New builds - how many will ever really work?

I did say 'in whole or more likely in part' - the boiler could conceivably be constructed 'at cost' i.e. the labour - the expensive bit - paid for by a contractual agreement, with the newbuild group providing the raw materials. So the railway would not have to provide any capital - just a lower income from the contract engineering for the year, offset by the free steaming days in the future.

 

I would be surprised if a railway would be wiling to let their own staff build a boiler for 'free' when other engines would require attention, either from the home fleet or by a contractor. I think a railway like the SVR or NYMR actually building a boiler of standard gauge size to be relatively low - it will be more likely that a specialist contractor builds the boiler. However, we shall see what happens when the next phase of new build groups have to tackle the boiler.

 

Absolutely, this is all after all hypothetical.

 

Isn't Jamie's concept already proven to an extent, being not dis-similar from either a railway's engineering staff 'finishing off' a loco already in the restoration/overhaul process, or a railway supporting a group financially in return for free/reduced steamings for a period?

I know a locomotive I am involved with has previously benefitted from such an arrangement.

 

Most certainly; I think Neil's reservations are in the potential size of work a newbuild may ask of a railway's workshops under such an agreement. I think it feasible that a large proportion of work could be performed by a heritage railway under a quid pro quo agreement, Neil thinks less.

I think?

 

Even if the work is not to be done at that particular railway, then it is not completely unknown for an agreement to be reached between a locomotive group/railway such as an advance on steaming fees, to be paid back over a defined number of steamings in the early part of a locomotive's boiler 'ticket'; I understand there are several locomotives under such agreements around the country. Such a payment could potentially make a dent in the funds required for a component, making such a project more practicable. Admittedly these all relate to existing locomotives, but the concept is there.

Yes there are all sorts of commercial considerations to come into play, such as (for example) how advanced the new build already is, when the railway is likely to see a return on investment, given that even when a boiler is completed it is likely to still take some time to complete the locomotive, interest, commercial security etc., but if a group is able to gain the respect of and develop a relationship with a railway then this just illustrates that other avenues may become open.

Even given the above though, one has to say that there are a lot of bridges that any group would have to cross before even thinking about such an approach.

 

I think there's a large difference in a railway paying £100k to finish off an engine that's already complete and paying £400k to build a boiler for a new build.

 

Undoubtedly, but if a group were able to (for example) fund the design approval, certification and materials themselves and the only 'cost' to be financed were then labour, then this could become a more attractive proposition. I don't think anyone could realistically approach a railway and say 'we need to build a £4-500k boiler - don't suppose you fancy paying for it for us do you'; it would have to be some form of partnership agreement with something defined in it for the railway and something most definitely provided by the group.

As with so many things though, there is no real black and white, its so many shades of grey.

Not saying that this sort of thing would actually happen by the way, as there would be so many hurdles to understandably be overcome; just that it could in the right circumstances be a potential option.

 

But I must reiterate once again that I did say 'in whole or more likely in part'.

How much of that £400k goes into

a) design
b) approval of design
c) raw materials
d) labour costs
e) certification

I'm forseeing that a group will deal a, b, c and e, whilst the railway will provide d, which I think would probably at most present half of the £400k cost, but I don't know.

I wonder if an expert may be able to roughly 'cost' the above 5 points, out of interest?

 

The difficulty in predicting what will actually happen is because no-one has built a boiler for a new build apart from the A1 Trust who used a contractor and paid for it with a bond and donations rather than a preserved railway which might build it and claim use of an engine for X number of days/years.

Perhaps some of those involved in with new builds like 82045 and the Patriot would be willing to outline how they think they'll finance the construction of their boilers?

 

I think Jamie may have a good point here.

SVR has already built a small new boiler for Dolgoch so why would it not be possible to up the scale and build a new boiler for 82045.
To do this succesfully would put the SVR in a great position to mve forward, when do you say enough, it will cost more to keep patching up old boilers than to build new.

I think Phil Swallow touched on this previosly on a report on Taw Valley, something to the effect that if he'd known what was wrong with the frames, instead of refurbishing them it woud have been cheaper to cut new ones.

This scenario is going to happen sooner rather than later with boilers, indeed it may have already with 6634.

In this country we seem to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, to have the ability to construct new would be an enormous asset and might to something to offset the cost of overhauls.
Worth a sensible discussion surely.

Cheers Dave

 

We have the ability to construct new, so I don't see what the problem is. Look at Scotsman's new firebox for starters. 80072 and 80136 both have new taper and parallel boiler barrel sections. The same is being done on 80097 and 75078. Most, if not all, of 45428's firebox was renewed. As far as I know, it is the intention for 82045's boiler to be constructed at the SVR, but, no doubt, other contractors will be involved.

 

i BELIEVE THE G5 HAS MANAGED A BOILER OR AT LEAST A BOILER SHELL BUT THIS IS FOR A SMALLER LOCO.

 

First and foremost, please accept my sincere apologies for my misrepresentation of your group previously.

Secondly, I have just read your piece in Heritage Railway magazine's Platform, and have just looked up your website, including the PDF flyer. I'm very much intrigued and the fact you already have a suitable GCR tender lined up means you're already ahead of groups such as the Claud Hamilton or Manchester United B17 groups. I wish you all the best in the endeavour.

 

That's interesting. Is the G5 the new build that is being financed by a group of individuals rather than a large group of members?

 

Yes that's the one. Have a look on the G5 website. There are some photos of the boiler.

 

A very impressive operation too.

I have to say, if we think the facebook groups in any way undermine the real new builds, I think we just have to take a look at the comparatively quiet but excellent progress other new build groups have made.

The the future of locomotive building in this country looks rather bright.

 

Well I guess having finance shared between members means that they won't face some of the problems we've discussed above. I wonder if the G5 will be unique in the way that it has been financed.

 

Yes I know various bits have been made 43106 has a new barrel section going a lot futher back 3442 had a very big job done on the firebox, you mention scotsman, some have said on here that a new one would have cost less.
The question remains when do you say enough, it will cost more to repair than to fix, although the raw materials have a significant cost labour costs must escalate with a large repair.
Std Tank mentions new fireboxes, were these complete or just inner or outers but not a complete boiler yet with the exception of 60163 which was built in Germany.

Cheers Dave