New Build Claud Hamilton

I disagree some funds may be diverted from other Railway Heritage schemes, for some their interest is in engineering and building/redesigning from new. Others are interested in restoration of existing engines, some follow and donate only to line extensions, others like me are interested in vintage rolling stock and visit lines to see newly restored carriages. If someone came up with a plan to build a Beyer Peacock for the IOW i would give up a curry a month to aford the £5 a week standing order as its a project relating to a particular interest of mine (IOW), i would still support carriage resoration financially on projects that i am interested in on other lines as that is my more general interest.

The answer is each to there own and what you like, you cant tell people where to donate, and donations do not always come from the same pot of cash. We all make choices i have chosen many a time not to by a CD or Book and donate instead to various projects (not always transport related either). You cound say that any sort of preservation fund raising is bad because it diverts money away from Medical/Childrens/social charitys.

 

I'm not convinced by that - for it to be true, you would have to assume that there was a finite pot of money available for railway preservation, and it was simply a case of redistributing it one way or another between all available projects. The evidence seems to suggest otherwise - or at least that we haven't yet reached anywhere near the limit of that pot. As evidence, consider the results when now and again a railway does a major appeal: if it is pitched right, the money flows in large quantities, but without particular evidence that Peter is being robbed to pay Paul. Far more likely that such money would simply not have been donated to a any project at all had it not been for the appeal. (As an example, consider the P2: when the appeal was launched, they raised hundreds of thousands of pounds in short order, but I don't think there was a host of other projects complaining that funds had suddenly dried up as a direct consequence).

So I don't think there is particular evidence that too many projects are diluting resources; rather that people who fund such things are pretty astute at judging which projects have credibility and which don't, and then targeting their donations at those that particularly strike a chord in terms of "yes, I'd like to see that".

Tom

 

I think saying it is the most important ever is claiming far too much. Good Luck with your project but I prefer to support others as I have no particular interest in LMS Patriots and I can show my respect for the fallen in other ways (just got back from the ceremonies at my local war memorial).

 

I suppose this will be the cue for some ****** to start a fund to build a replica "Remembrance" starting with the dome cover.

PH

 

Good idea. I rather like the big Brighton tanks. I presume you've established that the dome cover you have is genuine.

 

Coming back to the "Claud", I understand that one of these locos was originally set aside for preservation (as it was considered to be worthy of preservation as a key example of British steam loco development) and chalked up on one side as such. However, the scrapping contractors approached the loco from the other side.....

No doubt the Claud Project will attract sufficient "grown ups" with the financial, engineering and management clout one day.

Define "madcap scheme." We are all mad in some shape or form are we not?

Is a "Clan" merely a "Britannia" with a smaller boiler? (I'm not being facetious, it is a genuine question.) Given the progress made on "Hengist" thus far, I've no doubt that it will succeed. Like I said, some men of a certain age with a disposable income want one and they'll have it sooner or later. It doesn't have to be YOUR money.

 

I thought it was yours but was too polite to say.

PH

 

Yes, surprising words from me as I'm very much a GWR enthusiast. You can indeed show your respect in other ways but the "Patriot" is a good way to do so. Regarding today's ceremonies, I was lucky to take my Dad along too. At 96 he's lucky to be here. Especially as one of his medals is the Arctic Star and the "funny" ones underneath, Russian convoy medals, including the Ushakov Medal, one of only 4000 or so awarded to UK Service personnel.

 

I hate to say it, but I suspect the scrapping contractors had full permission to proceed! It is true, however, that Alan Bloom tried to persuade his local traction engine club to buy the last surviving "Claud". (One can only assume that he didn't have the money to buy it himself at that time.) Unfortunately the club preferred to stick to road steam, and so the engine was lost. The story is told in his autobiography but unfortunately I don't have my copy available at the moment.

 

I think back then there was a lot to chose from and a Claud would not inspire much enthusiasm as it was heavily rebuilt from the original, I think this was one of the reasons given for not including an A3 for the National Collection.
Personally I would sooner still see more effort put into funding existing locomotive revivals instead of some of these pie in the sky schemes. The Adams Radial Tank springs to mind.

 

If the lads have been simply working on gathering the data and the drawings there would not be much visible progress. I think the GWS projects all spent several, sometimes many years in that phase. Much better, IMHO, if they are devoting their effort to that sort of basic and fundamental stuff, which is in any case valuable in itself, rather than pointlessly cutting a few minor bits of metal so that on line critics have something to see.

