'Sensible' New Builds

Coal and fuel costs the same whatever the age of the firebox you put it in.

 

I think the point being made is, whether historical or new build, will the locomotive be useable into the future?

 

There's an old expression for more or less eventuality but not all of them are necessarily truisms: to wit: "one size fits all," "small is beautiful" and "horses for courses". I would interpret your comments as being an amalgamation of the first two, based on on your experience at the IoWSR, where a "Terrier" will seemingly do all that is required. If, however, you were to move that "Terrier" to the not particularly long or heavily graded Swanage Railway I think it would struggle hauling their trains (which were pretty heavily loaded last weekend, from my observations) day in and day out. Then try moving it on to one of the longer lines such as the SVR or NYMR and I don't think it would get to leave the shed very much, proving that the third expression is perhaps the most accurate generalisation of the three. In reality, of course, there are other factors to apply too. "Flying Scotsman" and (to perhaps a lesser extent now) attract huge crowds when they visit heritage railways and more than pay their way.

So, the conclusion I wish you would recognise and accept, is that sweeping generalisations really aren't applicable when it comes to the size, power classifications and commercial viability of steam engines!

 

At which point the question is whether it's worth putting any money into any part pf a preserved railway

 

Presumably you are referring to Flying Scotsman or, possibly, Tornado. These seem to be the only locos which resonate especially with ''normals

 

Yes. Quite frankly, and in direct opposition to say, ten years ago, we have no idea of what the situation will be in ten, twenty or fifty years' time. Preserved railways will probably continue, but to what extent, if any, steam will be involved is the unanswerable question.

 

Given that I posted "book the flying scotsman" in the post you quoted in your reply, I think you may very well know the answer to your own question

 

Anyone who preserved a tram or similar is suddenly going to look very smug...

 

Just to say that the maximum gradient of the IOWSR is somewhat stiffer than at Swanage. No one expects an A1x to haul five bogies but somewhat larger Calbourne does.

 

This thread has seen a lot of discussion of new builds in general and of the respective merits of different kinds, but few explicit answers to the OP's question. But isn't the answer the one that Tom has given on other threads? A new build is sensible if it is technically feasible, it will attract the necessary funding, and it will have some operational purpose.

Some WIBNs have been dismissed because of technical obstacles: possibly obstacles that could be overcome with enough effort, but where the effort does not seem justified relative to other easier projects. Some current projects are progressing at a snail's pace for lack of funding, and a few have been started and then abandoned. Medium-sized tank engines seem "ideal" for many lines with regard to operational use, but that is not the only possibility. Tornado was built primarily to run on the main line and has been successful in that way (with some hiccups). At the other extreme the Steam Elephant has a valid job to do; just being itself on a short demonstration line.

 

Yes, in fact it was even mentioned on a wikipedia page at one stage - not sure if it still is. I'd love it to happen, if the funding and skills were in place.

 

With no disrespect to @Dunfanaghy Road, and some sympathy to the view that class 8s are generally overpowered for and not seen at their best on heritage railways, I rather prefer the thoughtful analyses of costs that such as @Jamessquared has provided over the years, which put costs into context, and demonstrate that the relationship between size and cost is not as simple as some assert.

5 pre nationalisation, wooden, bogies. You need to balance your comments with tonnages, not lengths.

 

I think @Dunfanaghy Road was saying that, in terms of "Sensible New Builds" aka the thread topic, you wouldn't start with a class 8 loco. What you do with one that, for one reason or another you end up having on the line, is a slightly different matter, as explored by Tom and others

 

No, and you know that well enough - for a variety of entirely valid if regrettable reasons, the majority of railways do not have access to the wooden bodied vehicles enjoyed by the IOWSR, Bluebell and one or two others. Preservation has relied upon what was available, and one of the prices of that is that the majority of railways are very dependent on heavier, steel bodied, vehicles. That, like it or not, has an impact on motive power policy.

It seems to offend you that the Bluebell are building a Brighton Atlantic. To recap, and return to the topic, I suggested some while ago that this ticks a number of boxes for what a successful new build might involve. Those included fitting a historical niche not filled in preservation, that niche being LBSCR main line traction.

As ever, you then go from a simple statement of fact into a deeply repetitive gripe about size, where as @61624 says, you argue for a combination of one size fits all and small is beautiful.

Neither of us are under any obligation to support any particular project, and as has usefully been pointed out, it is the people who are as important as the engineering to these projects. If the project isn't well constructed, it won't happen - and part of that construction is persuading people like those on here to open their wallets. I should add that I have never knowingly contributed to the Atlantic.

Finally, I also stated, which you seem to ignore, that the premise of the OP's question was misplaced, and that new builds are in and of themselves not a great idea because the problem of preserved railways is not whether there are enough locomotives, but whether there are enough serviceable locomotives.

 

People have really got to stop feeding the Paul.

 

I don't think anyone would argue with this on the whole, but @Paulthehitch seems to be arguing that "Beachy Head" falls into that category on the basis that it has big wheels and a wide firebox. In reality, I think it was a class 4 with a grate area of about 32 sq ft, so not massive. That only leaves the large wheels to complain about, and actually he ought to like those as they should wear out less quickly!

 

Ditto the big chufferites. Also Mark the title to the thread

 

This really seems to be being framed as "what is the optimum loco to pull trains on tourist railways".

Thought experiment: Suppose post BR, ca. 225 BR standard 2MT / 3MT / 4MT tanks had miraculously entered preservation, but nothing else had done so. Undoubtedly they would represent a very practical fleet for the basic question of hauling bums on seats from A to B, and (give or take the relative preponderance of each class), there probably isn't a railway in the country that couldn't run its services - even the NYMR can make good use of a 4MT tank.

The problem though would be that it would not give a balanced historical view of what the railways were once like. It would be as if every Art Gallery in the country only had paintings by Turner: undoubtedly worth seeing, but you would lack the historical perspective about the development of art.

What I find baffling in @Paulthehitch view is that when it comes to locos, he vociferously makes the point for utilitarianism above all else: you don't need anything other than the simplest possible machine that does the job. Now, were I to apply the same utilitarianism to, ooh, I don't know, carriages, then I'd suggest that railways need nothing other than Mark 1s, and anything else is more expensive than necessary.

A railway preservation scene that concentrated on Mark 1s to the exclusion of all other carriages would be doing a disservice to history (even 1950s period history) where clearly large numbers of older carriages were still in use, and Mark 1s were actually comparatively rare. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: to argue for utilitarianism in locomotive provision, and dismiss any interest in locomotives as mere gricer-ism, is inevitably to argue for utilitarianism in carriage provision. Either approach, I'd suggest, is providing a very one-eyed view of the historical period we aim to represent.

As an example - a Bulleid Pacific hauling a train of Gresley Teak carriages on a GWR branch line. Which element of that is out of place? I'd suggest the carriages are just as misplaced as the loco, yet somehow the argument seems to be that the locomotive is wasteful, but the carriages - being wooden - are what railways should aspire to. Even though in practical terms a mainline carriage from the East Coast - or a 100 year old North Wales observation saloon in deepest Sussex, for that matter - is just as jarring in true historical context as the pacific. At least Bulleid pacifics were well known for hauling branch line services, albeit not in Shropshire!

Tom

 

One of my own favourite sights, recreated goods (or postal) trains, serve next to no useful purpose, so in all honesty, logically (charters aside), justification for anything you wouldn't let the pw or civil engineering mobs loose with is a bit thin!