New build M&GN C class

Strongly agree with the last post. It's got to at least look the part. I don't mind them being done in LNER or BR colours and numbers, or even a decent heritage line house style, like the ELR did with theirs initially, lined maroon with ELR number 8, it looked good.

 

Not quite an austerity but a Peckett was painted up in M&GN livery at Sheringham way back in 1971.
Ray.

 

You have to ask “why”. Douglas was converted for two reasons (I know, I was there). First, because it provided another Thomas character at a time when these events were the biggest part of the MHR year. Second because by having a tender it was more useful for off-season lightweight trains and footplate experience type work. There was no real attempt to present it as anything other than what it was, but it fulfilled some real needs and so as a result was useful to the line for a while.

If you set out to make a replica though, I agree that unless there is some fidelity to the original, what’s the point?

There has I think to be a real purpose. It isn’t enough for it to be a missing class of loco.

 

The M&GN Class C was designed at Derby and was a copy, with minor alterations, of the 6ft 6in version of the Johnson Midland 4-4-0 (Johnson's "standard" 4-4-0 came in 6ft 6in, 6ft 9in and 7ft 0in versions, not to mention a 5ft 9in variant for the Somerset & Dorset). I am surprised that the proposal is to build an M&GN engine rather than the Midland original - I would have thought there are more Midland fans (and potential project supporters) than M&GN fans.

https://www.lner.info/locos/D/d52d53d54.php

Having said that, the track record of new-build 4-4-0s does not look encouraging. The GCR 567 project is doing surprisingly well, but the LNWR George V replica seems to be making only very slow progress, while the Claud Hamilton project appears to have faded away during the Covid period. Bluebell folk were looking a little while ago at the possibility of a new-build SECR E-Class, but decided not to proceed.

If I were a multi-millionaire, I would like a replica LCDR Class M3 4-4-0. In the real world, the chance of that is zero.

 

The GWR County seems to becoming on quite well, and it does have the advantage of quite a lot of existing parts

 

As I was unaware of that project I had a look at their web-site. It seems that their Just Giving donation page, set up a year ago, has raised the grand sum of £309,
raised by 19 supporters ! They may, of course, have other sources of income
It appears that work has been concentrated on the tender but nothing towards constructing the locomotive itself. So there is an awful long way to go yet.

 

There is actually rather a lot more achieved than that. The frames were produced as one of the first items and since then most of the front bogie parts (including the wheels) are "in stock", plus the four main driving wheels have also been cast in the last 18 months. Various parts which are suitable from other loco types (including a cylinder block) have also been obtained for it. The tender features a lot in recent posts as that is actively being worked on in Loughborough GCR shed at the moment.
Frankly, the "Just Giving" method of donating is a bit of a waste of time and invariably doesn't bring in a great deal of money - something our Museum has found recently, though we used "Crowdfunding" rather than Just Giving and have managed to raise £1800 for our Tilling-Stevens bus project by that method in just over 12 months - a useful contribution, but totally outweighed by donations from other sources (about £60K to date.....).

https://www.gcr567loco.co.uk/ or their Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/GCR567Loco

 

Adding to the pessimistic people. I will also believe it when I see it more advanced. I also personally don't believe another new-build 4-4-0 is really all that necessary.

 

Looking at the names of the people involved I only really know one person being Tom Crouch. He was one of the members of the Claud Hamilton group, im not sure if others are also. He has always come across as a really nice chap tbh, always spoke very well. I'm not sure what went wrong at the claud group, wrong loco with not enough support or other reasons.

The chosen loco looks very nice, and it would definitely be great to see. I wish them all the best. As someone with hands on experience in new builds I can simply say it will take over your life. If it doesnt then you won't achieve it. Be prepared to go out everywhere, every weekend as much as possible. With the patriot team our sales team have been out 9 out of the last 10 weekends, with some weekends having more than one stand.

As has been said, other new build 4-4-0s haven't yet been massively successful, but then again not many new builds have managed to get over the line so far so not necessarily the fault of the 4-4-0 design.

 

I don't think "necessary" or "a reason" have any first-order relevance. What matters is that they get enough money in the door to build what they want to build.

