82045 The way ahead?

Hi. The last sentence was definitely not a comment about 82045 but rather a comment about other groups or projects which seem to descend into infighting at the drop of a hat.

 

Nor was it taken as such. Thank you for your constructive comments. Always appreciated.

 

My comments on Beachy Head also apply to 82045, another nice loco and well done to the group. It’s also on m6 list to go and see in action when running

 

Chris Proudfoot can't get access to NP., so I have 'cut and pasted' his comments below.

Some very interesting comments here, and I'd like to endorse everything my colleague gios has said, except for the fact that the Cambrian would be one of the lines over which 82045 might run. I'm also impressed with the courtesy of all your postings: we had some real stinkers early in the life of the 82045 project. I think it's important to be as open as possible (though sometimes you have to keep stumm) and to make everyone feel that his/her opinion is valued. As regards this loco being equipped to run on the system, I've had a fair number of emails to date and they break down roughly into 50% "yes" and 50% "no", with a very slight bias towards the latter. Whatever the democratic decision is, we will respect it, so watch this space and by all means email me (chris.proudfoot045@btinternet.com) if you wish to add anything to the debate. The only criterion is no rudeness - there's no place for that, ever.

I'd like to make a general comment about the state of the steam railway preservation business (because that's what it is), and forgive me if I'm stating the obvious. The fact is that it has grown since its early days into a considerable industrial concern so that demand now far outstrips supply, and that we are still trying to service its needs with resources that are split into penny packets and still by and large more appropriate to a cottage industry. How this can be resolved is the million-pound question and is worthy of its own thread on NRPF. The soaring technical abilities being demonstrated all over the country never cease to astound me; I just wish sometimes that there were more co-operation among us all.

There is, regrettably, a tendency for some folks to let ego get in the way of the common good - "This is MINE and you're not having it!" - and I can't for the life of me understand this mentality and the resultant lack of generosity. Anyone is welcome to share anything I might have to offer (not that that's all that much, I have the engineering nous of a frog) and I want every project to succeed, including those that I might not support myself. The bottom line is that we are all in it because we love steam and because we want to keep it alive. I've been accused by some of my more down-to-earth engineering colleagues of living in la-la land. I don't, I promise you, but I do believe that pragmatism and romanticism are two sides of the same coin and that neither is much good without the other. This principle applies very much to the idea that 82045 might run on the main line.

 

Amen!


Keith

 

I am not a member and, even if I were, I would probably be abstaining on the vote for main line running. However it is perhaps worth pointing out that there are two quite distinct sets of requirements for main line running. One set of requirements applies to the design, documentation, QA etc and has to be attended to throughout if the loco is ever to run on the main line. See post #1119 for why those requirements arguably should be addressed anyway. The other set is the installation of various protection and monitoring systems, and that can be left till later.

 

Well I have emailed my 2 pennyworth. I think this is a cracking idea and I am appreciative that a. the group are happy to consider it and b. they are consulting on it.

It probably isn't financially viable to fit all the gadgets, but if all steam locomotive projects were assessed purely on financial viability half of them would be dismissed at the first hurdle. This is about striving for the best in both engineering terms and human achievment. It is also about another important factor - fun, because isn't that also what we are here for? And I would love to see 82045 pulling 6 mk 1's up the Cambrian, because I wasn't alive to see it the first time!*

(*actually any steam up the Cambrian would be good, but 82045 would be a great excuse to get the ERTMS issue sorted finally.)

 

Wonderful to see so many people making their views known and being positive, both for or against. It is always worth remembering that it is the supporters and members financial support that makes everything possible. No financial support, and the best engineers in the world couldn't produce anything near the scale of 82045, let alone of such quality.

The working 82045 lads have a motto which goes something like ' We can do anything' ! Which I think rhymes well with the point Chris made earlier about pragmatism and romanticism. and your point about striving for the best in both engineering terms and human achievement. All these qualities make for quiet a challenge, but their sum ends up as 'fun'

Mellish R. Having already made a mistake over 'Cambrian running' I would prefer to leave a definitive answer to you post to Chris Proudfoot. I do know both points you have raised are items the Trust is aware of.

 

Just to keep record straight - membership is now 820 and rising.

 

It'd be fascinating to learn if there are any patterns to newbuild project memberships. Generally speaking, there seem to be very distinct phases to how a project is percieved i.e.
(a) The idea is crazy/unaffordable/impossible and won't get off the ground
(b) They seem to have a chance if they can get the interest
(c) There's a reasonable chance with the right team
(d) Still not sure if my donation will result in a loco
(e) Hells bloody bells ..... only 150K needed to finish it
(f) Well obviously it was the right loco, because ......fill in any answer except the reasons for (a)!
(g) I don't like the colour
(h) I always said it was a brilliant choice

There always seems an almost imperceptible tipping point when interest goes through the roof (especially if BR livery is involved!), but is it possible to identify the key development and manufacturing/construction stages which attract significant new support? .... and are these broadly the same for most newbuilds?

