GWR 3205

I have a huge soft spot for 3205. Back in the 1960s I was a volunteer at the SVR and fondly remember the arrival of our first loco......3205.

 

[QUOTE="torgormaig, post: 2581501, member: 1743" ]
the track record so far with new builds is not very encouaging. There are no shortage of such projects and many have been ongoing for many years. However none have actually been completed yet, with the single exception of Tornado, which has now been in service for as long as many of its predecessors.

Peter[/QUOTE]
On the standard gauge, perhaps. NG has done rather better, with completed brand new locos from Blodge, Keefe's, Hunslet Steam, Winson, La'al Ratty, Brecon Mountain and probably a few I've forgotten to mention. Even the Broad Gauge has managed two!

Don't forget what a trailblazer Tornado is .... and it does actually take a few years to design and build a 12"-ft scale model. How many 'in progress' make it into steam is moot, but of the "news" (as opposed to "new rebuilds") I'd not bet against the 3MT, 6MT, F5, H2, G5, P2, Patriot ......

 

On the standard gauge, perhaps. NG has done rather better, with completed brand new locos from Blodge, Keefe's, Hunslet Steam, Winson, La'al Ratty, Brecon Mountain and probably a few I've forgotten to mention. Even the Broad Gauge has managed two!

Don't forget what a trailblazer Tornado is .... and it does actually take a few years to design and build a 12"-ft scale model. How many 'in progress' make it into steam is moot, but of the "news" (as opposed to "new rebuilds") I'd not bet against the 3MT, 6MT, F5, H2, G5, P2, Patriot ......[/QUOTE]
Indeed, but just look at the time scale involved - most have been "work in progress" for a decade or more and of the seven you quote I see no more than three of them being complete within the next decade. Good luck to them but I don't have that sort of patience.

Peter

 

I'd agree several seem to have progressed at a less than convincing pace. One smokebox dart, or splasher in three or four years doth not a loco make. The real oddities (to my mind) are the Bugatti flavour P2 and the second B17, both of which beg the obvious question "Errrrr?". For my own part, several project websites featuring merchandising and historic photos aplenty, but nowt by way of tangible progress aren't vaguely inspiring and the proposals themselves seem most charitably described as "unconvincing". Regarding these, I share your scepticism. Some, like the D16, acknowledge they're in the earlier stages, and stated reasons for that make perfect sense. On that specific project, there is progress with drawing prep, but I'd agree, it can seem almost glacial.

Of what I'd classify as the more likely projects, the time spent in both ferreting around NRM (and other) archives to pull sets of drawings together isn't insubstantial, then they need digitising before the acceptance procedure can get going ..... and that's assuming no major redesign work is required. In the case of P2 2007, you'll recall a lot of effort went into identifying and rectifying known issues with the originals. Both the crank axle and leading truck required significant attention, which a eats into the schedule, long before any metal starts getting cut. Nothing too surprising in that.

I've wondered before where folk outside a project see the 'tipping point' when it goes from WIBN aspiration to something serious and worth chucking money at. There seems no real consensus. Safe to assume a rolling chassis indicates a build that's 'going somewhere', but in reality, you're probably speaking there of something where 75% of the donkey work (design, acceptance of same etc. etc.) has already been done. Perhaps it's when the first completed sets of driving wheels appear on the website? Or an assembled mainframe?

Some builds are by pure blooded metal bashers, with little interest (or ability) in marketing what they're doing, others may be better at the marketing, yet unable to attract the necessary skilled workshop types to be truly credible.

The old saying goes "nothing succeeds like success" and both A1SLT and the Bluebell's H2 group prove this. The pace at which 2007 is progressing is little short of astounding and I'd not be at all surprised to see that beastie in steam bang on target (and quite probably long before others which started long before it). I suspect that, once Beachy Head hits the Sussex rails in the not too distant future, the kudos of the "Wainwright E" project will head several levels north in the esteem of gricerdom. What can you say? Nothing speaks louder - or more authoritatively - than a successful track record.

Considering I recall the days when a knackered firebox throatplate would leave a loco indefinitely sidelined, when I look at what's now achieved on an almost routing bases I occasionally have to pinch myself to check I'm not dreaming. That doesn't mean I expect every newbuild currently underway to succeed, but several have all the hallmarks of projects which will eventually be completed. I just hope I'm still around to see a few of 'em!

 

I'll apologise if I came across a little harsh but I'll disagree with you a little, yes We've only had one new build from scratch (60163) but in the next few years what do we have to come? A P2, An 82xxx, a Brighton Atlantic, a Grange... I've a feeling I'll be seeing those in action way before something like say 35010.
Whilst something like 60163 doesn't have the history of something built way back in 19xx it's done a hell of a lot more in 12 years than some others locos have in their 3 score and 10.
Anyhow we've inevitability drifted from 3205 so let's get back on topic.

 

Although boilers and cylinder castings are among the largest and most expensive single components I think a lot of the new build projects soon realise that together they are still only a small proportion of the complete new loco.

Sent from my I3312 using Tapatalk

 

I hesitate to comment when other posters are more competent than me to answer the question posed. But there are obviously some basic issues. The loco must be able to do the job demanded, and not be barred by constraints of weight limits and loading gauge. For heritage line use, it is highly desirable, if not absolutely essential, that it be reliable and relatively simple to maintain and operate.

The most suitable types are likely to be those originally designed for short-distance, low-speed passenger work - local, branch or inner-suburban. Many small and medium-size tank engines are a reasonable fit to most preserved line requirements. The exception will be on some of the larger lines, who need more powerful engines to haul heavy loads over steep gradients - perhaps the best solution for that would be the non-existent BR standard equivalent of the GWR 42XX. And no, that is most definitely NOT a new-build proposal.

