Current and Proposed New-Builds

Great reply. I think we need to let the current projects be completed first, and then see what demand there is after.

 

From what I ve seen at CTL the Clan is much further on than the B17...

 

I am also a member of the clan and hope that it does achieve its aims, i actually want all the locos to achieve their aims as i would pay to go behind all of them.

But my statement above is based on financial income gained from the charity commission website where you can see the amount raised year on year. This doesnt take into account how much work is done by volunteers for free to reduce costs etc etc, so you then have to look at each project to see (where you can find info) how much is being done to reduce the cost. For instance, with the Clan and B17 both being at the same location (and they both raise similar amounts of money tbh) is there a large amount of work being done on them by volunteers or the engineering business at little to no cost?

But if you take the Clan, the driving wheels and rear and front trucks must cost in the region of 200k to have the pattern made, cast each wheel, machine, get axles, etc etc just to get them to the point of being ready to put under the frames. At an income of 100k a year then thats 2 years, say the boiler costs 800k, then thats another 8 years, so thats over 10 years without anything else being spent anywhere else on the loco, and without prices going up too much. And then you have to ask how many members will have died in the next 10 years that are currently donating? See where im going with this? Obviously the aim is to increase the income by showing great progress and this should definitely help, but i would definitely say that the next 5 years are make or break for a lot of groups, its up your income now!

 

Two new build projects have had boiler news in the last week. I wonder which one will get more of a boost from the publicity?!

 

Fund raising at £100K/pa is maybe 'okay' if inflation and interests are low but we're now entering into new territory so perhaps time to readjust some expectations.
I recall a recent 'chat' at a recent gala with one of the groups with high ambitions and sourcing the right-spec steel ingots for forgings is already fraught with estimates that expire in short timescales whilst delivery is many months or more into the future. It becomes difficult making such purchases with so much uncertainty of what the final cost might amount to.

 

Looks can be deceiving. The planned paths of both groups certainly differ with respect to the start points of each project being over 12 years apart. When manufacturing commenced in 2015, the B17 project soon signed up with an Independent Assurance Authority, thus ensuring that all of the design, manufactured parts and the chassis construction stage were certified for mainline operation with a fully audited paper trail. The Clan project has entered the early stages on that road. Such a paper trail takes both time and effort for personnel, and must be integrated with the manufacturing and construction activities. During the Covid-19 Pandemic (October 2020), the B17 project moved its base to Sheffield and has spent time since then establishing relationships at its new home, building a base for its three tenders and now has a storage container as a base. The B17 group are busy converting the static chassis into a ‘rolling chassis’ with many steel castings already complete including the Hornblocks, Cannon Axleboxes and Coupled Axleboxes, six Coupled (Driving) wheels cast and currently being machined, whilst steel forgings for plain axles and all roller bearings are on order for the locomotive. Steel forgings for the tyres are already in stock for all ten wheels. Once machined and assembled, all of these parts will turn the chassis into a rolling 0-6-0, with the bogie and the smokebox closely following behind.

 

I suppose, in all fairness, we need one of these built and given to a railway that would let it go out and about rather than being trapped on a piddly little line by owners who are practically hermits.

 

Well, 42085 has visited other preserved railways in the past - GCR and Bluebell off the top of my head. So the criticism is a bit misplaced.

But in any case, if a railway has a particular loco and wishes it to remain home-based, who is to say they are wrong? There's a lot of cost beyond the purely financial in sending a loco away - you may have to send a minder to look after it, which is a significant consideration from a relatively remote area of the country; you have to think about how you replace it in your own plans while it is away, which will be longer than the nominal hire (a nominal weekend away may represent almost two weeks out of use on your own railway, when you could either be using it, or carrying out minor maintenance); you may not wish to see it loaded on and off lorries too often; and finally, if it really represents a draw for enthusiasts, you may feel you would rather they were drawn to your railway than someone else's!

I'm not against loans; clearly they are a core part of the offering on some lines that organise big enthusiast events, and often there is a bit of quid-pro-quo in moves - we'll send you X if you can send us Y. But equally, if a line, or an owner, doesn't wish to engage, I think we should respect that choice: I don't think describing it, and them, as "trapped a piddly little line by owners who are practically hermits" is calculated to make them change their mind.

Tom

 

I believe 42085’s visits to other locations were by negotiation by a certain magazine editor who has connections with both Lakeside and the GC, (I believe some contract work was negotiated as part of its GC visit)
I believe 34027’s current owners are extremely reluctant to see it on the back of a low loader for various reasons, frustrating as it might be for some, I’d say respect whatever it’s owners wishes are.
Unless you want to make them an offer they can’t refuse? How much you got in the pot @WesternRegionHampshireman

 

Considering 92212 kept breaking springs every time it was loaded on to a lorry, as steam engines weren't designed to go on lorries...

...And a few who come a cropper in accidents like that Jinty (can't remember which one) which got rear ended, or 6695 which suffered when the bed it was sitting on collapsed...

...And that the logistics can be a problem, as trying to move Wadebridge to the NNR didn't happen as the Police who had to escort it decided they couldn't be bothered that day...

