New builds - how many will ever really work?

Interestingly, the requirements for brakes has subtly changed. Until recently, you had to provide a brake that was operative throughout the train. Now that requirement no longer applies and the brakes have to be 'suitable and sufficient' which allows a lot of leaway. The biggest problem for new builds/replicas is complying with the DDA requirements, which aren't really designed with heritage railways in mind.

 

There are three points. Firstly, for goodness sake get something finished before starting another project. The whole new build world reminds me of someone I knew, now dead, who could never get one thing finished before starting another. In consequence, a life of considerable achievement was less successful than it need have been.

Secondly, in the hard real world of 21st. century Network Rail with its financial penalties for delayed trains, 4-4-0s are just too small for steam excursions, however good they may be. Trains have to be substantial in order to defray the substantial costs involved and offset the restricted (getting more so I fear) opportunities for running such excursions. There also has to be some reserve of power to cope with delays. This means 4-6-2 and larger 4-6-0 locomotives.

Thirdly, tourist railways with 25mph limits are short not of large wheeled 4-4-0 but small wheeled 0-6-0 motive power. In an earlier posting I referred to how effective little 1369 was at the head of five Mk.1 or equivalent carriages on the South Devon Railway. A mid sized 0-6-0 would meet all requirements of such lines and it matters not whether the prototype was by Craven, Cudworth or Armstrong, although a newer design might be more sensible.

I suppose somebody will now be wanting to re-create The Great Bear or a Raven Pacific (he says wearily).

P.H.

 

As someone involved at the Manchester end. Planet is fitted with a twin pipe air brake system. Planet itself doesnt have an air compressor like the Rocket replica and so instead has an air reservoir within the tender which is charged when the replica is at the platform. The black hose you see on clips on youtube is the air line as the system is topped up between runs. The compressor is located on the platform. One also has to remember the context of when the project began back in 1986 when mainline running was being looked at. There is a very good article written in the Newcomen Society on how the replica was built and challenges faced titled: Learning through Replication: The Planet Locomotive Project. There was also a video produced of its construction and there is a short clip of how this project began.

Railfilms The British Engine Planet Project

The replica is 20 this year and so will be 21 in time for the Museums 30th next year.

The context of whether replicas would be useful was also touched upon. Until Agecroft number 1 was completed last year there had been a gap of at least several years in which Planet was the sole working locomotive at the museum.

If people would be interested I'll try and pick up on a few of the points from the building of the replica when I have a bit more time to respond on here.

Kind Regards

Duncan

 

Enough to open a Facebook page then??
Serioulsy if you are capable of funding your dreams on your own then every door is open. If however you are asking people to invest time and money in a project these days you need to be on firm legal ground. You may not like to hear it but today's world is not the 1960's when groups of school boys put pocket money together to buy an engine.
At every turn there are challenges, costs and issues to overcome and the major ones are not engineering related. Those projects that will reach their goals are those that have addressed all of these issues.

 

I haven't made any enthusiastic proposals. What I have done is engage in a forum discussion where individuals, including myself have raised engines that in an ideal world they'd have liked to have seen, for instance a MR Johnson 0-4-4t for me. 'Whatif's' and 'If only's' are an enjoyable part of forum discussions for most people. As to the LBSC Craven, james_squared has been absolutely unambiguous about this - no 2nd new-build project will be contemplated until Beachy Head enters paid-service. The idea has been discussed but all efforts are geared towards completing the Atlantic. What the Bluebell chooses to do and how they ultimately go about it is up to them but they can't be accused of being reckless for merely acknowledging that there have been discussions about what next after Beachy Head. For my part I've merely expressed that the idea is appealing to me personally. I'm not representing the views of the LNWR George the Fifth Steam Locomotive Trust either in my 'ifonly's' and my expression of support for the Craven following the H2 Atlantic.