But to return to 3205, it does raise the issue of the desirability of tender versus tank engines. None of the British heritage lines is long enough to need tender engines. Tender engines do have the advantage that they may be able to do several runs without taking water, and go longer without coaling. Is that seen as a sufficient advantage to offset the overheads of dragging around a heavy tender and operating tender-first?

 

It certainly is on some railways. On the longer railways, whilst a tender is not essential as there are usually sufficient water tanks along the way, having a tender makes things much easier either for timetabling purposes if you can be sure of rostering a tender engine, or regaining time if the timetable has slipped if you can't. Certainly on the GWSR it is most convenient if an engine can do a round trip from CRC and back before filling up with water again. If water has to be taken at Toddington, it often means more carriages than normal are off the end of the platform as well.

 

Out of interest Alex now you have a similar length to a railway up the road (the SVR) hows your operations department finding or maybe I should ask found things? I really want a to pay a visit to the Gloucs/Warks on day there's 2 x Class 37 and a 20 I want to sample!

 

I'd say we're more or less at our limit of what we can comfortably do with the volunteers we've got. Our main problem operationally is that it's not really practical to start and finish trains at both ends of the line like you can on the SVR. We'd really like to run earlier trains from Cheltenham to Broadway and later trains in the opposite direction as that is where the demand is, but because everything's based at Toddington, to achieve that everyone's days would be too long. At the moment, if you start your day at Cheltenham, the earliest you can get to Broadway is about 12-ish, and the last train back is not long after 3pm. Last year we started splitting some of the crew shifts in anticipation of lengthening the days to see how we got on, and also as volunteers were finding the existing duties, although not any longer than before, harder work with more passengers and shorter breaks. I can't speak for every department but that splitting seems to have gone reasonably successfully in the guards' and TTIs' department, although it now takes me about 10 times as long to write the roster...

We seem to manage to run a 3 train service, one of which is usually a DMU, on most weekends where it was deemed worthwhile to do so, and a 2 train timetable, now almost always 2 steam, Tuesday-Thursday. Fridays are often footplate experiences and the like, and running more on that day or on Mondays would I think be a stretch too far. Partly potentially due to staffing, but crucially due to carriage maintenance, we don't have the luxury the SVR has of being able to rotate sets of stock in and out of service on a weekly basis, and I'd say that is probably the other major impediment to doing more along with the inability to have trains begin at either end of the line.

Anyway, I could probably write an essay on the subject, it's a bit of an interest of mine, but I'd be delighted to say hello if you visit, do let me know - after all that's been going on I don't think even a class 37 could keep me away from the railway when we finally get going again!

 

That's exactly the sort of issue we have at East Grinstead: the first departure is too late and the last arrival back too early, because our facilities are at the wrong end of the line for developing traffic there. We did try for a couple of years re-jigging the timetable so there was an early train up and a late one back (with one of the loco turns a split shift), which helped, except that in effect you ended up running more or less one round trip as ECS, which adds to the daily loco and carriage mileage, i.e. cost.

Not easy running a railway! Those longer lines that have loco and carriage storage facilities at both ends probably have more flexibility in timetabling, but at the expense of additional complexities and costs from running multiple facilities.

Tom

 

We're not too worried about the ECS aspect, we more or less do this anyway even on the existing timetables with probably no more than a dozen or two passengers on board. It's increasing the length of the day for staff that is the main sticking point. Split shifts obviously require more people, and it's also harder to keep everyone happy - some people travel quite a distance so don't want to be there for only half a day, and trying to make sure everyone has an even spread of morning and afternoon turns across the different train diagrams often takes just as long as assigning people to each day.

 

Whilst these are obviously important points, there is another highly desirable factor - public attractiveness. This is where larger tender engines have their strength, they attract more of the general public, which, hopefully, outweighs their extra costs. This is demonstrated clearly by the "Flying Scotsman" effect....

 

hello,
I have been informed that the cost will be in the region of £400,000.


nick

 

Hmm. Before the honourable member for the Isle of Wight jumps in, the Flying Scotsman effect is only clearly demonstrable with Flying Scotsman, and to a lesser extent probably Tornado, and any A4s. I'm really not sure there's any evidence that tender engines in general attract more passengers than tank engines. I'd say there *is* a distinction to be made between industrial locos and ex-BR locos though, even my grandma who has no real interest whatsoever would be slightly disappointed if she didn't get a "proper engine" - her words for what, on probing, turned out to amount to "not ex-industrial".

 

All terribly subjective tho', innit? Could you picture the hoards of ankle biters on the lookout for a green 'industrial' if there were to be a new TV series of "Ivor the Engine"?

And, from the perspective of 'joe public', do "proper engines" need shiny brass nameplates?

IMO, as our sector serves no one particular demographic (we're not proud!), the chances of there being one correct answer is as near zero as makes no odds anyways!

 

Oh absolutely, I was merely demonstrating that there is no single answer to what sort of engine people prefer. And right now, I'd even be happy with an S160 or TKh!

 

Well today's "ankle biters" might well provide some of tomorrow's volunteers.......and there are quite a few locomotives running today(-----sorry, soon), that do have non original "shiny brass nameplates" so perhaps quite a lot of "joe public" do like to see them.

 

Another advantage of a larger water capacity is that you do not need as many water treatment facilities as you are not filling up at so many different places. Good water treatment extends boiler life significantly.

 

Another reason advanced for tender engines being preferred in preservation is the additional space available for footplate experience courses (and also TV film crews!). The former, in particular, can possibly make a significant difference in commercial viability.