to be made and one offs, particularly of high wheeled locomotives, need to be avoided.

 

Of course it's pure gricerdom!!! What do you expect? If the support is there for a new build P2, but not to restore another 56xx say from Barry scrapyard condition for example, why not? A one off loco attracts visitors, we know this. A batch of the same locos unless something really iconic like an A4 or a spamcan just won't excite gricers who go to these galas for the locos if thy saw the same thing just last week down the road. Variety is the spice of life. I still struggle to imagine you ideal Heritage Railway Paul, is it the IOWR that is very authentic or the P&DR which is very commercial and sound? Whichever one it is, they are the two extremes, it simply won't work for all railways.

 

Maybe the next newbuild should be some small, light coaching stock so we can put those scores of industrial 0-4-0 locos that seem to be lying around to work? More economical to operate over short distances at low speeds

 

Both meet with my great approval as sensibly run organisations which is the only way of ensuring the long term survival of steam railways. (I had better "declare an interest" as a recently joined IOWSR member). The Commercial Manager of the IOWSR has been quoted recently as saying that if something cannot be afforded then it is done without. I can't imagine his opposite number on the P&DR disagreeing with a word of this.

Thankfully there is as little prospect of "exciting gricers" (what a way to run a business that would be) by an A4 on the IOWSR as on the PDR; they wouldn't fit the loading gauge for a start. I like A4s as much as anyone but their place is not on little country branch lines or secondary routes. Gricers have to maintain their excitability with the historically authentic "timetabled goods", often hauled by one of the two A1X's (both re-boilered). I was once told that one of these burns around half a ton of fuel on this duty. Rather less than an A4 would take just to haul itself about I think.

I would suggest you keep an eye on C&W matters at Haven Street by using the links shown in Gary Walker's postings in the appropriate part of Nat. Pres.

PH

 

A great point, of course everyone likes variety. Brings me to another issue I was thinking of myself, whereby their argument would be that someday the older engines will be too expensive to continue running, so their new newbuild locos could take their place.

But really, does any of us want there to be a day, when all we see when we visit a heritage line is a just 3MT class loco? The only loco we ever see running?

A useful loco no doubt, but an interesting and good looking one...? That's subjective, but definitely not for everyone.

 

New builds are like natural selection, those that will work and have a good subject will work, and those that don't won't. I'm not sure why everyone gets their knickers in a twist about the number of projects around. I don't believe the enthusiast community shares it's money equally around all of them for moment.

So regardless of how many proposals there are there will only be a certain amount that can be supported, a number which seems to be touching double digits at a guess, and depending on whether you include the frankenstein factory projects. So it doesn't matter how many more proposals, most people are sensible enough to out money towards those projects that will likely succeed.

Evidence of this is Mr Reeder, who has raised precisely £0 thus taking no money away from other projects. And I don't believe that there are many people who want to see a P2 enough to donate also want to see a 43xx enough to donate too. Even if they were, how many enthusiasts have a set budget for all newbuild projects they share around? It's all based around the heart not the head, just like the real of our hobby.

If ran heritage railways with our heads, if it were to have steam at all it would all be BR standards with mk1 TSOs cramming ad many people in as possible in a few select places, wsr probably could exist, for.Minehead but in a very different way, and how many others wouldn't be in existence at all?

 

I'd like to see a LNWR Claughton Class. Would be fitting to see it next to the Patriot.

Mookie.

 

Little different from what it is then. Hopefully as a consequence there would be money around though to re-boiler something larger than an A1x or to rebuild major civil engineering structures, which are both issues which produce a "la la not listening" reaction. Gricers really do need to take a metaphorical cold shower.

As for Mr. Reeder he does strike me as the gricer who is so daft the others notice. That is not to say the others aren't daft themselves.

PH

 

There obviously is, and its been done, just not to one whole loocomotive. Its pointless saying it hasn't been done when a number of locos have virtually new boilers, all adding up to more than one complete new large boiler. Look at Taw Valley for example, it has a complete new inner and outer firebox attached to the old barrel, while Camelot has a new barrel attached to the old firebox. Scotsman has a complete new inner firebox. Sure they aren't completely new boiler, but why go to the trouble of a new boiler when there is no need. A whole new boiler means a new number, plan approval etc, whereas a rebuilt one is still nominally the original, meaning the last old bits can be replaced next time around.

Daniel

 

Will you never learn Gresley loco's were not flawed, just vandalised by Thompson.

Now repeat Gresley good, Thompson bad 100 times.

 

Why build new boilers? It comes to a point in the life of a locomotive when it is not viable to try to continue the working life of the engine whilst using original components.

When it comes to replacement or new parts sometimes we cannot obtain original materials or even use the traditional techniques used in their manufacture.

