'Sensible' New Builds

I know that 'new build' steam locos (whether from scratch or using parts taken from other locos) are quite controversial at the moment. That's been covered elsewhere so I'd like to put that aside and for a minute wander into the world of the hypothetical - what could be considered some sensible new build projects that, if they were to happen and be properly funded, would be of benefit to the heritage scene.

I think most people agree that 82045 is a great idea - a perfect size for many heritage lines and as a BR standard should be okay to maintain and run. I also think the Bluebell Atlantic project is a great one - it's a good fit for its intended line both in size and region.

So as an example - I've often thought it's a shame that the K&ESR will be using mainly GWR traction for its heavier trains once the link with the RVR is completed. Although for example there are a few unrestored Merchany Navies, these would be overkill and totally out of touch with the line's feel and history. What lost class of loco would be a good fit - maybe a Maunsell K Class would both fill a gap in SR loco preservation and suit the line in terms of size and power?

 

I disagree with the basis of the question.

If new builds are to be justified, they need to fit a historical niche, and to serve an operational purpose. They also need the support of people who will be able to fund raise and see them through. Projects like 82045 and the Atlantic do that well.

But I don't see an operational need for new builds to run on railways. Instead, I see too many locomotives not running, because they're "under overhaul", and a reducing demand for locomotives as railways try to operate as efficiently as possible. Those projects underway will be selling themselves into that climate, and increasing the competition for scarce funds; enough so that I fully expect that many will also spend many years in storage pending overhaul as their certificates run out.

As for the specific example, I see the KESR's use of GW traction as squarely in Col Stephens' tradition - using what he could get his hands on to try to do what work he could. Borrowing obsolete GWR locos was a noble tradition followed by industry and later London Underground, and seems absolutely appropriate to the KESR.

 

Just 'cos it's fun and ignoring the fact that we've already seen the same question rehashed any number of ways .....

Into how many categories would you say our heritage lines fall? As @35B says, a Stephens-esque use of a stonking great 2-8-0T has precedent. That doesn't change the fact that, even on the best funded of mainline railways, way back when, those CMEs such as Chuchward and Stanier, who had (at worst) a sympathetic hearing from their boards were a distinct minority.

Get away from the larger companies, into the realms of those lines where any order for a new loco was a real 'red letter day' and you're usually asking a different set of questions, beginning and ending with "Do we have any money to spend in the first place?", backed up with "So what can we afford of what's out there?"

For instance, it strikes me that a Y6 or J70 would be popular with many, not cost more than an arm and half a leg to build and either would fit the bill very nicely on the MSLR. That doesn't alter the fact you'd likely need at least three of 'em to shift the NYMR dining set ... and if you were responsible for such a departure from acceptable behaviour, you probably oughn't be allowed back on site until you'd satisfied a psychiatrist you were no longer a risk to the railway.

I'd ask "What's the question here?".

Does it concern the ideal loco to work today's traffic on this or that line? Is it down to the need for a loco where maintenance doesn't involve dismantling and reassembling a Chinese Puzzle every time a gland needs repacking? Or taking the burden off a lovely 150 year-old loco whose design means the poor old fireman needs the constant ministrations of an osteopath? Or you've a specific shortage of people ready to commit a significant percentage of their lives to polishing brass?

Or is it to fill any of the umpteen gaps in the evolution of the steam loco on public railways? Or maybe to iron out kinks in what ought to have been impressive locos?

Or, which in all honest seems most likely, are we merely avoiding directly mentioning those four letters ..... WIBN?

 

My reaction to this is ''up to a point Lord Copper''. Specifically, 3MT sensible for tourist railway use but high wheeled Atlantics? Hardly.

 

Goodness Paul, anyone would think that you had a grudge against the Atlantic project, the number of times you've commented specifically regarding their build. Why single them out?

