Replica builds for heritage lines.

There is now a spare Sturrock tender, formerly displayed with GNR Stirling No.1. Can't think of any others with Stirling associations.

 

I'd never heard of this project so thanks for the link which was interesting to read. But the fact that the deaths of the two guys who started the project seem to have caused it to run out of money and impetus does rather illustrate the risk in trying to build your own obscure replica without A1 Trust levels of support. If they'd just set out to restore the original Cockerill loco then it would probably have been far easier to get it finished from here, even if it meant selling it on. As it is, who's going to be sufficiently interested to take it on and finish it? Frankly I'd be surprised if the NVR are just going to let it sit there clogging up shed space forever.

Maybe I am missing something and there is a grand plan of some sort.

 

Well, I would've figured that by now, there would've been a decision to resume the project, since the whole new-build "revolution" is in full-swing right now.

 

You see there's more of an update here: Y6 Tram

I find that I've even commented previously (no recollection: but there it is in print!). I have attempted to contact Cullen recently to find out more about the build, no response as yet. It would be a shame to not see it finished.

 

I think the criteria for a new loco for a heritage line has got to be:

1, A reasonably sized, practical design

2, Not too expensive to build

3, Fill a gap in preservation.

The 82000 tank scores on all three counts, as does the NER 0-4-4 tank and the GER 2-4-2T As there are now not that many gaps in grouping era and BR standard locos, this tends towards pre grouping designs which have the added bonus of being reasonably sized and fairly simple designs. I like the LNWR George, which again fills all three requirements. Suggestions like an LMS Garratt or Big Bertha or a Bulleid Leader are totally impractical. All three are way too big, and two of them weren't much good either. The third (58100) was never intended as a traction unit either and was specifically built just to push trains up an incline for a short distance

 

An A8 tank is still a bit of a 'missing link' in preservation, to my mind. Not sure if it's a practical idea or simply WIBN - but the class were long lived, sen all over the NE area and were quite powerful beasts.

 

I do think alignment with a local preserved line is also going to be an important factor. I am sure it will be a matter of when, not if, the Isle of Wight Railway, commits to a Beyer Peacock 2-4-0 tank, maybe after "Yarmouth" is complete.

 

I'd agree a pacific tank engine is notably absent in preservation, so to have a new one built would be a worthy cause, though personally I'd go for a GCR Class 9N. The preserved GCR could do with more locomotives and rollingstock to represent it's future more, and a 9N would fulfil that role as well as provide a decent performer.

 

Speaking of the Great Central, I'd have to go with Robinson's Class 9Q "Lord Faringdon" 4-6-0's:

 

The picture is not actually of a "Lord Faringdon" but of the smaller wheeled mixed traffic version. Had the reputation of being very heavy on coal.

PH

 

Beat me to it. Another coal miner's friend by all accounts.

 

I don't even think that new builds would need to fill a gap in preservation. It might make sense to build more Terriers or Standard 4 tanks for example as there is likely to be a ready market for them. Similarly there is a case for building new examples of useful types where the survivors are museum pieces, the oft-mooted new build Dean Goods being a case in point.

 

I think you are underplaying the extent to which any new build will only happen if it is exciting to sufficient people to fund it. Given that there are unrestored examples of both Terriers and Std 4 tanks around, I can't see where the funding would come from to construct new builds.

To take the Terrier as an example, of the few lines for which such a loco may be attractive, I suspect a D tank would be of similar utility but considerably more funding appeal. Likewise, if you want a big 2-6-4T, which is likely to have wider appeal - yet another BR standard, or the otherwise unpreserved Fowler version? Both are likely to be broadly similar cost, but very different in likely fund raising potential.

Tom

 

Oh, absolutely, and I would rather see a new Thompson L1 than a new Standard 4 tank, but there is going to come a time when more and more privately- or group-owned engines are following the Cameron machines to the plinth and at that point a simple need for motive power may outweigh other considerations. It will then arguably be wiser and cheaper for many lines to invest in proven classes than to spend ages working through the teething troubles of an engine completely new to preservation. The fact that so many Standard tanks have been restored from Barry condition means that patterns exist for almost everything, and that would represent a considerable saving for a line which needs a new engine in a hurry. The same goes for the Terriers: within not too many years practically every major A1/A1X component will have been fabricated somewhere: frames, wheels, boilers, the lot. For the same reason I think we're likely to see some duplication of existing smaller new builds such as 82045 and 1759.

 

I like the idea of a Stroudley D1 0-4-2 tank. The Thompson L1 has been mentioned before, weren't they, by reputation, a bit crap?

 

Depends on your point of view. Constructed post war and the prototype was well thought of, but there were some corners cut, particularly in the axle box area, on the production locomotives. Any number of reasons why - austerity, a desire to standardize parts, etc.

Once some modifications were made the locomotives were better, but potentially still not as good as they could have been. A lot of potential in what was a very workaday looking locomotive. Many parts standard with the K1, B1 and other Thompson classes.

 

In the eyes of some. Others maintain that when measured against the actual work being done they were little different to the bulk of their contemporaries. R H N Hardy is worth checking out for his views with respect to the GC 4-6-0s and he had some first hand experience of them.

 

The Thompson L1 was nowhere near as good as the LMS 2-6-4 tanks, the coupled wheels were too small for the semi fast work they were intended for and the axleboxes used to wear, they knocked themselves to bits on the GN out of Kings Cross. I believe Neasden were sent some and they rated the much older GC 4-6-2 tanks as better.

The GC 4-6-0s appeared to be a large number of small classes, none of which were that good, and not really, in my opinion, a particularly good choice for a new build for a heritage line. Having said that, though, I would like a Claughton!

 

If you already knew the answer, why ask the question?

 

Only because I would think that recreating a loco which wasn't known as particularly good would not attract much funding or support so an odd choice as new build