Concerning the LGTSLT to which I am a member I've stated on a number of occasions that I'm not privy to all the negotiations and particulars and that there are developments in play which cannot be discussed at this point in time however much I wish it were possible. We've received some major expressions of support but translating these expressions of support into something tangible is a sensitive process, which requires discretion. This project has been quietly simmering without publicity for 3 years now so I can assure you that it's bears no resemblance to an oft-hand comment about a class one would like to see or the selection of a lost class from the Bachmann catalogue.

The group recently deemed it the right time to publicly declare their intentions when they felt that they had a sufficient number of 'ducks lined up in a row.' What you're suggesting in your comment is that we should have all our ducks in a row before any public engagement and yet some of those very ducks require public engagement first. Perhaps we don't have a sufficient number of ducks lined up for you to think we have a chance, or perhaps like PaulHitch, no number of ducks in a neat and orderly line will convince you that this is a 'sensible' engine to build. We of course can't please everybody.

 

Looks like there could be two classes of newbuild then - those early locos and stock only designed for flat demonstration track at museums and later designs which have the strength and braking systems to take part in timetabled services on heritage railways. Maybe make that 3 classes - the third being capable of main line work as well.

 

The same could've been said of the preservation movement 40 years ago. Why invest your time, money and effort resurrecting all these closed branchlines and salvaging scrap-yard hulks and buying someone's potting-shed to restore to it's former glory as a coach? You seem to assume that the new-build scene is both a monolithic entity (that the same people are essentially involved in all these projects and thus failing to finish something before they propise something new) and that it is discrete from the preservation scene as a whole. As to the Craven, I think james_squared has made it clear that there'll be no further new-builds at the Bluebell until the new Beachy Head enters paid service. He's been quite unequivocal.

From what we've been told by reliable authorities on the matter, that a new-built LNWR George will experience no greater difficulties in obtaining clearance for excursions than a larger engine. Now, who can say what restrictions might be in place in 10 years time? Will rail be moving towards completely automated operation, including self-driving units, which consequently restricts every and all steam and classic diesel excursions given that they may not want the human element mingling with the automated? Who knows? All the 4-6-0's and Pacifics in mainline operation including Tornado may find that they're prohibited from mainline operation over the next decade. We can anticipate the possibility yet take the chance that it'll still be possible for the forseeable future just as the chaps behind Tornado did 20 years ago when setting out to build an A1. They couldn't guarantee that they'd have access to the mainlines after completing their engine (and yet proceeded anyway) and they equally can't guarantee what the next 10 years will entail.

What is critical is that mainline excursions remain popular, that there's a public demand for them (which the likes of Tornado helps to foster) and that the preservation movement works as one to lobby and promote mainline access for the future.

 

I take your point- there is an element of which comes first, the chicken or the egg [duck eggs in your case!] when it comes to deciding when to go public. The exception would be where you had a group of fairly affluent founding members when you might be in a position to skip some of the initial sounding out. However I still stress the need to have some convincing structure explaining the way forward. If someone knocked on my door asking for donations, or a committment to monthly contributions, say to a planned hospice for kids, you would want to see the credentials of the person asking and whether there was a site with planning permission before digging into the wallet or signing a direct debit.

Just collecting money is not enough - a million pounds in the kitty is no good if you don't have the advice of an experienced engineer, preferrably one already with experience of locomotives, and the services of others who can put that into practice.OK you might get the frames cut by specialist contractors but are you then going to let loose a gang of amatures armed with nothing more than a Black and Decker? The most convincing way to encourage confidence is to sign up a number of members committed to regular monthly contributions as this at least offers some forward planning in terms of income, ie 100 people at £20 a month means you might be able to order the boiler in 30 years time! Sorry I'm goingto be accused of being cynical but the more projects competing for the limited number of potential regular donors means that order of timescale as resources are divided more and more, which is why I am part of the PaulHitch 'finish what you've started' school of thought. A completed project will encourage others, a failed one will not. If you follow the other threads on this forum there is discussion there of successfully completed projects. There are few in terms of standard gauge and some claim schemes like Beachy Head which use some existing components as new build, which of course they are not. Having a boiler is a big step forward as it is one of the most expensive components. There are some coming up - the Patriot, 82045 and the G6 - which seem to have the momentum to succeed yet once a discussion like this starts, up pop a whole crop of fantasisers each advocating a new candidate.