 

82045 is always one of the must-see items at Bridgenorth, and there is always something else new to see. Generally feed the donation box a few coins

 

Hi there
Just another question, I see the 82045 is stored outside (if I`m right) but is it no room for it inside a shed? This is not a critisism at all, one can just be a bit worried seeing this beautiful piece of engineering stored outside in wind and weather..

kind regards
Knut

 

The 82045 team have been told by the SVR management that the chassis will go inside the Bridgnorth workshops as soon as a space is available.

 

Up until now, the shed has been rather full of engines undergoing various stages of repair or overhaul, and space was at a premium. There has been a determined push to reduce the numbers they are starting to show results. I don't know if there is room yet or if there are plans to move it inside. But being on its wheels was a first stage for the process.

On a different matter, and I am a member of the Fund, I would suggest a No to main line running. I've been through this with a different engine; the process is long, complex, costly and soul destroying. Both Chris and Tony were with me at the time; they know the issues from all angles. Yes, it's a majority decision, but it would be a minority which has to both raise the funding (a lot of) and sort out the admin.

 

Indeed, I totally agree with you. It may sound glamorous for the loco to run on the big railway, but at what cost? Time taken to fit everything, including major alterations to the hind pony truck and buffer beam (it is not all electronics), has to be balanced against loss of steaming fees on the SVR and/or other heritage lines. Costs soon mount up!

 

I don't think there is a 'one fits all' answer. 82045 is just a simple old Standard Tank, all of which suffered from the torch cutters skills, From the perspective of 82045 I would say the following points, in some rough order of importance, are critical, some by good fortune and some by intent:

(1) A Preservation Railway that feels the proposed new build will service its future requirements.
(2) A Preservation Railway that has the necessary facilities for constructing a New build.
(3) Leadership by quality and experienced Engineers.
(4) Leadership by a proven PR officer and Fundraiser.
(5) An experienced and capable Administrator.
(6) The preservation Railway to have sufficient members who will possibly financially support a New Build. The SVR has a membership of around 12,00 of whom about 5% are currently supporters and/or members of the 82045 Steam Locomotive Trust. There are 820 members at present.
(7) A long extinct Loco that can, against all the odds, be bought back to life.
(8) Dedicated Engineering volunteers, who are all SVR members. 82045 have been extremely fortunate to attract some outstanding working members.
(9) Engineering support in the form of drawings and advice.
(10) Being VAT exempt, having Charity Status and being able to show constant forward progress.
(11 Having a Chartered Engineer to ensure compliance.
(12) A regular and predictable income stream. Above that the Trust has been fortunate to have some extremely generous supporters.

Note that the usual discussions about out shopping colour does not enter the top 12. 82045 certainly had a couple of extremely vociferous critics when the idea was first mooted. Progress has ensured they have long since disappeared. Confidence in what a group is able to do, constant forward progress and listening to the membership all ensure that the steaming of 82045 is only a question of when, not if.

To sum up. Quality management. Determination. Original and useful Loco. Supportive membership. Dedicated volunteers. Home Railway. Income Stream.

I am sure I have missed something, but am equally sure someone will jump in to point out the error of my ways.

 

I had cause to call upon Mr Proudfoot's advice a few years ago, and remain grateful to him for his kindly wisdom to this day.

Personally, were I a 3MT member, I would be inclined to say 'no' to main line for the time being... the costs being what they are, and the loco having limited capability to earn that back, I would rather see it earning its keep on the SVR day-in, day-out, rather sooner than if they went down the main line route. Not that it wouldn't be nice, but I suspect that getting a 4MT back on the main line sooner would be a rather higher priority.

 

June Update now available: http://www.82045.org.uk/news/82045_news-june18.html

 

Our July update is now on line http://www.82045.org.uk/news/82045_news-july18.html

 

@82045MS's (always very welcome) posts invariably seem to appear within 24 hours of me checking the website for updates, month after month! As these are so reliable .... and thank you most kindly for that .... I'm just going to sit back from now on and wait for the updates to come to me!

Like most, I guess, the idea of mainline running is appealing, but needs to be tempered with the reality that a 3MT isn't a mainline express loco and opportunities for a blast out on the big railway are limited as a result, meaning there'd be an awful lot of expense for an unavoidably limited return ... and it's not as though we haven't got plenty of more suitable preserved mileage for it to cover in any event.