Current and Proposed New-Builds

I think in the 21st Century any steam locomotive in revenue service probably counts as a dinosaur. And [OT DIGRESSION] since we were young all birds have been reclassified as dinosaurs. It boggled my mind when I saw it pointed out that by any measure you care to think of, the Blackbird nesting outside my back door is a closer relative to a Tyrannosaurus than the Tyrannosaurus is to a Stegosaurus. Time, classification, all of them. [/OT DIGRESSION]

But as I noted earlier, *all* the Granges were built using parts from withdrawn 2-6-0s. According to Cook, works head at the time, about half the 43 went into the Grange. Frames and cylinders were new, motion and wheels reused, standard 4 boiler presumably went back into the pool as did anything else usable.

I think personally I'd describe locomotives built in the manner of 6880 and 2999 as renewals, just as the GWR would. And so I suppose it follows that the various mix and match exercises on the Ffestiniog are also renewals, and only the likes of Tornado are new builds.
However being too dogmatic gets you in a mess. Renewal/new build on capital account is a logical enough division in 1930, but I'm a shareholder in 4253 locomotive Co Ltd, and like other groups the shareholder capital is being spent on what only the keenest of pedantic logic choppers could call a new build!

Jim C

 

Why does the re-use of parts from locos A and B in a new loco C count as recycling if done for one reason but not if done for a different reason? Why should the reason for doing it affect how it is classified?

Different individuals can agree that projects such as the Saint, the Grange and the 4700 are good things to do or can regret the loss of the (already minimal) chance of restoring the original locos as such, but again that shouldn't affect what we call the result.

And BTW, why "Dukedogs excepted" apart from their being post-Grouping?

 

Progress.

 

I reckon now 5551 has suffered a catastrophic failure its dropped down the list (not to the last to be completed though!) of which new build/ rebuilds from other donor barry locos heres my theory of a list what will make it 1st onward to be completed, but as with alot of engineering projects the timescale can be irregular cos of engineering mistakes or getting the component manufactured, but here goes anyhow: 1. Tornado complete
2. 2999 Lady of legend complete
3. 1014 County of glamorgan
4.6880 Betton grange (needs tender and cab fittings)
5. 82045 2.6.2. 3MT
6. G5 0.4.4. Neary finished
7. 32424 4.4.2. Atlantic Beachy head
8. P2 2007 2 half years off complete approx
9. Holden F5 0.4.4.
10. 5551 5XP unknown warrior
11. 4709 2.8.0. Night owl
12. 6MT Hengeist
13. D7 4.4.0. 567
14. County of Montgomery 4.4.0.
15. King George V 4.4.0.
16. B17 61673 spirit of sandringham
17. D16 4.4.0 8783

 

The 1800s - 1830s say hello!

Tom

 

Where is 82045?

 

And the LNWR George?

I can't see that GER Claud ever getting anywhere

 

For those interested in the Dukedog, with a focus on the very question of whether it should count as a new loco or not, there is this article I wrote (with lots of help from @Jimc) which explores that very question.

I think where it becomes a grey area in the case of a loco like 2999 is that to me, a renewal is a loco built on the renewal fund. And since there is no continuity of existence as a company between the GWR and the GWS, I don't think you can call it a renewal. The best I'd do would be to say "replica containing substantial original parts from other locos" (and Beachy Head would be a "replica containing some original parts from Beachy Head and other locos")

Tom

 

Because the reason behind any action justifies it or not as the case might be.

Two men go into banks and withdraw money. One is dressed in a suit, bowler hat and has a cheque book. The other has a mask, horizontally striped jersey and a gun. Are both actions of equal merit?

 

They’re still new builds and there’s nothing in the title about steam or diesel

 

LMS NCC 2-6-0 105 - probably 3-5 years away from completion.

It's very optimistic to describe the G5 as 'nearly finished I would think it's still at least 1-2 years away.

 

The Lynton and Barnstaple 2-6-2 and 2-4-2 tanks can go on the list as completed, as well as the GWR steam railmotor

 

G5 0.4.4. 32424 Beachy head 82045 the 6880 betton grange and 1014 county of glamorgan and 2007 P2 Prince of wales I'm very sure are going to be all ready in 5 years time and hope to 1 day toast to them when each of em are running in the years to say I've contributed a bit to 3 of the new build loco projects and lost my bet on 5551 been ready in 3 years.

 

Indeed - not to mention At least five "Rocket" replicas. And Sans Pareil. And Novelty. And Locomotion, Steam Elephant, Catch-me-who-can, Firefly, Iron Duke ... But none of those count because they can't be reasonably painted in BR liveries ...

Tom

 

Southwold 2-4-0T

 

Numbers 3 and 4 on the Talyllyn Railway technically could be, as they came from the Corris Railway, which was part of the GWR and did actually run as part of BR for a short time in 1948, before it was closed due to flood damage

 

Good shout, forgot that one

 

Sorry, but for all those who think the Didcot County is going to be finished in the next year or two - think again. From what I hear from someone very close to the project I'd say 5it is 5 years away. Think how long the Saint took in its final stages, and the County is well away from the final stages as it stands.

 

I knew that if I waited long enough.........
Is this, or is this not the Steam Traction section?
If it is the Steam Traction section and this is the subsection for discussing new builds then what are diesels and electrics doing here?
I know we are pretty good at thread drift and all that when we discuss things but don't the modern Traction enthusiasts have a dedicated home of their own here?
Not picking on anyone, just pointing things out.
Will contact the Moderators in due course.

 

A cunning argument. In the cited case, one action is legal and normal, the other is a crime. But only rather loosely could the latter be referred to as a "withdrawal" of cash. In the case of the locomotives, obviously nothing is illegal, and I still maintain that the classification as rebuild, new build, or whatever is a semantic issue and quite separate from the moral judgement of whether we applaud or lament these projects.