Replica builds for heritage lines.

Wasn't the O1 0-6-0 originally SER?

 

At the Bluebell, needless to say! The O1 No. 65 was built in 1896 (but to a design dating back to the 1870s) by the SER as a Stirling O class; reboilered and received a new cab by Wainwright in 1906 and reclassified O1. So the underframe and tender are SER; but boiler and cab are SECR era.

In its original form, it had the typical Stirling hallmarks of domeless boiler and round-top cab; as preserved it looks more like a typical Wainwright product.



http://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/SECR/SERlocos.html

Tom

 

I'm surprised nobody has done that with redundant 08 diesel wheelsets/axleboxes/horns/coupling rods etc.

I have to say though that all this dreaming is just more "train spotting". We simply don't need any more locos new or old just more support for the ones which need funding & practical help to make them reliable runners again.

 

But you are confusing two things. Heritage lines need reliable steam power of authentic but simple to maintain types preferably not one offs but using standardised components. There core business is in shifting a paying non enthusiast public economically for survival.

Enthusiasts dream about all these obscure types - but most remain just that - an impractical dream.

 

Thanks I've learnt something, I always thought the little 2-2-2 was there to help get them moving if the receiver was choked and the slip eccentric didn't reverse the low pressure engine.

 

The O1 I think

 

Mind you, if ever anyone suggested building a replica of one of the LSWR Drummond 4-6-0s it would be crazy not to attempt to rectfy the design faults. They were handsome machines and one would look great on the Mid Hants, but looking good would be just about their only use if the severe steaming issues weren't addressed (Tom alias Jamessquared may be able to back me up here, but I think I read somewhere that the footplate crews said that the letters "LSWR" on their eight-wheeled tenders stood for "Lazy Swines Won't Run"!) If 71000 has been modified to correct known faults, why not a new build?

However, I would agree that this really only makes sense for a new build of a design where the original had such problems. The G5, 82045 or Beachy Head will do all that is asked of them without the need for radical changes to the original specification. I have to admit, I would love to see a Drummond 4-6-0 constructed featuring the Koopmans treatment (see 6023 thread ) but considering that I probably represent a small, rather eccentric minority and don't have pots of money, it will probably remain a dream.

 

Although the industrial fraternity wont be keen on me saying this but there are a Mass of Austerities in overhaul queue's that might be had for less than the cost of the new build set up ( though the wheels are somewhat distinctive....

 

And some of them have already suffered this terrible fate - look closely at certain locos called Thomas, Douglas, Iron Duke and maybe more.

 

Yet few of these lines will survive purely on this commercial income. They also need the free labour and the free money provided principally by railway enthusiasts who will only do this if the railway is interesting enough to retain their loyalty. A balance must always be struck.

If a purely commercial case can be made for a new 'standard' non-prototypical batch of locos then no doubt it will happen but so far the 5AT project has been abandoned due to lack of interest and I don't see any other modern standard-gauge designs getting off the ground just yet.

I agree, apart from the several new-builds already completed; many of those currently under construction; and no doubt more to come. Enthusiasts seem to be willing to pay for them as well as dream.

 

Would a Gresley K3 have been a good engine for a preserved line?

 

Don't see why not. Powerful loco

 

I wonder if the money is really best spent on new builds? Surely rescuing some if the engines rotting in sidings and headshunts across the country is a better way of spending it than building brand new engines.

 

I would hazard a guess that this is because many existing locos in a current state of disrepair have steamed before in preservation, so many older enthusiasts won't be that interested as the saw it in say the 80s or 90s, where as new builds often resurrect a class which hasn't been seen for around 50 years, so they get backing from both the newer generation of enthusiasts and the old hands who may also have never seen that particular class in steam, making new builds more lucrative for a wider audience, at least, that theory seems to make sense

 

Exactly. Financially at least, preservation is not a zero sum game. Whether there is sufficient manpower for new builds plus the restoration of long term stored engines is a whole nother can of worms.

 

You also have to consider, in some cases, whether a new build would be cheaper and, arguably, better for preservation. I can think of at least a few preserved and complete locos where a restoration would require so much new material that a new build of the same loco would be very competitive on price, while allowing preservation of the original. But once you cross that line, it opens up the thought "if we are going to new build anyway, why new build loco X (which exists in preservation but is fundamentally worn out) when we could new build loco Y (which was sadly never preserved, but could be recreated)".

Tom

 

The obvious answer is 'cos every time we can't find the drawing for a part or are trying to work out some arcane detail we get out the spanners and look at the old one... Plus of course if loco X is ideal for your requirements itwould be more sensible to build an X than a Y. But the wow factor is a problem.

 

Austerities, whilst brilliant little machines, are cannon fodder to the rebuild projects when compared to those unique (I think?) industrial locos that have been or are in the process of being transformed into Thomas, such as a 15 inch Hunslet and 48150 Hunslet. But then Thomas is an important source of much needed revenue for many lines and heritage centres... so I suggest the next Thomas rebuild should be a GWR pannier tank.

I would suggest that a K3 would be a much bigger than necessary loco for most heritage lines, but for a few like the NYMR, such a beast coupled with a relatively short wheelbase would be a dreamboat loco, I think.

Kind regards,
Chris

 

Which I suppose brings us to 'Stepney'.