Current and Proposed New-Builds

Yes, please. As I frequently remind people here (i.e. bang on about even though no one else cares very much), the LNWR is remarkably under-represented in preservation, especially if you discount the very early locos.
The Radial tanks were a fine design, influential elsewhere, and would be very useful.
But for some reason we aren't allowed to build one until we have working examples of every LNER express class (even the rubbish ones) and every GWR loco class built after WW1 (even the ones which are identical to the other ones except for the diameter of the superheater header flange, or something).

 

Not really my area of expertise, but there looks too be a strong family relationship with the Coal Tank - one of the most fun loco I've been on this year.

Tom

 

Who's stopping you? Build what you like, any time you like. But if you want other people to contribute time and money you have to build what they like...

 

Exactly. Which is why I'm giving serious thought to starting a Facebook page for a new build Metro tank with half-cab. I'm basing this on @Jamessquared 's professed yearning in another thread to drive a GWR tank engine that he doesn't bang his head on!

 

I can assure you, I have absolutely no yearning to ever go on another GWR tank engine if I can possibly avoid it ...

Tom

 

An Ivatt with just one passenger coach? Clearly one coach is adequate for the service, so does the Ivatt actually present a blatant case of big chufferitis?

 

OK..... Own up! Who's got the photo of a Bulleid Pacific on a one coach service train?

 

Well, if any of the proposals here were in the slightest bit sensible, this one could be said to be.

PH

 

Bekijk bijlage 24644

Tom

 

I assume you mean, of all the missing LNW types, why pick one so similar to the operating survivor?
To be fair, LNW locos all had a very strong family relationship, this would be true of any sensible proposed new build.
But the 2-4-2T was an important type, and I don't think we have any in service (although there is a new build project already).
Remember how fun the Coal Tank was next time someone slags off Frankie Webb!

 

Well, personally I can't afford even a model one, so that's what's stopping me!
Also, I don't think we should start any more new builds until we have finished the (useful) ones we've started.
Your point about contributions is telling, though. How many new build projects are stalled/making very slow progress because they can't quite attract the contributions needed to build their loco in a foreseeable timeframe?
This is a silly waste of resources. We would be far better to put aside our partisan preferences that it must be my favourite type recreated and pool funding to finish the ones half done. Then embark on something new.
Must go, want to watch the pigs flying past the window...

 

I'd be quite happy to see one built, was just struck by the similarity.

From what I know, Webb seems to get roundly berated for his compounds and everyone ignores the basically sound simples, despite the simples outnumbering the compounds by a very large margin!

Tom

 

Why thank you Paul!

I'll put you down as a founding member.

 

Couldn't it be argued that you are now advocating telling people what they are allowed to do? And that after saying 'for some reason we are not allowed' you are now advocating precisely that?
In the long term does it really matter that much if there are 20 build projects taking 20 years each or 5 build projects taking 5 years each?

Build projects have a distinct life cycle with different skills required at different stages, so it doesn't necessarily do too much harm if projects overlap in time. I will admit to finding it disturbing that a lot of projects rush into cutting a few random easy components. The impression is they think having a few bits of sheet metal cut out and painted to display helps fund raising. Admittedly that's probably depressingly true, but my argument is that the most important early stage output to give a project credibility ought to be a huge collection of drawings and CAD files defining exactly what they are going to build.

It kinda suprises me, now I think of it, that one thing few new build (or other) projects seem to do is to market their intellectual property. I wonder how many modellers would be interested in buying an electronic set of working drawings of components? Not only would there be a modest income stream, but also it would demonstrate the viability of the project. There are problems of course, notably copyright and reproduction rights, but it seems to me these things should be soluble.

Jim Champ

 

Very,very true.

If I could buy a P2 copy in 3D CAD,the world would be nicer without that damned Paint programe.

https://i.imgur.com/KgVwSm2.jpg

 

Try an LMS one instead!

 

Correct, his early 0-6-0s and others were very good and quite a few lasted long enough to run for BR.

PS can't quite get used to calling Webb "Frankie" I get him confused with Frankie out of the Saturdays!

