Current and Proposed New-Builds

But there would be little point, we've already got one! Well sort of, and probably...

 

But they said it won’t be allowed to run ever again and it’s a popular engine to be seen running

 

Well I'll look forward to seeing it when you've finished building it. How long did you say that would take?

 

I've got a simple suggestion: since all these GWR rebuilds are so controversial and flawed (according to GW afficionados), why don't we abandon them all, and use the money to finish some of the excellent new builds already mostly finished and in many cases representing railways/engineers/eras with proportionally much less representation in preservation? E.g. the Bloomer, Brighton Atlantic, Patriot, G5, F5...
We can mothball all these Swindon mutant offensive monstrosities (to paraphrase the preceding few dozen posts) until all those are done, and the GW types can work out what they want and what for!

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

so unpopular they have finished one, got another one 80% of the way there and another three in varying stages of completion...

You might as well chuck all those victorian pastiches in the bin and get behind these...

 

I'm broad minded, but not broad gauged.
pat

 

DEL260 is a bold proposal.

 

And what is that, pray?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_D0260

 

So, just paint a class 47 white. No-one will be able to tell the difference

 

Can we please not talk about diseasels here except in the context of scrapping the unholy abominations?!

 

At the risk of being mercilessly hunted down by an angry public, I actually agree with that one!

 

Even Class 11's & 10000 & 10001?

 

They have their place on this thread, considering the attempts to recreate one of the LMS twins, and craft a Baby Deltic out of a class 37.

 

Except this thread is in 'Steam Traction'.

 

I hadn’t noticed - a sign of how I browse NP!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Two others l have also supported financially are for the P2 Mikado and H2 Atlantic. Both seem to me to be prime examples of groups who "do things properly " But wait ,Brighton Baltic thinks both are building a "deception on wheels. In other words a sham " Both in their own ways are doing a "Hawksworth County that bears no relationship under the sheet metal with the real thing"
The P2 is using a too short welded boiler from an A1 pressed to a much higher pressure than the original. The H2 is using a Great Northern boiler at a much lower pressure. Does that bother me? Not in the slightest , l just want to contribute to well organised ,skilled and passionate people recreating something special for our enjoyment in the future. Are others really so blinkered as to not celebrate this?

 

An interesting glitch! The second post above is clearly my reply to Brighton Baltic.

 

Click on "Edit" on your post, then fiddle round with the quotes.

You need

{QUOTE="BrightonBaltic, post: 2569025, member: 13520"}
.... {/QUOTE}

around Brighton Baltic's text, and nothing -- i.e no bracketed {QUOTE} -- round yours. (But in the above, replace {} with []).

Tom

 

One interesting point I have not seen made yet in the argument about building 4709 with a No.7 boiler rather than a No.1 boiler (Forgive me if I have missed this).
If you build a 47xx with a No.7 boiler, it looks like a 47xx. At least, what we all think of when we imagine a 47xx.
If you build a 47xx with a No.1 boiler you happen to have lying around, it will look more like a 28xx with a raised running plate.
I suspect that at least the majority of people who in some way, shape or form, support the idea of building a brand new 47xx would want it to look like a typical 47xx (i.e. with a No.7 boiler). I've certainly never seen a photo of a 47xx with the No.1 boiler it carried when first built (I would be interested to see one), but it certainly to me wouldn't look like what I imagine a Night Owl would look like'.
There's an argument for re-using components at hand when restoring or constructing locomotives. The GWR Standardisation policy has made this easier with the number of New Builds benefitting from a few 'Donor' locomotives which in their own right would (like it or not) probably have attracted far less interest and financial backing than the new build locomotives they have been sacrificed to build. (Perhaps the argument could be made that a New Build County, 47xx and Grange are financially more viable than restoring ANOTHER Hall, ANOTHER Prairie, ANOTHER 8F and ANOTHER 2-8-0 Tank. I'd certainly be more interested to see the new ones instead of repeats of ones we've already got. Please don't kill me for that suggestion).
Now obviously with the County there is contention over the accuracy of using the 8F boiler or components of it. But various 'small' modifications have been done to existing or other new build locomotives which make little to no difference externally but have advantages elsewhere (e.g. The Patriot project I believe are using GW pattern injectors, or at least not the original pattern injectors, and GWR 2884 no. 3803 has been fitted with a rocking grate and hopper ashpan, which it wouldn't have carried in service. As a crew member I would take a rocker and hopper or better injectors over features correct to the initial design which are less convenient or reliable, or just make my job difficult in any way). Yes, the 8F boiler being a donor for the County is more of a construction convenience rather than an operational one, but I still understand why they did it and personally they're welcome to it. It's their money.