 

I wonder if - as David Elliot has apparently done with the G5 project - there is mileage in hiring people with knowledge of building new steam locomotives in as contractors and/or compliance officers, to assist with the overall project management and building of a new steam locomotive.

We have quite a few groups which are fully capable of doing this, and many engineers with the knowledge and experience to tap into with regards new build steam.

On the other hand - perhaps there is also an argument for developing a Heritage Centre of Excellence, where young recruits can learn and ply their trade in helping to build and maintain new locomotives and rolling stock whilst also providing the suitable manpower and intellect required for railway preservation in the future.

 

You are assuming the new build "movement" is one single thing. But it isn't, it is lots of small independent projects. There is no evidence that support for one is cannibalising the likely success or support for any other. Equally, you seem to imply that maybe we should say "hey lads, if you guys building Hengist, the Night Owl and the Patriot will chip in some cash to help us finish Beachy Head, we'll promise to pay you back once she is up and running - that way the 'movement' will at least get something up and running". Sadly, it doesn't work like that. It doesn't even work like that within the constraints of one preservation society.

Tornado took about 20 years to build and had about 10 years' head start on any other "big" new build, yet has only been running for 3 or 4 years. So I'm not surprised that she is, as of now, the only large, modern, standard guage new build yet up and operational. But I am sure she will be followed by many others. Certainly there are several locos not too far behind, and which are making substantive and sustained progress towards completion.

Well, Tysely operate Panniers on the mainline, so I don't think that stacks up. In any case, there is more to preservation steam than mainline running: some of the smaller new builds (and maybe even some of the bigger ones) may be being targeted purely at heritage line use. Apart from anything else, doing so saves a lot of project cost - that is one reason (among many) why Beachy Head is not being built with mainline capability built in, even though by time she is finished, we'll have a mainline connection.

Again, while I understand the attraction of mid-size 0-6-0s (and personally would love to see a Black Motor or an Adams 395 class running), heritage lines have shown they are capable of running successfully with a wide variety of motive power. To take just the example of large-wheeled 4-4-0s, I don't notice too many operators complaining about the effectiveness in heritage line service of City of Truro or the LSWR T9.

I also disagree that newer designs are automatically more desireable. If we were in the business of runing steam rail services as efficiently as possible in a no frills way, I'm sure everyone would want BR standards - efficient, easy to prep etc. But there are other markets to tap into (filming etc) which make earlier locos attractive to he public and therefore attractive financially. Just look how popular locos like FR20, the very early locos at Beamish, Firefly at Didcot, are to show that there is a real appetite to see things that aren't from our fathers' generation, or even our grandfathers', but much much earlier.

Tom

 

Good luck to her Jamie, I've just been through all of it with my better half (she's just got her first job in an all girls primary school - was jumping for joy when she was got it!)

It all comes good in the end, but the PGCE year is very tough, so be prepared for a few tears along the way.

Most definitely. At any age, you need an outlet for your creativity. At the ages we're seeing - mid teens and early twenties - their opportunities for being creative are severely restricted. I think railway preservation is missing a trick - it sees itself as a hobby more than it should, perhaps instead it should be seeing itself as a legitimate full time employer with a whole host of young talent it could tap into.

But that's for another debate I fear!

A few years ago, I talked to one of the chaps in the Beachy Head shed about the umber livery and we agreed it had to be physically authentic. I said then I'd throw a few bob their way if they were to do it - so that's me and Jamie, anymore for anymore...?!

Of course, it will be magical to see an Atlantic running. I never had the pleasure of seeing either of the GNR atlantics running because I am too young!