Sometimes a deliberate decision is taken to make use of a modern material that is more suitable for an application.

As one boiler designer has observed the only reason traditional locomotive boilers make use of flanged plates is so that they can be joined together. It makes for an expensive method of construction. Worse it does not meet modern standards. Under the skin of the cladding who can see the details of the boiler?

So for a new build you can remain faithful to the original if there was one. Or you can be more pragmatic. Financial considerations also come into play. Change the material specification of a component to improve the performance of the same and to perhaps ease its manufacture. Change the design of piston valves for example to increase service life, reduce maintenance costs and reduce leakage. No one looking on as a casual observer would know. With the boiler why spend more than you need to on a design that is outdated? Not only is it more expensive in first cost but it will also be far more costly in the longer term.

Final point, for now. The designs of some CMEs are far more interesting and worthy of appreciation and recreation than those of some others. To quote the late Bill Harvey - there is nothing wrong with a Gresley locomotive that getting back to the drawing does not cure. So if you think that the engine you are dealing with is flawed by the standards of the time it was designed and it isn't performing well you have probably got something wrong. All engines can be improved by the standards of today. But to make best use of the knowledge that we have at our disposal we would need a new design and build.

 

I raised the question of the long term future for new builds such as the P2 if mainline steam working finishes, but to be clear, if enthusiasts are prepared to fund such projects--as they clearly are, then they are perfectly entitled to do so, how we spend our money is a personal issue, it is a free World!

The 82045 project on the SVR falls into a different category. This is not going to be a "mainline prestige" loco, this is a deliberate attempt to demonstrate that a modern steam loco can be produced for Heritage line use, and maybe even in batches in the future.

I don't need make the point that 90% plus of travellers on our Heritage lines are not "enthusiasts" as such, so it perhaps doesn't matter too much if in say 20 years time our Heritage lines are run with a fair mix of new build Standard types, along with some ex-Barry engines used for Galas and high season only, to ease the loads on such ageing machines. Mind you, by then our ex-Barry engines will conform largely to the "old hammer" dictum, " its the same hammer, which has had "three new heads and five new handles"...

46118

 

Spot on. In a situation where I back project A and you back project B, should A fail it does not mean that I will then put my money towards project B and I think that goes for the majority of projects.

 

So pray tell us, what is so "historically authentic" about Austerities and Ivatt 2 locos on your beloved IoWSR? IMO they should keep to types that worked on the island if "historic authenticity" is the aim. I suspect that they're a tad more pragmatic though.

 

It's "gricers" who have saved what we've got. If pragmatism and sound business practices had been applied from day one then hardly a loco, carriage, branch line etc. would have been saved. We do it because we're daft enough to enjoy it and to expend much of our time and money pursuing our dream.

 

In the end, it comes down to money. Whether it is a new build, or a restoration, the projects that will succeed are those that most enthuse people to open their wallets - wheel diameter has nothing to do with it, except that there is a general correlation between wheel diameter and fundraising success! That's probably the inverse of the correlation some of our correspondents would wish - but that's the market, you can't plan on the basis it doesn't exist. Indeed, the P2 project has just picked up an award from the HRA essentially on the basis of running a highly successful fundraising campaign.

As for are there too many projects: a good working average would be that new builds probably take about 15-20 years to deliver. That encompasses everything from project initiation, drawing searches etc (with a fairly low cash burn-rate) through design, construction of frames, wheels, cylinders, boiler etc through to final assembly and commissioning. In that environment, it is natural that you will have a range of projects, including those at a developed state of maturity likely to be finished fairly soon (Beachy Head, Saint, Patriot) through those at a middling state (82045, 84030) to those at the very early stages (P2, 47xx etc) and some essentially still at the planning / drawings stage (George V etc). That seems to me entirely natural in a mature industry - indeed, I would be more worried if all projects were at the same state, with nothing coming along behind to give continuity of skills. That would be a bit like a heritage railway outshopping 5 or 6 locos in a year - it would look impressive but you would be storing up problems for yourself ten years hence that could be ameliorated by a more gradual rollout.

Tom

 

Yes engine building evolved as the years went on and are still happening now. You take the GN/LNER A1-A3 how that class was improved over the years with such as cylinders, chimneys and most likely supper heating as well.

If a steel came along which was strong enough not to need stays, it would soon be used as the manufacturing costs, and the maintenance costs would come down without all those stays.

 

Yes engine building evolved as the years went on and are still happening now. You take the GN/LNER A1-A3 how that class was improved over the years with such as cylinders, chimneys and most likely supper heating as well.

Is supper heating an upgrade of breakfast on the shovel?

 

Much more pragmatic than you will ever understand. No-where is 100% authentic.

PH