Current and Proposed New-Builds

Is it on CNN or in the New York Times then?

 

According to the latest GWS echo the new County project will need to demonstrate a set of erected frames and sufficient raised funds/pledges for cylinder block and driving wheels to be manufactured before the GWS transfers any parts to them.

 

This article from 2016 suggests they have the money for the frames already.

 

I think the County 4-4-0 project is one of the silliest new build ideas. Neither amongst the best GWR 4-4-0s (we have 2 anyway) or amongst Churchward's great designs (of which there were many and thankfully we have a few preserved). We are not short of GWR locos, and there are lots of GW projects anyway, not to mention quite a few locos which haven't turned a wheel in preservation - including some much better suited to either heritage or main line use...

 

That's your opinion. Good luck to them I say.

 

Perhaps not quite as silly as the County 4-6-0. But I do slightly wonder if a better use of 5227's boiler would have been to fully recondition it for use on City of Truro.

 

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with Lester re the County 4-6-0 I would much prefer to see 5227's boiler on a restored 5227 as the class is not otherwise represented in the GWS collection. I'm not sure that there would be much to be gained by using 5227's boiler on Truro rather than rebuilding its own No4.
Ray.

 

I must admit that, whilst I would very much like to see a GWR 4-4-0 County up and running (or rough riding!) on the GWSR (some excellent photos of these locos on the Honeybourne Line taken by H Household in his book "Gloucestershire Railways in the 1920s") the GWS does not have a restored example of a 2-8-0T at Didcot (I know they have a nearly complete 2-8-2T version). So, in some respects, I'd like to see 5227 restored in its own right. However, not my money so not my vote. It's interesting to note that the 4-4-0 Counties were not long-lived and some of their elderly 4-4-0 brethren on the GWR outlived them by a few years!

 

I think Derwent is the direct descendent of George. Then it's Stephenson long boilers.
Anything not GWR would be nice. Holds no interest for me personally.

 

Hahaha. No.

 

Is one of the reasons most of the Barry "dregs" are being used is that their condition was unattractive to earlier purchasers? So perhaps poor boilers being reused in otherwise new locos is sub optimal?
Any new build with an old boiler will need a new one in due course so why not just start with one?

 

Whingeing about the Barry Ten is unhelpful. Long after all the others had been claimed those ten were left in limbo precisely because no-one wanted to take them on. Then a plan was worked out to make use of a large proportion of their parts for projects that people were willing to take on.

 

Not to mention utterly pointless!

There are sufficient preserved 42s about that I have every confidence that one will end up at Didcot in the fullness of time. Really not something to worry about in the long term. I think its more of an issue that the GWS has very little in the way of Churchward and earlier locomotives. Especially that the carriage department are putting fine work into various Dean carriages with nothing contemporary currently available to pull them.

Its perhaps a bit misleading to say that the Counties elderly brethren outlived them. They were the last large wheeled 4-4-0s in service. Most went in 1930/31 with a few lasting until 1933, whereas the various 41s and 37s were mostly withdrawn in the late 20s and few were left when the Counties were withdrawn in numbers. It seems safe to assume that there simply wasn't work for what must have been expensive locos to run. Surely the 5ft 8 wheel mixed traffic Bulldogs and especially Dukes lasted longer because they had different tasks?

 

The Dukes, as far as I know, ended up on the Cambrian lines in Wales due to their low axle loading.

On the topic of the County proposal, the bad riding of the class shouldn’t be an issue at 25 mph on a heritage line, wouldn’t have thought Network Rail would be overkeen on one, as it would, presumably hammer the track

 

From what I've read about the originals, I doubt that many crews would be any too keen either!

 

Any new build with a new boiler will need a new one in due course so why not just start with an old one?

An old boiler just has to be patched up to pass a pressure test. A new boiler has to pass 2018 standards, which is a whole different thing. And as Tornado showed, even a brand new £1/4m quid German-built boiler can have issues. Especially if it saves £100,000 and gets a project a long way forward. A set of frame parts don't look like much. Put a set of wheels under it and a pair(or 3 or 4) cylinder castings and it looks like you've got about 20% of a locomotive. With a boiler, that project suddenly appears* to be 90% there. And people are keener to part with a few quid to finish off a project that is nearly there.

 

I suspect that it is probably easier to get people on board to volunteer and to fund new build (using old parts) of a 'sexy' passenger loco than it is to get those same people on board to volunteer and fund a restoration of an 'unsexy' freight loco.

It is maybe an unfair criticism of Didcot but there seem to be more new builds going on than restorations of existing locos.

 

It is maybe an unfair criticism of Didcot but there seem to be more new builds going on than restorations of existing locos.

Is that because it's where money lies, though? What puzzles me is where the money goes at Didcot. I get the impression that all the big new-build projects are independently funded, but where is the gate money going? They are short of demonstration locos, should the gate money be going to ensure that the have a fleet suitable for their open days?

 

That's a good point actually - where *does* all the gate (and membership) money go to?

 

Hardly whingeing to offer a personal opinion that restoring an existing loco is preferable to canibalising it for a "new" build of a different sort. Others see it differently, all views equally valid?