Current and Proposed New-Builds

15 Black 5s I less than 2% of those built. 20% of a certain class of small tank tank engines survive

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

 

More importantly, 50% of another certain class of small tank engine survive - just a tragedy the other 50% got away

Tom

 

30% of the GWR Manors survive

 

Do you like living dangerously?

 

Well I like the fact no one seemed to take my point seriously... you lot may think Im a crack pot but I feel I may have a point.

For the railway companies of old I very much doubt that it was running of express trains which was the main source of income to pay wages and shareholders dividends. On the ECML the half improvised LNER's finance department I suspect were more impressed with O2's shifting several thousand tons of coal, then the money the very impressive A4s earned with their high speed trains for example. Another would be the various suburban services serving the capital and other major population centres, these hauled by common or garden tank engines brought in more cash then any top end express engines.

And yet in railway preservation there seems to be an over inflated fascination with express locomotives especially with the new build projects. The active new build projects (that are standard gauges and steam) there aren't of a formerly express type I think can be neraly counted on one hand (Grange, Night Owl, 3MT, G5, F5). The other 12 or so are all express types. (I didn't include 84030 as isn't that more a Barry rebuild?? or not?). I know the A1 lot are planning a V4 after Prince of Wales is finished but hardly tips the scales the other way does it.

There seems to be rarely an acknowledgement of the good work the 'other' engines did.

 

If express engines were that unimportant, why did they build so many?

 

Surely easiest to thin out the duplicate small locos for something more useful. Do you really need so many tiny 0-6-0s, its not like you are the IOWSR.

That will free up space for a new build 10201, a 3H, battery powered BEP and steam tamper with on board toilet.

I am pretty sure that more freight than passenger locos were built.

Isn't the wider point that a Pacific etc is not ideal for doing 60 or so miles at 20 mph on 6 mk1s and freight, or earlier passenger loco designs might be of more use. Projects seem to get off the ground for sexiness rather than usefulness, and that comes back to funders being better able to sell a King over a K.

 

And you'd have more room for Bulleid pacifics... perfect!

 

.......?

There far more engines of the other types in service compared to express engines

 

To run fast, long distance express trains?

 

Whether they are likely to earn their keep ought to be the sole criterion. Dare ''b*g c*********s'' be cited as rearing its head in your list to a degree?

 

79 A3s, 35 A4s, 49 A2s
That's a non-trivial number.
If they were if no importance, I don't see the LNER finance department allowing them

 

And 289 J39s

 

I'm not sure arguing about numbers of locos on the historic railways adds much light to a debate about new builds - by and large the historic companies matched their fleet to the demands of the traffic department. 164 East Coast Pacifics sounds like a lot, though not a huge number in relation to around 6,300 LNER locos in total, but the number presumably matched the demands of the traffic.

For new builds - is it useful? Is it buildable? Is it fundable? All three are important and there is no point trying to pretend otherwise. If people want to see more vernacular, hum-drum locomotives, they have got to build interest to the point that a critical mass of people are willing to fund construction, probably to the tune of a sustained £100k or so per year. That tends to be why glamour wins.

Now, who is with me for an LCDR Second Sondes?



Tom

 

IM NOT ARGUING THEY NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL, I JUST WANT PRESEVATIONISTS TO RELISE THE OTHER ENGINES EARNED MORE MONEY FOR THEIR REPECTIVE COMPANIES BUT THEY HAVE WILFULLY ENJORED, YOU CHUMP!

 

You aren't alone, Ady!

A problem is that a lot of enthusiasts are ex-spotters trying to recreate their long lost youth. Although termed 'train spotters', what they really wanted to spot was nameplates, and these were invariably attached to large, big wheeled engines, usually painted green, and preferably with smoke deflectors. And this wish to see such engines continues to this day.

My own view was always that a new build should be useful (i) on the main line AND on a preserved line; or (ii) useful on a preserved line. The big engines don't fit these criteria: the A1 and P2 are, or will be, great on the main line, but that's their natural habitat. The A1 has appeared on preserved lines and drawn big crowds, but in the event of no longer being main line registered, for whatever reason, what then? A few weekends running at a gala where the crowds pay the excess costs is one thing, but would any preserved line want to pay the additional coal and track maintenance bills after the novelty has worn off and there are just the normal daily visitors? I don't think so.

Numbers as a measure of importance? The LMS built 355 express engines: 38 plus 13 Pacifics, 71 Royal Scots, 181 Jubilees and 52 Baby Scots. There were 724 4Fs in total (577 from the LMS), i.e. more than twice as many of a single class of goods engine than the total from express classes. The LNWR built 943 DX 0-6-0s, although 86 were for the L&YR.

Perhaps a DX would make a better new build project?

 

Please stop shouting, some of us have the most awful headaches this morning.

 

I agree with much of that, and personally prefer small engines worked hard to large engines working well within themselves, but think you express too much of a downer on the big engines for routine running on preserved lines. @Jamessquared has commented a number of times on how small a proportion of the costs of a preserved railway coal forms, while I'm struggling to understand why running a pacific will add materially to track maintenance costs in comparison to a six coupled goods engine. Are preserved lines' track maintenance costs that weight sensitive?

 

If they can raise enough money to get built and subsequently overhauled, ergo they earn their keep. Whether that is subsidised by enthusiasts is irrelevant. And yes, I have no doubt that it *is* big chufferitis in many cases. I feel we need a new phrase to describe the similar process of creating the full set of very similar GWR classes purely so we can say we have the "full set" rather than for any historical interest or to fill a specific need. Any suggestions?

 

They all look the samitus?