In any event Paul, your argument against the Atlantic has been covered numerous times, not least:

• Practicality of the boiler being available
• Practicality of other parts such as the tender wheelsets being available
• A team, funding and support to do it
• Timetables and schedules for the Bluebell requiring larger traction (which the Atlantic meets)

I have to ask Paul - what did the Atlantic Project do to you, to get your ire so often publicly on Nat Pres? Bewildering!

 

To finish first, first you must finish. The only new-builds that can get to define "sensible". It seems the unifying factor is the organisation behind. So don't start with "what to build?", but "who to build it?"

 

You have obviously missed how my justification of the Atlantic relied on filling a niche, and filling an operational purpose, and funding, and support from people who will see it through. Any such project is pure WIBN; to be justified requires the ability to convert WIBN into reality. As has happened many times within preservation, including the IOW, WLLR, Bluebell and others.

 

There was a piece in Railway World magazine years ago (late 1980s/early 1990s) speculating on the worthiness of a new build of a batch of GWR design panniers, potentially for use on Cornish branchlines during the tourist season.

I could see the potential in building a batch like this (or of a similar class/4mt tanks) for use in the heritage sector.

 

What niche could that be?

 

Look at it this way. Railway A runs Class 7 or 8 power on a light train, not from choice, but because the ranks of preserved main line locos are skewed away from the Class 2, 3 or 4 power that most need. To my mind a MN has a place on the main line, but is a nonsense on a heritage line. (I regard 35005 as an albatross around the neck of the Watercress Line. £1,000 burnt before it leaves the Loco., for example.)
If new builds become a necessity (as opposed to a choice) then copies of the BR Standards, or Ivatts (for variety), would be the way to go. Otherwise it's "Back to the Future" - Austerities will go up in price!
Just my two penn'orth.
Pat

 

A historical niche - LBSCR main line traction, operable Atlantic.

 

Utterly spot on!!

 

That is the whole vexation. It is not a main line but a 25 m.p.h. tourist railway which has a splendid station needing much expenditure at a time of economic uncertainty.

 

K&ESR's first ex-GWR loco arrived in 1914 (1380 Ringing Rock became K&ESR No 8 Hesperus ) but as you say lots of railways have many more locos than they'll ever need operationally, especially the longer established lines. Perhaps this might start to change. Until very recently it would've been hard to imagine the Bluebell Railway disposing of any of the more static jewels in their extensive collection. But this year someone made the right offer for 30064 - and they've let it go.

 

The Colonel certainly had a penchant for names reflecting his love of the classics

 

We have gone over this ad infinitum and the idea that a class 7 or 8 is supposedly "too big" for any line ignores:

• scheduling requirements of the railway
• load
• gradients/etc of line
• draw (as in "big and named")

And many other factors, where a class 7 or an 8 will always have more in reserve and therefore be worked less hard than other locos of smaller power, blah blah blah...

Railway preservation is a wide church: we've all been dealt some cards and have to play them accordingly.

There is no right or wrong answer to what you stick on the front of a train, just make sure you do your best to make it profitable and that the money raised goes back into keeping your group/society/charity/railway/whatever solvent.

 

It is unfair and unreasonable to judge the merits of a project started many years ago based on circumstances now. However, my point about niche remains entirely valid - it fills a significant historical niche within the history the LBSCR, where main line traction has basically not survived. Coupled with some fortuitous accidents of fate, that leads us towards a design that is entirely appropriate to the Bluebell, even if not the optimum design for it’s operations (though at the power/weight classes, I believe quite well suited to the mid-range duties that Bluebell does have).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

But if it draws in more visitors (and repeat visitors), then it's paying for that work.

If the station is the big concern, the obvious answer is to book flying scotsman.

 

The GER 2-4-2 tank and NER 0-4-4 tanks spring to mind as sensible

 

The same could be said of the "Brighton Overhead", though just getting official sanction, never mind finding somewhere to operate 6.6kVac stock might prove 'interesting'.