Current and Proposed New-Builds

Andrew,

Apart from the power bogie of the G.W.R.railmotor, what has been completed on the standard gauge since "Tornado"? Indeed the A1 locomotive Trust seems to be catching the others up rapidly with the P2.

It is not just locomotives where railway "preservation " seems to have difficulty in finishing a project completely before starting another.

Paul H

 

Paul, you naughty man! I have deliberately instigated a nice, entirely frivolous and hypothetical WIBN discussion suitable for a sunny Bank Holiday weekend. You are in danger of dragging us back to *actual* rebuild projects, many of them entirely WIBN and no more likely to run than my proposals above. But this thread is for *proposed* new builds! Please keep your real world facts out of it...

 

Had the word "fantasy", rather than "proposed" been used, I would have had no problem!

Paul H

 

Thanks for the comprehensive update. The revamped website looks great and it's good to see some substantial progress. https://www.gcr567loco.co.uk/

This is a sentiment I'd echo. It does, however, beg the question "At what stage can any newbuild be taken to have passed the proposal stage into the realm of a serious project?"

I'd submit that a website and a handful of recovered (or vaguely promised) components do not , by themselves, indicate a viable project. A smokebox door dart may be a good first component but needs following up with visible progress and regular updates if a project is to be taken seriously. There comes a point when a keeping a website 'ticking over' by endlessly posting evocative photos and merchandise alone does the exact opposite of convincing it's audience that a project is 'on track'.

With their sound track record, A1SLT have earned themselves well deserved credibility. Ditto the teams behind 82045 and 32424. On the flipside, although The Clan Project is now making solid headway, the spectre of the time before the current team took the reigns still casts a shadow. I suspect that, however undeserved it now is, this will remain the case until 72010's frames are erected.

The ones which annoy me are those who leave grossly out of date and obviously abandoned websites without so much as the courtesy of an announcement that the project is either in abeyance or abandonded entirely. Here, I would praise the team behind the abortive 5AT for having the courage to clearly announce the downfall of the project in a timely manner and for leaving the compendious website available as an open source archive. If only a few more would take a leaf from their book.

 

A pedant writes: I suspect you mean Welshpool & LLanfair rather than Talyllyn. The FFestiniog also have a loco which operated over part of the Cambrian - including after it had been absorbed into the GWR. Incidentally the FfR has completed four steam new builds since preservation and are working on the fifth.

 

Being pedantic, the Tal-y-llyn does have the ex-Corris locos, 3 and 4, which were part of the GWR at one time. Does the present day Corris Railway no7(?) newbuild count as a replica of number 4?

And I'm trying to think of which Ffr loco operated over part of the Cambrian? - ah, as I type I remember "Palmerston" on the Vale of Rheidol.

Steve B

 

Yep, brain fade!
Any comments on my wishlist?

 

GWR yes, but the Corris was never part of the Cambrian.

The W&L is questionable too, as although operated by the Cambrian (and indeed, Bradshaw listed services as 'Cambrian'), it remained a seperate legal entity until grouped under a separate agreement with the GW. Now that's being pedantic!

 

My dream line up:

 

As a programme of gap-filling it seems very well thought-out. As a serious programme of work ... even if persuading enthusiasts were not like herding cats, I fear it would be completely unfeasible. In the real world it will never even be attempted purely because few other people will believe in the programme.

 

As a 'for example' though we have the Adams Radial Tank, an original Victorian loco which hasn't steamed since goodness only knows when & 200 or so unrestored Barry wrecks including such very useful locos as Standard 4mt 2-6-4 tanks it seems that there are plenty of locos to say nothing of stock that we need to conserve first

 

East Somerset Railway will do a good job on restoring "Barry wrecks" (to time as well) but Dartmouth Steam Railway have snaffled the next two year slot at Cranmore for a "general" on one of their 2-8-0Ts.

PH

 

On the other hand - by time you have replaced wheels, axles, frames, cylinders, boiler and platework on some locos, you aren't far from a new build anyway, in cost and complexity if not emotionally. With regard cost, consider the difference in cost between a new build Tornado and restored Flying Scotsman - even allowing for ten years of inflation between them , it's hard not to draw the conclusion that for some locos in a seriously worn out state, a new build - good for perhaps a million miles with periodic overhauls - would represent better value for money.

My own feeling is that the overriding priority is covered storage, so things that are (notionally) currently preserved don't deteriorate further. After that, I'm relatively sanguine about new builds as operational, day-in, day-out locos, rather than further restoring originals. Of course, there is an emotional, visceral feel when you drive or fire something that you feel has a tangible connection back to some historic event or personality, but set against that, every restoration further reduces the physical connection. So at some point I think it is a justifiable question to ask whether a particular locomotive should be "retired" and replaced by something newly constructed, especially if the original locomotive is in secure accommodation and free from risk of further deterioration. The greater the extent to which you can demonstrate originality of fabric, the greater the argument for retiring an original locomotive becomes. (No-one would consider overhauling Stephenson's Rocket - would they?) And if you are going to new build to maintain the operational fleets of railways, why not consider appropriate but interesting locos that didn't survive into modern times, rather than replicating the locos that did?

Tom

 

Oops, meant to post links, not copies of photos. Think that might be unwitting copyright infringement. Sorry if so.

 

Seeing the two of us are at opposite ends of the spectrum, I must say that in our own ways we are both right, having said that however I would clearly prefer a ride behind an original, however much rebuilt to a new build

 

I don't know were you've got your figures from. The number of Barry locos yet to steam is nearer 100 than 200. There are only three ex-Barry Standard 4 2-6-4 tanks yet to steam 80097, 80100 and 80150.

 

Looking at what we've seen from the team at Cranmore so far, I'd say it's damned good choice by the Dartmouth mob.

 

I suspect the veteran car world, or the traction engine world for that matter, might find this argument a trifle "flabby" Very likely they would think that if someone no longer wants a machine or can spend neither the time nor the money to return it to service, then they should dispose of it to someone who can.

PH

 

Does that argument apply to, say, Stephenson's Rocket?

Tom

 

I think you've quite right. Of course, the list was only for fun. But one or two of these might be much more useful, educational and cost effective than most of the actual new build projects!