 

I don't believe you can ask for donations to one group and 'use' the charitable status of another group to receive benefits. The L&B 762 club tried this and I understand that HMRC told them they had to apply for charitable status themselves and could not use the railway to claim back gift aid etc. I believe this set them back quite a bit in time and probably quite a bit in expense.

Sorry Jim, but that argument doesn't hold water - they've gone public with a website, Facebook page, and are appealing for funds. Any group that does that should definitely have done their homework beforehand. Remember it's been 4.5 years since they started - I would've thought that over that time you'd have collected the drawings, established an operating company, possibly got charitable status, opened a bank account, established links with loco works that can actually produce the parts they need etc etc. This group haven't done any of this. It's got failure written all over it


Keith

 

It depends somewhat on whether they are an independent group, or are part of the larger charity. If the latter, then that should be no problem - though if I were considering donating, I would want to know that the funds were ring-fenced so that my donation would actually go to Claud Hamilton, not something else.

 

I hope I look as smart and fit as your dad when I'm 96.

 

My respects...

 

I submit that this sort of flak gives the young and keen the impression that in order for their project to have credibility then they should rush into cutting metal.
I suggest that it is far better that they should be encouraged to do the unexciting background stuff and not be flamed for lack of visible progress.

On the one hand I believe we have seen at least one high profile project rush into cutting metal and then have to scrap it because it wasn't done properly.
On the other hand the Saint project at the GWS was 34 years between acquiring Maindy Hall and making a serious start on the Saint.

I suggest that actually it doesn't matter a damn if the lads take 5 years gathering data for a Claude Hamilton project or 25 years, especially if they share the fruits of the research, but I suggest it does matter if people feel compelled to cut metal too early, occupy workshop space and spend serious money.

If they're reading this then lads, my suggestion would be that you concentrate on the data gathering and publish everything you find on your website. If there are things (drawings at the NRM for instance) you can't publish in detail because of copyright restrictions then post a snapshot and full details of where the data is located. If you can turn your website into a Claude Hamilton reference that modellers drool over and other preservation engineers respect then you will have gone an awful long way to establish the credibility of your project and silence the critics.

 

Indeed, a lot of preliminary work should be carried out before there is much, if any, "visible progress" in the form of pieces of metal. However there ought by now to have been a considerable amount of progress with the activities set out by Keith in post 232. If they have been getting on with those they could say so. If they have spent several years not even finding drawings, setting up a company or trust of some sort, assembling a team with expertise in various aspects, etc, then the cynicism is justified.

 

With respect, the most important preliminary work is always raising the money, if you can't establish an income stream you will spend years treading water and achieving nothing. Perhaps it is important that such prospective new builds are 'tested' in public and exposed to the full glare of scrutiny - if they are found wanting then the process has proved itself.

Foxy

 

Any updates on this project? The website seemed to be down when I looked.

 

Nattering about the B12's yesterday sent me scuttling in Phœnix's direction. Short version: don't panic, you've not missed anything.

There's been no update to the website's 'News' section since March 2017, concerning an artwork, but the last substantive news on the build, specifically the bufferbeam, was in August 2016, photos of which exist on the website (Build Progress), though none of the three are captioned or even dated. There's an undated (though otherwise perfectly presentable) page appealing for funds for the frame.

The Facebook page confirms the project will have a presence at the East Anglian Railway Museum Summer Gala next month (8th July), but progress wise, I'm afraid your guess is as good as mine. The most recent CAD work (December 2017) shows a bogie frame, which even I recognised without a caption, plus a couple of items I didn't! (one looks sort of valance-y, but regarding t'other bit .... Bob alone knows! Spring hanger? Cab step? With no notion of size, it's hard to tell)

A link on the FB page (loaded 31st March 2018) opened another website (railadvent.co.uk - which looks worth a ferrett through at some point), where a decent potted history page exists.

Extrapolated speculation aside, that's about it as far as I can see.

For what it's worth:
●http://www.claudhamiltonlocomotivegroup.co.uk
●https://m.facebook.com/Claud-Hamilton-Locomotive-Group-183286091722638/
●https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2018/0...tive-no-8783-phoenix-project-information.html