Newbuild Claughton

Ah but the Patriot they’re building is going mainline. Doubt you’d raise enough funds for anything that size that was never going to be given its head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes, a lot of what we have is simply because it was left over in Barry, so the variety was a bit restricted.

Big express passenger engines are welcome on the preserved lines at galas and as an occasional attraction, but everyday use gets expensive in coal and infrastructure maintenance. Smaller tank engines are far more useful on many heritage lines, but water capacity can be a limiting factor on the longer ones, where tender types are often preferred. As an example, When the George the Fifth project was first mooted, I suggested that a Prince of Wales would be more useful, but it didn't happen.

 

There are several projects which are largish tender locos which are not, as far as I am aware, going mainline. The Brighton Atlantic, GWR Counties, both 4-4-0 and 4-6-0, the 4700 2-8-0 and Betton Grange.

 

I'm pretty sure that the County 4-6-0, 4709 and Betton Grange are all intended for mainline use when the locos are finished and the owners can afford the electrowizardry required


Keith

 

I'm sure the builders of all those locos would like them to go main line, but it's dubious whether they can. It has already been said that the Saint is unlikely to because of gauging, and the same will apply to other GWR locos with the same or similar cylinders.

 

Which is why, though I congratulate those who've completed the saint, and wish all the best to the others, I personally don't think they're the best use of anybody's resources (time, money, workshop space). The preservation movement is short of medium sized and large tank engines, but oversupplied with large tender engines. In my view, if we now have the potential to add to the variety of steam classes through new builds, we might as well go for the most useful types. There's plenty of choice even there, and lots of opportunity to represent missing or poorly represented railway companies, designers, etc.

 

There are enough new builds that are never going to get off the ground so why add another one? There can be no justification to put any hard earned cash into a hopeless project like this

 

County of glamorgan isent going mainline but is been considered only if it has its cylinders reprofiled like 6024 king edward the 1st i read in 1 of last years steam heritage magazines.

 

Are we short of large tank locos? There are quite a large number of standard class 4 tanks, soon to be joined by a class 3, not sure of the numbers, but several GWR 2-6-2 and 2-8-0 tanks, plus two? of the even bigger 2-8-2 version. A push to restore the so far unrestored ones of those would help the situation regarding useful tank locos for heritage lines surely?

 

Having bookmarked the site and looking more closely at it. To my eye, not forgetting other members eyes too, yes it appears to be a W.I.B.N. project. Certainly has all the attributes of those late seventies, early eighties groups that popped up to build this or that extinct steam type. Though Mark Allatt & Co really muddied the water with Tornado [of which hand on heart I was somewhat skeptical at the launch, bearing in mind my previous remarks], which in turn has helped them with the finances for their P2 and V4 projects. OK I know I'm repeating myself making this remark.

Edit: Of course we all have our own "favourite" new build we'd love to see [huge Euro Lottery Jackpot win willing], just look at the New build thread elsewhere.......

 

I agree, it's never going to get off the ground as a new Loco in its current format. I would still like to see one though!

 

Who do you think is 'adding another one'? It is the very people who are putting their own money into the project. It is not for you or I to tell those people where to invest their money. We can advise that project X is not likely to succeed because of reason Y, but people have always and always will invest their money in projects that interest them and not necessarily the ones that make the most practical sense. There is also no evidence that money destined for project X will end up with project Y if project X goes belly up.

Keith

 

Oops! I got muddled, its the County not the Patriot that is no longer intending to go mailine (Davo's post above reminded me).

Red face

 

I'm not telling anyone where to invest their money but look at all the existing projects that haven't got a hope of ever seeing the light of day where people have wasted their money in good faith. Just adding more brings the whole movement into disrepute. Reviving a less than successful LNWR long scrapped class just has no merit at all.

 

I think all that is valid, but unless that project is really hiding its light under a bushel, the degree of online activity and tangible output would rather suggest that the investing enthusiast has already made up his / her mind about the viability of this one, with minimal money wasted.

Tom

 

We are not short of these medium to large tank engines at all. There are loads around the country, but some railways (the early pioneers tbh) seem to have a lot of them.

While at the SVR the other day a chap was talking to me about the Jinty. He commented that what is the point in it being at the railway. It's too small for their services and unlikely to get to the top of the overhaul queue in his life time. However it would be ideal for the CVR, Battlefield, Ecclesbourne valley etc etc. They also have a standard 4 tank, 51xx up at barrow Hill.
Obviously it's often talked about the 3 standard 4 tanks at the bluebell, one still in Barry condition. Could one or two of those be moved on? Does the Bluebell really need the amount of engines it has?
KWVR is similar. There is the Pannier from the railway children, the Jinty, the L&Y, standard 4 tank that are all good size and good use locos.
The Midland railway center technically has 4 jinties I believe. And there are lots of places around the UK where there are similar scenarios.

Of course at the end of the day if the owners of said locos don't want them to move on then there isn't really anything that anyone can do for the time being. But Does the Bluebell really need 31 locomotives ( according to Wikipedia).

When it comes to new build locomotives the hard truth, no matter what others say about being useful, is the only engines that will get built are those that are capable of getting ££££. So I'm hoping that everyone on here who is as saying, build more useful tank engines is a member of 82045, the G5, F5, standard 2 tank, Patriot project (for when we build the Fowler tank)???

 

You're right that the engines which get built are those which attract the money, and while the train spotter mentality of big passenger types with nameplates and, preferably, smoke deflectors, persists we know where it will go, but that isn't the same as saying they are the right engines.

Many of these are really main line only with the odd visit to a preserved line, at which, being single line, they look totally out of place. But I see either: there becomes a glut of main line registered locos with insufficient work to finance them all; or the main line becomes so restrictive either economically or technologically that these engines are withdrawn from that pool, leaving them nowhere really to go.

 

Taking the Bluebell example though, about 1/3 of the locos (including two of the three Standard 4s) are owned by independent groups who have chosen to base them there, rather than being owned by the railway itself. If there was a compelling reason, presumably those owners could move elsewhere if they desired, though naturally the groups tend to have a lot of local membership for carrying out the practical work of restoration, which might become more awkward if they moved too far away.

More generally, the real shortage (nationwide) is restoration capacity, and moving ownership of locos around doesn't automatically solve that problem, however much you might hope it did. But in any case, perhaps the idea might be for those newer railways you mention to put a viable proposition together, rather than rely on the older established railways to set the ball moving. If you came up with an attractive, resourced proposition to undertake the overhaul of a loco in exchange for a long term running agreement, who is to say it wouldn't be looked on favourably? One of the Bluebell's carriages is already being restored by another railway in a similar agreement. One of its locos is also off site on a railway with which it has more of a historic connection, but thus far unrestored. (And I might add that another class 4 loco that was based on a 25 year deal at a major railway on a similar basis has recently had the agreement ended at the behest of the railway that had undertaken to restore and run it. So one can perhaps see why owners may choose to be cautious).

Personal view, as always.

Tom