Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

I think my very first argument on NarPres was with Paul, and we still don't agree!

 

Looking forward to seeing the atlantic when finished- strikes me as a really well managed new build and have been watching progress with interest!

Will definitely be making trip down to see it when its done, as I have stated elsewhere I'm well overdue a visit down to the Bluebell for some pre-grouping magnificence too, when I last visited 73082 and 92240 were the two locos in traffic!

Chris

 

Dukedog also visited the MHR a few years ago.

 

Baxter has also been to the WSR and SVR.

 

All you are really saying is "I like big chuffers".

It is a circular argument which goes " I like big motive power but this looks silly on the branchline train the business justifies and which would be reasonablyly authentic so we run buffet cars and heavy stock in general to go with the locomotives. We run heavy stock so we need heavy locomotives to haul it." All this stock costs extra money to pull around and puts extra strain on elderly rail which did not expect to be bearing the weight of 7P and 8P stuff in its declining years. The real forgotten infrastructure cost is to do with underline structures which 21 ton axleloads are not kind to either. I know the NYMR have faced up to underbridge renewal but they are one of the minority who can justify something with a bit more grunt.

We seem to have been here before!

Paul H.

 

You forgot Baxter visiting the SVR in 2012 for the Victorian weekend, I remember it well I had that superb Victorian piece of kit with high running plates, superheater and Walschaerts valve gear No 43106. My those Victorians were fantastic engineers.

 

Also 214 Gladstone visited in May 1982, but unfortunately not in steam.

 

I think Mr H likes to disagree with anyone who utters those immortal words 'wouldnt it be nice' on this forum. But when you think about it about 99% of our movement is all about a bunch of like minded indivuals getting together and uttering those words and then getting on with the job? Im pretty sure the PDSR started along the lines of 'Hmmm BR says it's going close the line from Paignton to Kingswear' 'Really?, wouldn't it be nice if we bought it and some Steam engines from Barry, we might make a few quid here, now wouldnt THAT be nice?' A whole load of people have given cash to pay someone to restreamline 6229 because someones had the idea of 'wouldnt it be nice to see a 'bathtub coronation'. Kidderminster station, the turntable at Minehead, the quad art set, Galatea, 46115, 71000, the NYMR running into Whitby. The list is endless but at the end of the day that little phrase has been at the start of it.

 

LSWR T9 120 1993 - 2008 (not in steam)
Bulleid Q1 C1/33001 1977 - 2004
GWR 3440 City of Truro 2006

 

Not really, Paul.

Most lines run Mk1s because that's what's available. Only handful of lines (including Bluebell) are able to field lighter weight stock. It's absolute nonsense to suggest that any lines who have lighter stock available would use heavier coaches just because it justifies running bigger locos.

Buffet cars are included because they make money, to pay for vital other things. I find it pretty funny that the Bluebell is the example you're using, where it's one of the lucky few lines who do run a variety of rolling stock including lighter weight items.

On the subject of the H2:
A) it was chosen because the boiler was available. Discussing it with one of the Beachy Head trustees on Saturday, he described the boiler as being brand new, and definitely the best boiler on the line. Sure, a C2X or a D tank would be ideal for the line (I'd love to see one) but the opportunity hasn't been presented, there's not a boiler. If a D tank boiler had been found in a factory in Sussex somewhere, it could be a slightly different story.
B) it was chosen because the people who are paying for it, and giving their time, blood, sweat and tears for it want to see it happen.
C) It may be interesting to draw a parallel with the other semi-new-build project on the Bluebell, 80430. A great project, which I'm sure you can't argue is an ideal loco for the line. Lightweight, economical, perfect for a branchline. Rescued from Barry in 1980 for conversion, the Beachy Head boiler was bought in the 80s and the project was properly launched in 2000. Tell me which of the two projects has been funded to pretty near completion?