 

I think you raise a fascinating idea and one that has been sort of rolling around the back of my head of late. What is critical to preservation and new-build alike is fostering a new generation of people with the appropriate skills (helping too, to keep those skills alive. I personally believe that it's a worrying development when most people nowadays can barely cook for themselves let alone render basic repairs to the bicycle. The passivity and dependency upon technologies beyond most people's control or comprehension today is an unhealthy development in society in my opinion - although that's a topic for another day.).

Perhaps the whole movement will need to become more business-like after all, preservation steam and the manufacturing associated with it, contributes to the economy. Tourism and manufacturing are both fostered by the preservation and new-build movements. Commensurate with that would be the idea of a one-stop shop - a Heritage Centre of Excellence as you called it - a locomotive and carriage works dealing in repair, restoration and fabrication for existing stock and new-builds. I wonder as more new-builds enter service (G5, Patriot et al) whether this will prove to be an idea whose time has come. Of course that would be massive undertaking but one I believe that has real merit.

 

Count me in as well. That makes three of us!

 

It is a fair point, especially in the light of the Facebook Fantasists (three and counting...?) but as others have said the new build world is not a homogenous blob in which everyone is happy to dedicate resources to one loco, then another, then another. People want to see different locos and put their money where their mouth is. A 32424 supporter is not necessarily a 82045 supporter.

I am afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I can think of four limited power 4-4-0s that have been successfully operated in recent years on the heritage railway scene - the T9, City, Dukedog and Morayshire (I have deliberately left out the Schools on account of their power). If you put the right load behind them you won't have a problem. Not every railway needs a haulage power capable of six Mk1s on undulating territory.

When it comes to the mainline, I'm more inclined to agree with you, with caveats. To ask a George V or any other 4-4-0 to do what Sutherland, Clan Line et al do on a weekly basis would be ludicrous. But the mainline world, whilst dominated by such tours, is not all about them. I'm thinking 9466 to Looe, 9600 and L94 on their nefarious midland jaunts. Before any 4-4-0 had the necessary equipment fitted to go mainline a business case would be drawn up. If it passed that test, no problem! Perhaps the mainline world will change in the next few years? Perhaps Network Rail will demand shorter trains more within their charges capabilities? Perhaps mainline tickets may go up to enable fewer passengers and shorter trains?

Yes it would be more sensible to batch build a load of Baldwin Moguls to send out to several heritage railways in Midland and GC territory, or a batch of Black Motors or a batch of K1s. But like I said, newbuilds are 10% the dream and 90% hard nosed reality. Without that 10% they won't get off the ground. If there's no desire to see a batch of moguls or 0-6-0s, it won't happen, no matter how sensible.

 

Another debate perhaps but an excellent and highly pertinent one I feel. Speaking for myself and not the Trust, I'd say that not only for the preservation movement but for society as a whole, this is a critical issue which simply isn't getting the attention it deserves more broadly. Western societies are effectively losing a generation and with it, a whole raft of skills are not being passed on, not through any fault of the youth concerned. We've created a society of generally atomised, passive consumers whereas the evidence shows that fostering active creativity and participation in joint-efforts helps foster creative, critical thinkers, which benefits society is so many ways.

The other issue we're not dealing with is automation, which is now just beginning to prove that the Luddites were only 200 years before their time. Over the coming decade expect people to be replaced by machines in all kinds of jobs, even ones we traditionally consider white-collar and highly-skilled. There's a catastrophe in the making - a generation of people not merely without the skills but also without the access to gainful employment because simply machines will increasingly perform much of the work (over 70 percent of the trades in the financial system are now made by automated algorithms and increasingly there's a move to robots surgeons for example and the relegation of doctors to bedside manor). This can't be a healthy development and something has to give at a societal and economic level (the environmental issues notwithstanding).

Other avenues of employment while keeping human skills alive will be critical. Perhaps as you say the preservation movement should consider adapting to become a small part of the solution both for it's own sake and for the sake of the young.

