GWR 'Dean Goods' no. 2516 - suggested restoration in Steam Railway issue no. 401

So nothing like establishing that the boiler is actually available, getting it inspected and having a rough estimate of the nature and likely cost of repairs. Then finding out what other parts, patterns and drawings, if any, are available within the movement. Follow this up with some "homework" on fundraising and marketing from the other new- build groups . Only then should they have announced their plans and not on Farcebook which may be the favoured mode of communication for teenagers but that is not the age group where the money lies.

I see David and lil'bear have repeatedly jumped to James' defence so maybe they know more than about the group than has been written on this forum but from what I see here this group doesn't seem markedly different to the J39 group. Ray.

 

I just do not get railway preservation sometimes.

We get complaints, end of the world style rants about how we need the youngest generations to step up, be productive and enthusiastic...and then when they do, and it's not to the liking of some people, they immediately get slapped down and treated like they're a bunch of eejits. It's a nonsense. How are we going to get people interested in maintaining railways and their rolling stock if the movement just slaps them down every time?

The building of Tornado commenced with a group meeting to see if anyone else was interested in building a new Peppercorn A1. It required meeting physically, in person, to outline a plan of action and what would be needed to build it. Bear in mind that this was before the days of regular email, internet forums, facebook and the like, and communication in its swiftest forms such as these were in their dialled up infancy.

It is much easier these days to ascertain demand for something through the internet, whether it's gauging reaction on Facebook, an internet forum, Twitter or whatever. It is easier to communicate with millions of people worldwide today, than it was when the A1 Trust started out.

It is better to get the idea out there, and discuss and develop it, with as many people as possible than sitting on an idea and taking years to go anywhere.

Now here, the people in question have asked around, then made their idea known, and have gone to several sources of information to find out more. That's a good first step, whatever their respective ages are.

Reading the Facebook group, they are looking at the viability of the project as a whole before committing to building it, and there are some well known names in railway preservation on there who have given them some excellent leads and bits of advice (and even offered some artwork to help advertise the locomotive group's ambitions).

It is clear there IS a demand for a new Dean Goods locomotive, it is clear a lot of people are more than happy to offer their support and advice to make it happen, and - unlike a lot of the new build projects on the go at the momentum - there is a perfectly useable and steamable boiler already in existence, and a heck of a lot of standard and appropriate GWR parts and patterns around the country to add into that.

If the group coordinates their knowledge, their assets, finds a willing and set location for it to be built, and manages the difficult bit, the fundraising bit (which if you are careful and clever, as the A1 Trust was, can be your strongest asset) then they'll end up with a Dean Goods locomotive after all.

If you do not try, you will never know.

I'm just amazed with a Dean Goods boiler in existence, and all of the standard parts and patterns available to GWR groups for decades now, that this has never been tried before. I say good on them for sticking their necks out and doing it in a manner appropriate to the idea.

 

I personally think that the biggest hurdle that this group have to overcome is that of convincing people that they mean business. I'm not a fan of the Dean Goods but I will readily concede that it is a sensible project. Of great use to a majority of heritage railways, cheap and relatively uncomplicated and with what seems to be a substantial 'fan base', especially with the older generation who arguably have the money and knowledge. That, in itself is a big plus point. It will cost a lot less to build than Tornado and won't have to jump through all the hurdles necessary for main line running. Any new build project can now avoid the pitfalls that the Tornado project fell into, as well. Their marketing may have been good but their early engineering wasn't. (Frames and tender brakegear are just a couple of examples that come to mind).

 

Most if not all of the viable new build projects are run by people who have experience and a track record of engineering in the preservation world. The problem is at 16 you wont have either engineering, design or commercial world experience. You cant just rock-up from nowhere and decide to build a 100 odd ton machine from scratch and be taken seriously.

 

Of course there are some in "the movement" (whatever that might be) who regard any newcomer with suspicion. Not good. However, when someone turns up, of school age with no experience whatsoever, touting a proposal to construct something with someone elses money which project, of course, they want to be in charge of, then established groups can be forgiven for regarding them as "eejits"!

There is absolutely no need to have a new project just to get people involved.

It is ironic though that this project, like the very similar J39 one, involves a sensible sort of prototype which has a chance of earning its keep past the first ten yearly boiler overhaul. Many of the other newbuilds, led by people with the necessary abilities, are less well selected.

P.H.

 

This project is ,I think, different to all of the other new-build projects currently underway in that it is replicating a class of which there is a surviving example.
Could the boiler not be used to recreate an extinct type of pannier tank ?

Bob.

 

What would be the point? The external differences between an ultimate config pre grouping pannier tank with an enclosed cab and an early cab 57xx amount to a few inches off the front end and some variations in footplate valancing. Some of the last survivors of the outside frame locos did get P class boilers, so I suppose you could go back that far.
On the other hand a Dean Goods in full ROD specification with the pannier tanks and westinghouse brakes would be something rather special, and the extra water capacity would come in useful even if the air brakes didn't. And think of the liveries - I've recently seen a photo of a Dean Goods post war in SNCF livery on the loco, yet still with GWR on the tender...

 

the "extra water capacity" was part of the comdensing gear wasn't it?

 

I've said let's give them a chance, as James/Andy are at least prepared to listen and ask for help unlike the J39 lot. I think one problem they have though is that they are maybe listening too much, as some people are making ridiculous statements and with James/Andy being inexperienced they are trusting them. This led to them considering mainline running (though they seem to have dismissed this now having realised the practicalities) and trying to set themselves up as rebuild project in order to claim lottery money. Fortunately some more clued up members of Facebook have pointed out the implications and so they have rethought their plans and made them more realistic.