Nobody is arguing that Beachy Head is perfect for a branch line (although the original loco definitely ran over Bluebell)-but you keep missing the point. It's funded and built by people that are passionate about it and want to see it happen. A more practical loco is available but hasn't had nearly the same level of support and buy in.

Don't forget the entire preservation movement, every single railway (including the IOWR) exists because at some point, somebody said 'wouldn't it be nice if...'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Hopping off my high horse for a moment, I was very amused to see this on the wall of Atlantic House where Beachy Head is being built...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's an interesting question, what sort of loco would be "ideal", and in what respect(s). A small tank engine, such as pulled trains of two or three coaches on many branch lines? A large express loco, such as might have been diverted that way occasionally when the main line was closed? Considering the 25 mph limit, a loco that was originally designed to pull freight trains? A reasonable case can be made for any of those – and the Bluebell has examples of all of them.

 

An 80xxx tank probably represents the best compromise of running cost, maintenance cost, power, ease of preparation and disposal and track-friendliness. (Locos with bogies and trailing trucks tend to cause lower rail-wear than 0-6-0 tender engines).

There is though some evidence that the public prefers names and colourful liveries: maybe we should convert the two U Boats to River Tanks?

For a new build, rather than a restoration, the optimum design is the one that can raise its budget most rapidly. People can rail all they like about unsuitable big express locos, but in pure financial terms, for a new build glamour seems to trump utility. Building a C2x would likely have proceeded more slowly than the H2 and therefore resulted in a longer period of capital tied up in a non-operational asset.

Tom

 

I instinctively want to agree with this (and I'm not knocking BH because I think it's the most beautiful class of locomotive ever built - and that from a dyed in the wool GWR fan) but I'm not sure it's true - is there a long history of genuine tank loco new builds collapsing/stalling/creeping along at two rivets a decade vs a sustained number of express passenger types rolling out of the sheds?

Yes we can all point to the success of Tornado (and the P2 proves that getting the job done the first time round gives a group the licence to do whatever it wants the second), but that's a credible team and I wonder if they'd have succeeded anyway if they'd been building something smaller.

Certainly from the newbuild pages of the Steam Beano every month I get the impression the two projects really storming ahead at the moment are the G5 and the one in my signature block. One's got its boiler now, and t'other's got pretty well everything except the boiler but does have pretty near what it needs to order that too.

Get both of them in steam in the next 2-3 years and it wouldn't be too unlikely that we may be able to say the score for standard gauge new-builds successfully completed will stand for a time at 2-1 to the tank engines.

 

I suspect it will be 2-0 to the tender engines this year - you are all forgetting how close the GWS' Saint is getting to completion. 3-0 by 2018 as I'm convinced either the Patriot or the H2 will be finished by then.

 

To be honest I wasn't counting anything with significant donor parts as a blank-sheet-of-paper newbuild (and that is not a criticism of those projects!!!) - so Tornado, P2, G5, 82045, Patriot, Clan count. Grange, Saint, County, Night Owl and BH don't (in those terms).

So, new builds by end of 2018 from a blank sheet of paper and having made everything, what:
Tornado
G5?
82045?
Patriot?

so perm any 3 of those 4 and I'm not convinced you've got a case for tender engines being more popular with the donating public than tanks when you're starting with nothing. And the various GWR projects are significantly boosted by the Barry legacy. If we didn't have all those lumps of metal hanging around to be used, would we really be building all of them from a standing start?*

*and to be clear, as someone that bleeds Great Western, I want to see all of them so I'm emphatically not knocking any of the projects with donor parts.

 

I take the point, though the substantive one remains: it seems futile to me to have a discussion about the most suitable loco for a preserved line in isolation from how it will get funded! If loco X can generate funds ten times quicker than ostensibly more sensible loco Y, it seems a bit pointless to tell those funding loco X that they are backing the wrong horse!

I do admire the 82045 project for being able to generate enthusiasm and funding around a relatively prosaic loco, which is a credit to the people doing the marketing and fundraising for that project. I must admit to not knowing much about the G5 project.

Tom