That really boils down to having enough people willing to put their hands in their pockets, which can be a small number of very big pockets or a large number of smaller pockets.

How you persuade people is another question. That's where "purpose" can matter, but is not obligatory - if you found enough people who's agree to pay for it if it was an upscaled Dareeling and Himalaya painted pink, you could build, regardless of practicality.

What this group need to do is find that angle and work it.

The next hurdle is showing you can spend the money effectively (and marshal your volunteer force).

I couldn't see any CVs on the website (I suspect my phone and their website don't talk), but I'd really want to see some project management experience (ideally, but not necessarily) in new-build steam, and some financial management.

 

Which, dare I say it, is how I feel about a 4700 with a Castle boiler, or a Hawksworth County with a butchered 8F boiler that can't even operate at the correct pressure...however, it's not my money and at least those projects seem to stand a reasonable chance of completion.

 

Personally, I'd be much happier if that boiler was still on 48518

 

You may well be, but you can't blame the would-be builders of this loco.

 

I thought the T1 boiler was at the Avon Valley but thats a moot point. I could be wrong but of all the standard gauge new builds and hybrid GWR rebuilds that have so far steamed, Tornado is the only one of completely new metal (minus maybe a handle or whistle here or there). The ones that have rehabilited a boiler/ tender/ shook the box of GWR parts have had a higher success rate but the road is long. I think I had before been an advocate for the humble Victorian 4-4-0 for new builds on the belief they are 'easier' to start from the ground up but the 567 group hasn't been without its steep learning curves. The acquisition of a tender and the potential use of pre existing Kitson cylinders (did that go ahead?) are both welcome but the locomotive is still years away from steaming. And I just can't see there being a big item just hiding apart from the boiler, maybe that would give it a leap forward. Beachy Head took the better part of 25 years to steam and we're at the final stretch for 82045 but these have been very long projects. I'd hate to see money donated to the cause just for it to falter because the uptake isn't there outside their own circle. There is a big enough team here they could readily get stuck into something tangible that already exists and is need of an enthusiastic group to get involved.

 

567 does indeed have those cylinders, and is moving a head apace from waht I have seen of late - there are far more processes involved in a set of cylniders and frames than there is in a boiler.

As for the M&GN project, yes, a great list of peoplem but "assistnat secretary" - ae they really goinng to be that busy?

 

567's cylinders are an ex-spare set for an RSH 'Ugly'. Whether they owe their design origins to Kitson I have no idea personally. (Someone will know... replicas aren't my thing.)

 

I don’t believe even Tornado is “completely new metal (maybe minus a handle or whistle here or there”). AIUI the tender underframe was ex-LNER.

More significantly, I’d be sure it has components such as significant parts of the braking system, air pump, mechanical lubricators etc which are pre-existing reconditioned items: I don’t suppose anyone is making those from scratch: they would be enormously costly / time consuming to do.

That’s not intended as a criticism that somehow they “didn’t do the whole job”, but just to reflect reality. Reusing a tender underframe might save some money, but it is hardly complicated - nor expensive - to build new if you don’t have one available. Often it is the small bits that are complicated.

Tom

 

Sure, but there wasn't a lot of big items kicking around for Tornado that the likes of Beachy Head, the Didcot County and the Grange have benefitted from which was the point I was getting at. I'd expect braking systems and lubricators to be more 'off the shelf'.

The lack of a designated engineer or even CAD person doesn't raise my hope so far but I'm willing to be proved otherwise.

 

AIUI the plan at one point was to use the chassis from 4472's second tender. However, ultimately the A1SLT decided to build new and the existing chassis was sold back to Flying Scotsman Railways (as it then was), and subsequently to Jeremy Hosking, to be rebuilt as 4464's second tender.

Sent from my SM-A125F using Tapatalk

 

Admittedly, I'm not sure the boiler would have been much use to anyone if it had stayed on 48518. In all probability the engine would still be sitting on a siding somewhere, unrestored...or perhaps it would have been scrapped anyway, boiler and all. But all the same...to my mind, the new 1014 is not a County, just something that looks a bit like a County.

Sent from my SM-A125F using Tapatalk