As they are prepared to listen, and have admitted with their lack of engineering know-how they will need to contract out a lot of work, lets at least give them a chance before writing them off. You never know they may surprise a few people.

 

Totally agree with you.

 

First off - In an ideal world, I'd love to see a dean goods out and about again, and it does seem to be a sane project to consider - both it's size and its lack of complexity make it much a more straight forward build than a complete pacific(for example) of a desgin 40 years younger. It's also going to be well suited to the short lines and trains of many preserved railways, which should mean it can earn it's keep well enough to pay for it's ten yearly overhauls.

Also on the plus side there is at least one (if not two) potentially usable boilers in existence.

To my mind the obvious downsides inclue that we've got one already (albeit emtoombed in the "steam" museum), and that the GWR is already over-represented compared to other companies.

So - if it's ever to see the light of day, here are some real and practical problems.

1) Is the boiler in question available, also is it worth salvaging. Boiler work is very expensive, and just because the outside doesn't look too bad, it in no way follows that it's not paper thin inside. If it was my project, my first steps would be to talk very nicely to the didcot guys, followed asap by rounding up enough dosh in the bean tin to get a reputable boiler inspector to at least do a visual inspection of it. (Probably not all that expensive if you get him to combine his visit with some of the other didcot groups). RSA insurance would be my recommendation (I work in the steam boiler world), but probably be best to find out who didcot use. If you want an easy life, keep the same boiler inspector on all the way through the project - they can be quite individual in their take on certain problems.

2) The paperwork. If you use the didcot boiler, you may be able to claim grandad rights on the whole engine. If you can't, welcome to a whole work of pain and hurt where you make the thing comply with modern CE marking - just because the GWR built loads of them and they worked fine, don't think you can just buid more - you have to prove they will work. That's assuming it's only ever going to run in the heritage sector - if you fancy it running on network rail metals, then it's a further and much worse big pile of paperwork, acceptance trials and monster sized bills to pay.
3)Money - once you've secured the boiler (at least in principle), and have run round to see what drawings and patterns are available, it should be possible to come up with some halfway plausible costings - at which point you will need a business plan for how you intend to raise a fairly large chunk of cold hard cash. This is where being credible becomes really important, as you will be asking the railway world to round you up a six to severn figure sum.

As a group I wish you well - and if you ever get as far as cutting metal, I could be tempted to become practically involved (i don't enjoy paperwork)

One think I would say is - realize what a big commitment building a loco is, and also realize how full your lives will become as you grow older. I was a regular volunteer as a teenager - I probably spent an average of a day a week working in the preserved steam world. From when I was 19 to when I was 25, I didn't go near a steam railway - supporting myself with a place to live etc etc basically took my entire energy. I'm slowly comming back into the steam world now life has settled down a bit (I've a fireing turn booked for easter - for the first time since I was 18). Don't expect your lives to be different - they may seem easy now, but just wait to you have to earn a living to get by.

 

estwdjhn has said just about everything. In the meantime "get some service in"! You won't be credible without it.

PH

 

estwdjhn, unless I'm very much mistaken the boiler concerned is at Blaenavon not Dicot (that's the other one) so it would be the P&B's boiler inspector then? I would second the recommendation to go with RSA. Ray.

 

Ray - your right - my bad. Having read through the facebook's group it seems they have at least contacted the P&B about obtaining the boiler, and think it may be in usable condition.

I would still want my own boiler inspectors report before going much further .

 

I asked them a few questions on the group about some of the realistic issues this project is likely to face and for the most part, they came back with level headed and sensible answers as opposed to answers that didn't add up, and I'm willing to bet Lil Bear is lot more clued up on such matters than me.

 

The point I was making is Bridgnorth never ceased to exist, so the lads who started the SVR had something to work with from minute one, different situation with a new build.

 

hi all,

i think some of you have been rather hard on james littlewood.

remember that but for a 16 year old leonard heath-humphyrs there would almost certainly be no ffestiniog railway.

my own particular interest would be in building an Armstrong Standard Goods loco (very similar to the DEAN GOODS but with outside frames) there's a ship load of them in the channel!

i think rescuing 2516 from it's incarceration at Swindon would prove less expensive. it is well known it was fully restored by Swindon Works prior to preservation (J.N.Maskylene of the SLS had a hand in this, as well as much earlier the preservation of GLADSTONE) and if CITY OF TRURO is anything to go by has a pretty good boiler fitted too. Reggie Hanks pulled a lot of strings in those days. LODE STAR is probably in superb condition too, and 9400!

if 2516 could be removed from the old museum and into the new museum then i'm sure it could be removed (plus tender) to somewhere for restoration and im also quite sure not much work would be required.

a superb example of victorian engineering and arguably one of the best 0-6-0 locos ever built both in performance and ruggedness. after all, didnt it knock spots off the ivatt/BR class 2 tanks when tested in the early 1950s?!

cheers,
julian

 

Go on - that's a tale I'd not heard - I'm guessing that time hasn't been as kind to them as it was to the shipload of 8fs (IIRC) that are in the med (again IIRC)

 

sunk in WW1 on the way to france. the loco numbers are well documented in RCTS. the Armstrong Standard Goods and the DEAN GOODS served in france in WW1, and the DEAN GOODS in WW2, the last of the Armstrong Goods having been withdrawn in 1934.

i have a 5"g Armstrong Standard Goods hence my special interest.

cheers,
julian

 

Any details of where they went down, and on what ship? I very much doubt there would be anything muxh salvagable left after nearly 100 years on the sea bed, but could make an interesting mission for someone with scuba gear and a camera to go and have a look...