Replica builds for heritage lines.

If you apply a bit of logic and common sense the answer would surely be a Standard 4 or 3 Tank.
If a Standard 4 can handle the NYMR (which the steepest grades on a heritage line?) then where could it not?
With only 2 Cylinders and everything outside makes life easier from Enginemen and Maintainers/Builders.
And seeing as very few railways have turning facilities at both ends a Tank Engine is the sensible answer.

 

I think it is a reasonable question to ask for those groups that are at an advanced stage, given that if such groups do decide on a second loco, there is probably a couple of years of ground work to do first. A sensible time to be asking such questions feels to me to be when the first project is within 2 or 3 years of completion. Certainly I know it is a "live" question within the Beachy Head group.

To me, you can break it down into two parts: "Do we want to do another project?" Quite understandable if the answer to that is "no", given that a project may take 10 - 20 years, and the existing group may feel they can't put that level of effort in a second time (age, other commitments etc).

If the answer to the first is "yes", then the second question is "so what should we build?" At that point you have the "can it be built? Will it be useful? Will people fund it?" trilogy as a set of criteria to make a decision.

"Will it be useful?" is probably quite obvious, given the known traffic demands on the host railway.

However, "can it be built?" is likely to involve a certain amount of document research and related activity, to ascertain how many drawings exist, what will have to be worked out from afresh, whether any significant components can be obtained second-hand etc., and that process will take time.

"Will people fund it?" is also a question that would take time to think about: no point starting on a project without a valid fundraising plan, but it is the nature of such things that a group who have coalesced around Loco X may have divergent views about what Loco Y should be. So the funding plan may require getting fresh donors on board, or else making the case for why Y is sensible rather than Z etc.

Hence my feeling that it probably needs two or three years to come to a decision. Doing that in advance of finishing the first project (but not too far in advance) ensures there is no downtime and dissipation of momentum.

Tom

 

You mean like this...?

http://www.australiansteam.com/1033.htm

 

As a matter of interest Tom, what is the feeling in the Beachy Head group about a possible second project as you mentioned? K Class?

 

No more like these ones. https://chasewaterstuff.wordpress.c...urely-era-1864-2-4-0ts-isle-of-wight-railway/

 

Yes i believe the IoWR have in the past tried to make an offer for one of the Australian ones.

 

I completely agree that if the criteria were logic and common sense, the answer is something like a BR Standard tank. I'm intrigued by this thread because it seems to be two different conversations that have somehow got tangled together. One group are engaged in practical problem solving while the others are letting their imaginations run free and asking, 'Wouldn't it be wonderful if...?'

The reason I find it fascinating is that it seems to me that railway preservation needs both. The new P2 will have all sorts of common sense modifications like fabricated frame stretchers and modified valve gear in order to make it work better, but they didn't decide on a P2 because it was sensible. It's the idea of a recreated P2 that grabs people's hearts and compels them to give. It's hard to imagine anything less practical than a GWR railmotor, yet the opportunity to see and hear one in the 21st century is a dream come true.

99.9% of these ideas will come to nothing. But if we never allow ourselves to talk about our dreams, we'll miss out on the 0.1% that do come true and that make our hobby the delightfully rich thing it is.

 

Sadly one Beyer Peacock that should be with us was lost due to WW2. "Ryde" was preserverd (Stored) at Eastleigh with a view to preservation, sdaly cut up in 1940.

 

As I've posted before, my understanding is the basic timescales for the GWS railmotor project were:
research commenced c) 1986
planning started 1991
project launch 1998
in steam 2011.
So in the case of that successful project 12 years of ground work first.

 

Don't the Standard 4 Tanks have one of the highest locos-in-preservation counts of all classes? And, of course, the construction of 82045 is already well under way.

 

The only thing worse than a loco that keeps getting painted in BR Black when there are more attractive/interesting liveries available is a loco that can only be painted in BR black...

 

I suspect the owners of several BR Standard locos will disagree quite strongly with your remark.

 

Midland 483 class in Somerset and Dorset blue, well to start with.

It's important to have the colour sorted first

 

I Like BR black, but like some pre nationalisation/pre grouping liveries too. Especially LNWR and LYR!

 

Sir, you are a dreamer of beautiful dreams.

 

There is obviously a spectrum here. If the only criterion was logic and common sense, would we be discussing steam locomotives?

 

I think the 4-4-2 had the slight edge in beauty, personally, and apparently steamed better because of the deeper grate.

 

hence the likes of the southern River tank, the LNER L1 and even the V3. approximately the same size but no remaining examples.

 

I gather that the L1 was not a success

 

Drivers whom I know/knew who drove them reckoned them adequate, but nowhere near as good as the LMS "2500s" or the Standard 4s. They gained the nickname "concrete mixers", you could certainly hear them coming from a long way off!