Current and Proposed New-Builds

I recall an April fools back in the 1980s about a secret BR project to convert 47 to run on waste cooking oil.

 

The Royal 67s run on waste cooking oil when Prince Charles is on the train. Quite how economic is it is to clean the fuel tanks before and after is another matter...

 

Not a good idea to run a Royal 67 on waste cooking oil (usually palm-oil)I think. It`s all too much cholesterol!

Knut

 

And palm oil is the cause of all the deforestation in SE asia and the loss of habitat for animals such as orangutans. Palm oil is not environmentally friendly.

 

test

 

I see the Churchward county project are making progress

https://www.churchwardcounty.org.uk/category/news/

 

How many other new-builds are at the stage of having two bits of metal cut, out of interest?

 

Lots - though it depends on which two bits of metal as to how significant that is!

In the grand scheme of things, frame plates are a minuscule part of the cost (and complexity) of a new loco, though I guess psychologically significant as a large visible piece. I’ve always felt that when people talk about a loco having “new frames”, you ought really to mean the entire frame structure - i.e. frame plates, stretchers, motion bracket (if appropriate), buffer planks etc. The frame plates themselves can be produced very easily these days, but the key is getting them set up and erected square, which also involves producing a lot more stuff between them.

Tom

 

It was the frame plates to which I was referring.

 

An absolutely superb model of this locomotive class!:

https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/43070552_743172299353940_431128379085815808_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent-arn2-
1.xx&oh=7c970b2d68e2ccc595ca5b52ad41a52d&oe=5CA3A146

Knut

 

And guess what? We're getting a new one!
https://www.churchwardcounty.org.uk/

 

The Talyllyn Railway's loco No 7 was originally supplied by Barclays to the Irish Turf Board to burn peat. It was not a success - theycouldn't stuff enough peat into the firebox to maintain steam.

 

You should probably suffix that “... assuming the group can consistently raise > £100k per year for the next twenty years for a design that no-one alive today can remember and which has no especial claims to significance or desirability”.

In other words, let’s not count chickens before they hatch. I wish the group no ill will, but I think this one is going to be a pretty uphill task.

Tom

 

Given that there are three 'Schools' & a D49 in preservation I dont see what a further large modern 4-4-0 has to offer compared with - say putting Hardwicke or Thundersley back in running order

 

Thundersley, now there's a loco I wouldn't say no to steaming!

 

Has she steamed in preservation? I know that 2500 has, which was why she was talked about for York-Shildon shuttles, only 4 or 5 years ago. That fell by the wayside in the fallout from the 60103 saga, of course

 

If so I'd say only up and down the line at Bressingham.

 

I would much prefer to see something that will be properly useful rather than just an underpowered curiosity . 2500 and 2700 would both fit that bill .

the only small locos I would like to see in steam are Hardwicke and Cornwall permanently working as a pair

 

I had an enjoyable run behind Hardwicke in 1976. Then suddenly the loco disappeared from the list of mainline registered locos. Here's a clip of Hardwicke from 1976.

 

That's what I was thinking