92219 on the move?

92240 as well - but that is now being overhauled.

Another question is how fit to run an out of use tender is. If the loco previously had time in traffic and has been withdrawn, you’d assume that the tender itself may need work (refurbishing axle boxes, brake gear etc) and quite possibly may have issues with the tank. Not to mention what further ravages have occurred through a period of (typically) outside storage. So arranging a hire may not be quite as simple as “sign contract - book lorry for transport”. The proposed hire tender may need some work itself before it is suitable to go behind another loco.

Tom

 

Both 92214 and 92203 have been withdrawn in the last few months - Trackside reports 92214 is likely to be out of service for 'a number of years' as resources are directed at 70013 and 63601.

 

Maybe the owners of 92219, 92134, 92207, 76077 and 72010 should pool their resources to get a batch of components or perhaps even complete tenders built?

 

My understanding is that there is the BR Standard Loco Owners Group (BRSLOG) where operators of standard locos do communicate and pool resources patterns for castings etc, so if there was an appetite for such a project I'm sure it would have been coordinated between those parties

 

Thanks Chris, I was aware of the BRSLOG and I know that they collaborate for the loan of parts/patterns/drawing etc. but usually this is just one-offs.
I was thinking that there is a bit more of a demand for new tenders in the near-mid future, so there might be mileage in looking at what could be done by placing a large order perhaps even for complete tenders.

 

75079 does have a tender, it just isn't finished yet.
Pat

 

Probably no point in building tenders on spec, but doing a set of method statements/safety case etc etc all agreed to give a definitive set of "how to build a mainline approved tender (BR1, BR2 all models)", would be a worthwhile thing to do.

 

With all this talk of Tenders, may I draw your attention to
The Railway Heritage Register Locomotive Tender Survey Project
at http://www.ten.rhrp.org.uk/tens/tensearch.asp
http://www.ten.rhrp.org.uk/tens/Tender Register Introduction.pdf

 

Mainline? Which large standard that currently doesn't have a tender is considering going mainline?

I think a lot of talk about batch building ignores the reality of railway engineering. Yes, there is the opportunity to share knowledge, drawings, patterns etc. But I can't see much advantage in building several in parallel. Plenty of tenders have been made in preservation, but it is largely a bespoke fabrication exercise, and a significant constraint is the physical space to do the actual construction. So I think realistically even if you went to a contractor and said "We want 5 identical tenders" they would probably largely build them sequentially in any case, not in parallel. the prime saving from building several is sharing intellectual property (i.e. drawings, patterns etc) and there is already a mechanism for doing so which doesn't rely on one contractor building all of them.

Tom

 

At one point in the Early Days the Clan project considered building a Tender first and than renting it out as a revenue stream. ..

 

FRT are basically appearing to do that WRT restoration of 4979.

 

Even if there aren't any, it's probably easier to convince your insurer that a vehicle is safe if it's built and inspected and signed off to a known set of standards.
If I was the lucky owner of a tenderless loco, that would certainly be my starting point.

 

Do you mean " Done to drawings and specified materials"?

 

No, that wasn't what I wrote at all.