...I can't blame the owners of the Fairburn's in the slightest if they don't want to loan them out.

I would thought if you wanted to do a new build of anything of the LMS 2-6-4T Family I would have thought the earlier fowler one would be better as their extinct...

 

The Patriot Project did announce their intention to build a replica of 42424, but I think that’s been shelved given the issues they’ve had.

 

It was more a case that we looked at the business case for 42424 and decided that while it would 100% be a nice locomotive to have, its not our priority or our aim really. We started this project with the aim of building a mainline lms patriot class locomotive, and we have to prioritise the business case for that. Dropping off as soon as 5551 is complete to then get another loco done in a reasonable time frame for the members so they see it before people die (while we have over 1000 members many are in their 70s and older, a fowler tank would take 10 years MINIMUM from when 5551 is complete, so that takes the members into their 80s and 90s)

what we need to do is to get 5551 steaming, and create a proper business plan for that to keep generating income to support it. I have done one, and i believe that it will work very well but thats for the future. It will definitely generate a good amount of £££ in the first few years, hopefully it will keep up its interest, as Tornado seems to have rather than just being "another loco". If, and its a big if, we get into a situation where we have built the loco, then paid off our loans (we did a loan payment scheme a few years ago similar to the A1 trust) have enough money in the bank for its next overhaul, then we would need to look at how to maintain the loco, so should we look at building a shed/facility to do this, or get into a partnership with a group who already have a shed, maybe extend this or something so that there is more space for us.

As you can see with all this sort of thing going on and only so much money to go towards things building another loco just because we as enthusiasts get bored of what we already have and when most of the people who put large sums of money into projects are unfortunately coming to the end of their lives just isnt a good idea.


If it was me and i was going to breakdown each project and how to get the best out of them to be completed as soon as possible for the membership to enjoy them, or if they havent gone to far stop before they waste too much. A couple of projects below.

B17, perhaps with all the CAD design work done by David Elliot from the A1 trust, this could be donated to the A1 (or some kind of way of transferring it) and then slotted into the build program directly after the P2 is done, this would be logical and the loco would fit in nicely. With the good start that has already been made, and the backing of donors/covenantors it would mean we could actually have a working B17 before 2030, something i dont think is possible right now.

The LNWR George the 5th.
Im afraid that i dont think this project (for i would absolutely love to see it) is feasible. Its been around now for a number of years and there doesnt appear to be enough of an appetite from railway enthusiasts to pay to see this one get finished, or even really started. If after so many years you haven't got to the point of raising big sums of money how can you keep going?? It doesnt add up to me. Best thing personally would be to wind this project up, and if you cant give money back to people then look at donating the money to another LNWR project (bloomer maybe) so that at least something gets a good chance of working.

P2 Doncaster, again this one should wind itself up and donate its money to the other P2 so members get to at least enjoy one p2 in preservation.

I know there will always be the argument that "people said the duke of Gloucester was mission impossible and they did it" however for every D.o.G. project, there are loads of failed projects that people have forgotten about.

 

Haven't the intention.
Just things I hear from other enthusiasts.
Oh BTW, 42085 was Great Central, Bluebell and Barrow Hill.

 

To get Fairburn tanks back to the South, I would happily go bankrupt to get them away from there.
As well as a few bits and pieces I would be interested in dabbling with.

 

Word of advice - just because other railway enthusiasts may generalise, over-exaggerate or be borderline rude about other railway / individuals, doesn't mean it's a good idea to repeat what they've said.

 

Something a few magazine editors could well do to realise!

 

don't recall 42085 visiting Barrowhill

 

Totally understand the reasons why 42424 was dropped. I did object to they way the chairman just described the engine as 'just another tank engine'. Just felt like some might take that as justification only express engines matter in preservation...

 

Fair enough that the Patriot group have, and will continue to have, more than enough on their plate without starting on another new build, but there is a stronger case for someone to build a Fowler 2-6-4T than for several other new builds. It is an especially significant gap in preservation, being the first of a series of related classes through to the Irish "Jeeps" and the BR Standard 2-6-4 tanks. It would also be an ideal type for many heritage railways.

 

You are 100% right that there is a much stronger case for one to be built, it would be a great loco on preserved lines, especially larger ones like SVR where it would look great on the lms rake. That being said there isnt really a case for any of the new builds other than "we want to see one" and you have to sacrifice years and years of nothing to eventually get one working, if at all. I really really cant stress enough about how we DONT need new locos, however much we want them, railway preservation is already struggling, and it will get harder and harder in the future. The price of Coal goes up, so the business sense at heritage railways is to run less steam services, or less trips and fuller trains. This means less work for locos that need a certain number of days per year already to put towards their next overhaul. So if you remove this money how are they going to keep going? Never mind adding more locos into the pot.

However if i won the Euro millions i would build one of these, a Johnson 0-4-4t with push pull lms coaches, an LMS 2P, restore the binbrook crab and base them all at the Churnet valley (and i would subsidise them) . But thats highly unlikely to ever happen!