Ok I won't derail this topic further, but it is something I think and worry about myself.

 

I might be imagining this, but wasn't there a plan that the GWS Saint was being built so that it could run as an Atlantic - the historical justification being that, when originally built, the first Saint was built as an Atlantic so a direct comparison could be made with the French locomotives that the GW had on loan? I seem to recall reading that the GWS new build was being built so it could be converted relatively simply between the two forms.

I might of course have got that completely wrong...

Tom

 

I'd heard that some time ago as well, and a cursory check of their website shows that an Atlantic option is indeed on the cards - 2999 Lady of Legend – The Saint Project: The Atlantic Option

Atlantics have to be one of my favourite wheel arrangements - there's something about the proportions and those high-stepping close-set drivers.

It's such a shame that both an NBR Reid Atlantic and a L&YR Aspinall 'Highflyer' were by all accounts set aside for preservation only to be subsequently broken up, and that no one had the foresight to save what is perhaps my favourite Atlantic of all, a GCR Robinson Jersey Lilley. Beachy Head will be a wonderful addition to the ledger and I can't wait to see her in action.

 

I feel that I've addressed a number of these points previously and I and others have addressed the suitability of the choice of class, as well as the matter of how one defines 'sensible', which has been PaulHitch's central argument. What I will say is that we've certainly no interest in letting loose a bunch of amateurs with Black & Deckers as you put it - it doesn't follow that simply because we either don't have all the answers at this point in time or that due to the sensitive nature of discussions taking place that we cannot and will not prematurely make an announcement, that it'll amount to 'amateur hour' on a LNWR George new-build. The Trustees list of connections is extensive and they're in negotiations and holding talks with people who have the relevant technical aptitude - (engineers, metallurgists etc with railway experience). Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the wheels of negotiations particularly pertaining to technical matters grind ever-so slowly, and discussions can be delicate in nature (they'd certainly not be helped by me declaring something publicly which hadn't been finalised).

As to monthly contributors we have started that drive and we hope that the timeframe will be a wee bit shorter than 30 years. As I've outlined elsewhere, we have procured some considerable financial backing from a generous benefactor who will match like-for-like with fundraising, in yearly tranches. We're also investigating other revenue-streams and studying other successful new-build projects every carefully, as well as speaking directly to these groups. Beyond this, however much I'd like to, I regretfully cannot say more at this stage.

As to the notion that there's a prescribed pool of competing donors I've addressed this before (feel free to search through my earlier comments) and James-squared has also addressed this point here and elsewhere in a similar vein to myself. To that point, as james_squared said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Anyway, perhaps it's surprising to hear but I appreciate the hard questions. All I ask is not to assume the worst wherever information isn't forthcoming (that it's all amateurs, no connections, no technical competence, no reasoned selection of a class with appropriate due diligence et al). Cheers!

 

Interesting comment - although there are should be sufficient new build schemes for some 90% of enthusiasts to find at least one which grabs them, so far, I haven't heard of a Scottish new build. I hope that if someone from North of the Border wanted to propose one, they would find support, as there were some very fine Scottish locos built and few preserved. I agree that a NBR Reid Atlantic would be a good choice, subject for it having somewhere to run, or perhaps a "Dunalastair" Caley 4-4-0. The "Cardeans" look superb engines, and seem to be well spoken of by historians, although again, this would be quite a big engine to run and operate. Even more so a GSWR Baltic tank.

 

As I understand it, a tender from a Reid Atlantic survives - so there's at least one part of that particular class which exists. A Danalastair and Cardean would also make for wonderful builds (Don't worry, Paul, I'm not proposing any of these nor am I intending to start a group! ) as would a River and as GWR Manson 4-6-0 or Manson 4-4-0's. The Whitlegg GSWR Baltic tanks, by all accounts, impressive as it was no doubt in size and in finish, were very poor engines.