82045 The way ahead?

Interesting point, but I think you could make a case for this being the one which started it all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyons,_Hetton_colliery_railway

in the sense that it was a locomotive built as a replica / reproduction of older technology for the interest of later generations, rather than the normal reason for construction of a machine to do a job in the most efficient way possible.

Tom

 

My comments are slightly tongue in cheek, but I'd like to think such an event could take place possibly at the SVR seens as it has the appropriate stock for each loco 5551 on the LMS set, 2999 on the toplights, 6880 on the Collett set, Beachy Head on the carmine and cream Mk1 set, 60163/2007 on the teaks and 82045 either as pilot or on a local set, ok it'd cost a few quid in hire fees I'd like to think it could happen one day.

 

Very much in agreement with you Matt. Something I'd like to see happen perhaps in 2019/20. Would be nice to have a gala celebrating the achievements of the present after a gala or two looking a little further back to the past...

 

The campaign to make it happen starts here!

 

You can have 5551 in September 2020 if all is going ok and it's mainline registered by that point. Little to no chance in 2019. That would also cover for any lateness in the other newbuilds.

Back to 82045, they have done so well with the build. And as mentioned they have utilised the skills of the membership with financial benefits to the loco. The latest picture shows how good it's going to look.

But the batch build to me doesn't add up. 82045 is a WIBN loco just like ALL of the newbuilds. Once it's built the ability to fundraise for this class from scratch becomes far more difficult. If this weren't the case how come we are not seeing it already?

PS. What about the G5. Isn't that going to pop into the scene at a similar time?

 

oh the indignity! (a phrase my 2 yr old Grandson came out with much to everyones astonishment)

 

Apart from anything else how many places are there where they would have room for serious series production?

 

Absolute nonsense - there are many factors influencing overhauls, but the standard of the paintwork certainly isn't one of them.

 

Perfect external condition might slightly tip the balance towards leaving that one on display for the visitors and choosing a different one to strip down and refurbish.

 

Oh give over Paul. You have no real stats to back that up with.

I wonder what your views on the appeal of Flying Scotsman are?

No doubt you think that was a waste of money in hindsight too. ‍♂️

 

You are the one who tried once to claim that the Great Central needed tender locomotives to run its eight miles or so route length. Whereas a supporter of that line, recently met by me said, without the slightest prompting on my part, that a 2MT was perfectly adequate for their purposes. This surprised even me as I would have said a 4MT in line with the Dartmouth Steam Railway. Hope I am not sickening for big chufferitis.

As far as Flying Scotsman is concerned, this is the one machine, along perhaps with Tornado, that resonates to any great degree with "normals". The political fallout if the overhaul had not been proceeded with once its true state had been ascertained would have been even worse than the one which occurred when the amount of work needed became realised.

PH

 

it would cost a lot of money to prepare a loco for museum display, it's not nonsense at all.

 

It's probably a factor, but I can't imagine it being one particularly high up. Some locos don't get much "museum prep" anyway, I've seen locos in the engine house that certainly didn't get a fresh coat of paint and still had drip trays under the axleboxes!

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Isn't that rather conformational bias there Paul? *One* supporter says so so it must be true. Presumably if we found five people on the GCR who said it wasn't they'd *all* be suffering from big chufferitis? Just because you can find a few people who agree with you doesn't make it so.

I'd agree with you on FS and tornado though, poor examples for the reasons you've stated.

And again, money available to overhaul one loco might not be available for another, you're more likely to get donations for a unique GCR class of loco that's a bit too big than an inauthentic GW prairie (that we've identified previously as being the only class of loco that fits your 2mt bill and has a fair few sitting around not doing much, hence used in my example).

 

Axleboxes etc tend to go on dripping as water vapour, a source of which is people's breath, condenses and displaces the oil, which is why the axleboxes need to be prepped on museum locos if the loco is to be moved.

The GCR must be at the other end of the spectrum to the IoW and they certainly seem to have a lot of big locos in ticket at any one time, and quite a few smaller ones. Quite why they need all these locos is a bit of a mystery but without knowing the deals they have with each loco owning group, it would be difficult to comment on the economic effect. When I visited a couple of weeks ago the Ivatt Class 2 and the 9F were running. A contributor notes up thread that groups which effectively have their locos contracted full time to the SVR still need to raise funds for the overhauls, which implies that hiring in locos is a good deal for the railway, as the railway is not paying the full costs (I assume the groups in question and the SVR are not atypical in their ability to negotiate agreements). The 82045 Group's Future Fund http://www.82045.org.uk/news/82045_news-mar17.html seems to acknowledge this reality.

 

Er - what? Don't think that was me Paul. Find the quote and if I said it I'll happily put my hands up for that one. But yes - a tender engine gives the GCR better range for water and coal. That much is true. Remember the timetable can be quite intense at times with the double track, particularly on gala days. No shame in that and the GCR makes the best of locomotives and its facilities.

And as I have repeatedly said for all of my life and when I was volunteering there, 78019 was a great machine we had. Great range, ability to pull all but the longest of trains, easy to clean out and prepare. We now have 78018 and 19 is out of traffic.

But it's not the biggest draw to the line as a locomotive and there are other 2MTs you can see at other railways. It is not unique and part of the draw for enthusiasts (as you must surely be aware) can be anything from the unique collection of locomotives, to the location, its rolling stock or all together.

And again - the GCR uses what it has and what is available and what was available at the time when most steam locomotives were available.

What do you want from us Paul? To scrap all the big engines and replace them with new build 2MTs? Come on Paul, you must surely be aware on a practical level that this is total nonsense. "Big Chufferitis" - a hilarious straw man argument that assumes practicality from circumstances that don't match up in reality.

Well we agree on something at least - the overhaul had to go ahead and thankfully it has been finished to a top standard by Ian Riley and Co.

 

You did indeed attempt to justify the use of Sir Lamiel on the grounds of water capacity. I pointed out that the capacity of the tender tank concerned was provided to enable the haulage of 400+ ton trains from Waterloo to Southampton at average speeds of 55 m.p.h. Not exactly to five or six bogies on an eight mile journey at a maximum of 25 m.p.h.

Quite frankly most of the rest is gricer's wimwam, What may or may attract enthusiasts on isolated gala days is far less important than what attracts the "normals" day in and day out. There are far more of the latter and they make much the greater contribution to revenue.

PH

 

Indeed they do, but it's enthusiasts that put their hands in their pockets to fund overhauls, volunteer their time etc. If they're more willing to contribute money and time to a larger loco than a smaller one then you'll get the larger one.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk