The price of Steam

This months Steam Railway sets out the timescale for the return to steam of 4472, and highlights that including purchase price and overhaul, 4472 will have passed the £4mn mark.

60163, it's widely reported was £3.8mn making it cheaper than Flying Scotsman, though arguably much of 4472's price comes from it's "historical value", the overhaul itself is approaching the cost of that budgetted for some new build projects.

How many other locomotives out there have a combined historical value / cost to overhaul value that exceeds the cost of a new build ?
I could hazard a couple (Maybe the Duchesses, Princesses)

But is this just limited to larger engines ?

With a non-operational Black Five quoted recently at £1.5mn + how much would a new Black 5 cost (when the Patriot team budgets itself at £1.5mn-£2m) ?

Any thoughts ?

 

A non operational Black 5 worth £1.5m! - I think somebody is having you on there.

 

Most of the actual building of a new loco will probably be done by volunteers under the guidance of one or two professional engineers. So the main cost of a new build is going to be the raw materials, steel,copper,brass etc.
So I should think that a lot depends on when you place your orders for materials. For instance If the A1 trust had started placing their orders about 2-3 years ago at the height of the commodities boom then she would have come in at considerably more than £3.8 million.
I should think that now would be a good time for someone with the money to start a new build. Commodity prices are reasonably low and contracted out work would be very competitively priced given the state of the economy.
Don't forget that buying an engine that hasn't worked for many years is going to cost a substantial amount depending on it's 'historical' value and don't forget the days of Dai Woodham selling engines for their scrap value are long gone.
Then when you start on the restoration you never know what you are going to find and the costs can start rising inexorably.

 

I wonder where the additional 0.6 million got to on the cost of 60163? She cost £3.2 million and by far the greatest part of the work was carried out by paid, skilled labour. The Trust has been fortunate in having numerous people volunteer in a variety of areas but you simply do not build new locomotives using only volunteer labour, even if you could find enough volunteers with the right skills. During the last eighteen months of the build in Darlington there were often a dozen paid contractors working on the locomotive. She would have come in at a higher figure had the Trust not had the foresight to buy copper forward (but it was still expensive! ) and borrow money to pay for the boiler when the pound was worth one and a half Euros!

 

A lot of the cost lies in the (big) pattern making, castings, heavy machining and boiler, most or all of which cannot be done by volunteers. Similarly, a lot of of the cost of 4472's repair lies in the new copper firebox - but there is a good chance it will outlive Tornado's steel one by a considerable margin.

 

What is the basis for that assumption please? I would say it depends on the water quality and treatment regime in both cases. Bullied used steel fireboxes, as did many continental and US operators . Clearly they wouldn't have done this if they were failing after an unduly short period? You could argue that back then some areas had water treated at source, but more often than not they relied on tank additives, as now. Also with a welded box, there are no laps to waste away. Iain

 

What was it Bulleid said,

"so long as there are welders, there will be Bulleid boilers"

 

I have a recollection of reading somewhere that a steel firebox typically only had a life of around 10 years in routine service - can't remember where though. Certainly the NYMR's experience with 80135 and 29 tends to back that up, as does that of the KWVR with 80002 I think. It will be intersting to find out what state 3672 is in after 100,000 miles as its firebox was extensively rebuilt. Then there is the issue of modern boiler steel quality which, I think it is generally agreed, is not as good these days.

I think the other thing to bear in mind is that when steam was in its prime, jobs like firebox replacements were routine work and they wouldn't have worried too much if replacement became due after ten years it the initial cost was low enough. Its the same with cylinders, I've read of cylinders on LNER pacifics being replaced afer 18 months, whereas today there it would be a matter of last resort.

Finally, you have to ask why, if steel fireboxes are as good as copper ones, why did builders persist with copper till the end of steam? And why are the 82045 willing to spend the extra for a copper 'box if a steel one would be a lot cheaper and just as good? They face enough of an uphill struggle to raise the funds to complete their engine without mkaing it unnecessarily difficult!

 

On the subjest of Steel versus Copper

When I was at the NRM crawling through the GWR drawings I found the drawing for a Swindon No1 boiler Firebox with Steel firebox

I thought one day, just one day that may be useful

With the price of copper and scarcity of the correct type it may be worth costing it out

I would also consider welded stays as an S160 has, so much easier

I suppoose for insrance approval this drawing would smooth things over

Just a few thoughts for the future

 

I am no engineer but have often had things explained to me by engineers and I believe the problem with trying to fit a steel box as a replacement for a copper box is that the stay spacing and types (fixed or flexible) would need to be different, but because the outer wrapper isn't changed, they can't be. A boiler designed with a steel box (and possibly older steel, although not necessarily as wartime steel was pretty poor, especially in Germany, who had considerable post war problems with steel boilers) has the correct stay spacing and types and hence lasts longer than trying to fit steel in place of copper. Water treatment (or lack of it) is also a major issue.

Steven

 

For a loco that is worked reasonably regularly, ten years will probably be the life of a steel box. I doubt that you would take the risk of putting the same box back for another ten year stint and expect to get it. Phillipson (1936) quotes 11 years as being the average life of a firebox on American railways. I've also got a paper on experience with Bulleid boilers which suggests a similar life but can't lay my hands on it so can't quote directly.

If you replace a copper box with riveted laps with a steel one with welded laps, you shouldn't use the same staying pattern as it is wrong. The area around the corners is not subject to the stiffening action of the flange and this area will be subject to increased flexing just where the welded joint is. The problem doesn't arise if you use a riveted steel box but you lose all the advantage of having a steel one and being able to weld. Going off at a slight tangent, I've often wondered why welded copper boxes saw little use. We've got one at Middleton in the little Danish Hs class 0-4-0WT but I don't know of any others

 

I remember in the 1980's being told that locomotives such as 850, 6233, 44806 would never work again due to cracks in the firebox or poor quality boilers, just shows how technology and skills preservation has, and have advanced since then !

 

I understand that another problem with copper fireboxes is that the BR-standard product contained arsenic; this is now an illegal substance and there is insufficient experience of arsenic-free copper fireboxes to date hence the possible transfer to steel fireboxes - hopefully to a suitable specification that tolerates the metal in the locomotive concerned.

 

C107 arsenical copper is still obtainable - just - but quite difficult to get hold of. I've been trying to get some tube this week and am still trying! The arsenic gives enhanced higher temperature properties to the copper.