 

Leaving aside questionable use of the pronoun "we" (I'm in the same boat!), this is one which deserves consideration, as the point about resources (all of 'em!) is very valid.

New build schemes come in different flavours. Without getting into the 'new' new build vs 'extremely heavy rebuild' argument:

(1) Some lunatic rail junkie has a bank balance containing more digits than their phone number (a substantial lottery win being only way this lunatic rail junkie will be commisoning one.... see my own WIBN list!)

(2) Kite flying exercises, with nothing beyond a glossy website which ultimately serve only to prevent better thought out schemes being taken seriously.... Certain serial offenders are quite well known.

(3) Projects originating within established organisations.... "Planet", "Lady of Legend", "Beachy Head" come to mind, though I think the heritage era laurels go to La'al Ratty for "River Mite"

(4) A discrete group, with relevantly qualified people in critical positions, undertakes a fully costed and realistically timetabled feasibility, including vehicle acceptance study, from back of beer mat to commissioning.... A1SLT has to rank as the prime example here. Would any group without their proven track record have even suggested a P2, let alone be so far along with it's construction in so short a time?

I'd include in (2) any individual or group knocking out a smokebox door dart (which is perfectly OK if other components follow) or number plate (if buying an original at auction is beyond their means, how much less realistic is a whole loco?), then sitting back to wait for the money to come rolling in, or just performing the odd desultory website update with a few more photos of a class in service back in the day.

Some serious schemes need to take note here. When relying on donations to keep a project moving forward, the public, on whose money the scheme depends, have to be kept up to date with regular (not necessarily frequent) progress reports. Something concrete is infinitely more reassuring than constant posts of nothing more than the latest branded keyring or baseball cap. Look at those that have taken to the rails. "Tornado", "Railmotor 93" and now "Lyn" all enjoyed a highly competent web presence. How fantastic must it be to sign off a construction website to archive with those two words "Project Completed" ?

Both the first categories should properly be discounted as serious projects. The only purpose either serves is to distract from serious schemes and (more in the case of cat 2) damage the credibility of new builds generally.

The things which identify a project as serious are the standard and scope of initial research, the credentials of those behind it, a realistic timetable and robust fundraising & marketing strategy. These days, a quality online presence is indispensable. If any one factor is missing, life gets much harder, if not impossible.

A good example is the reconstituted 'Clan Project', which following delay after delay and serious engineering problems under the MKI setup, is now making serious progress, yet still seems to be fighting it's way back to credibility in the minds of some. Life would have been so much simpler had the current engineering team been in post from Day 1.

It's entirely up to all to decide how they spend their money, of course, but equally, folk are at liberty to decide where not to spend it. Were I in the happy position of having the cash to put into a new build, anyone telling me I should be spending it on such-and-such a project in which I have no interest, because whatever it is hasn't been finished, would get very short shrift (and that's putting it very diplomatically!). Regarding waste.... blame the waster! I'm responsible for my own wastes of money and resources, not those created by anyone else, without my knowledge, acquiescence or input. Can anybody honestly tell me they feel any differently?

 

Your obviously not the right "build-shape" to work on a Gas Works tankie here's one that's about right :
(very long arms)

 

Indeed I quite agree with most of 30854s' latest post. Over the years [especially in the seventies and eighties] how many groups popped up proposing to build "this or that" new build there would be a few features in the railway press [as there was no such thing as the internet or Facebook] over a few years only for the group to just disappear........ A more recent example being the group about 10 years ago+/-[2008], when it had been announced that the UK had been successful in winning the 2012 Olympics. This group announced they were going to build a North Eastern class Z [LNER C7] Atlantic, which would be up and running, as they had all the drawing etc ready, in time for the said London Olympics. And lo here we are 5 years after those Olympics', having had another as well last year [2016] and no Class Z Atlantic.

Most admit I was a bit sceptical when the A1SLT announced their plans for Tornado. Having been so successful with Tornado, no wonder the moneys' been pouring in for the P2 Prince of Wales.