82045 The way ahead?

The preservation scene might not need a 3 now. But it will in 30 or 40 years when the youngest pre-preservation built locos will be at least 80 years old. Railways will need more new build locos to supplement ageing running fleets.

 

Do you think that there are locomotives that are currently running with only their original parts? Preservation has proved that nothing that exists on a steam locomotive cannot be replicated. We currently have engines that over 100 years old running regularly, what difference will it make when a 1950 build is 80 years old?

 

But then there is the thorny issue of running an engine versus conservation. Locomotives were saved to preserve them for future generations. Do you run them as they were intended, but keep rebuilding and repairing them until nothing original is left at all? Or do you stuff and mount the engine to preserve any original components that are left?

Heck, Lode Star is kept undercover at all times and may never steam again because it has an original Swindon paint job, but Flying Scotsman is a very different engine to when it was bought by Alan Pegler in 1963.

 

Neil. You are absolutely right about replicating anything but at a cost. One example is the Swindon No 1 boiler which many locos (including 2807) carry. Eventually, there will need to be a production run of these boilers if all the 28xxs, 2884s and Halls are to keep running. The 82xxx not only fills a gap in preservation but it is certain to be almost ideal for many heritage lines and it will be new. Hence my reason for believing than 82045 is the way ahead.

 

The preservation scene probably needs a class 3 tank more than most of the locos that are currently running. With the usual few exceptions (WSR, NYMR, BWR, etc) these locos will cope with any heritage railway job and will do it more economically. Overhaul costs are certainly going to be lower than most superheated locos, whether we take into account its newness, or not. Yes, quite a few Cl 4 2-6-4T's exist but, ask most heritage railways and they'd bite a hand off to have one (or more). There aren't enough to satisfy the demand and a Cl 3 will be a most welcome substitute.

 

I am posting a letter sent to (and published in) Steam Railway magazine by 82045 publicity officer Chris Proudfoot. It seems appropriate in the light of some comments being raised here.


Dear Sir,

Re: A NEW ‘P2’ – FEASIBLE OR FANTASY? (SR No.382)

So sex has reared its ugly head, even in our safe little haven of railway preservation!

I refer to Tony Streeter’s article in SR382, in which he quotes A1 Steam Locomotive Trust Chairman Mark Allatt’s phrases “sex appeal” and “sexy ones” with reference to certain steam locos. The context was Mr Allatt’s assertion, in support of the Trust’s plan to build a new P2, that “the market is not ready for smaller, less glamorous locomotives”.

I am heavily involved in the SVR-based project to build a BR Standard Class 3MT 2-6-2 tank (a type that must rank way down the list of desirables in the Kama Sutra of steam locomotive sex), and so must take issue with Mr Allatt on this last point.

The success of Tornado has been nothing short of an inspiration, and the prospect of seeing the return of a big Gresley 2-8-2 to the main line is wonderful. I wish the Trust all the luck in the world if they do decide to pursue their goal of re-creating one, and I hope that they are able to find a name for their new locomotive that is as memorable as Thane of Fife, Mons Meg or Wolf of Badenoch – surely amongst the most evocative names ever carried by a steam loco.

However, I think that we need to draw a sharp distinction between the raisons d’etre
underlying the desire to build - on the one hand - a complicated Class 7 or 8 enchantress and on the other, a simple, even mundane, serving wench (my apologies to the p.c. brigade if anyone thinks this is sexist talk). The A1 SLT and the 82045 SLT are in different and yet complementary markets, and fortunately there are plenty of people out there who recognise this and are generously supporting the 82045 project. Our experience indicates that the market is indeed ready to seek fulfilment in more subtle ways!

The distinction is between main line fireworks vis-à-vis everyday services on heritage lines. Ask any hard-pressed and under-funded motive power superintendent on a steam railway - desperately trying to roster enough locomotives to keep the trains running on a normal (as opposed to a gala) weekend - to choose between a big, high-maintenance beauty and a modest little number that will look, sound and smell right and do the job at about half the cost, and I don’t think it would take him long to make up his mind.

There is no conflict between the aims of the A1 people and those of ourselves: we are all trying to recreate, to the extent that this is feasible in these changed times, the lost golden age of the steam railway; and in this aim, both main line heroics and workaday branch line running have an equally important part to play. A Class 8 in full cry at the head of thirteen coaches over Shap or Ais Gill, or on the ECML , is breathtaking; the same loco, shuffling tender-first along a single-track branch at a maximum permitted line speed of 20 mph, is somewhat less so. Horses for courses sums it up best, I think.

Please have a look at the 82045 Steam Locomotive Trust website on 82045.org.uk – or get in touch with either Tony Massau or myself – if you would like to find out more about the flourishing new build Riddles tank project. We are based at Bridgnorth and would be very happy to show you what we are doing. It really is quite sexy, I promise you!

Chris Proudfoot
The 82045 Steam Locomotive Trust
Norley,
Cheshire

 

I'm not sure if this isn't a troll.

 

It's a point of view, and surely the poster has the right to it, but I'm not convinced by his thinking. The NYMR uses the locos it does because they are what it needs to cope with the traffic on offer without flogging them to death, not because it is thought that the Lambton tanks would not attract the punters. To be honest, provided there's a steam engine on the front of the train I don't think most customers know or care much beyond that, and if the NYMR could get away with smaller, cheaper to run engines I have no doubt that they would! It is the enthusiasts who are, by and large, motivated to visit because of which locos are running, and they form a very small percentage of the overall total. Clearly there are exceptions to the rule, 60007 has always been the subject of calls asking when it will be running, 60163 clearly has a generated massive public awareness and 92214 was an unexpected addition to the list last year. I for one would like to see a standard class 3 on the Moors, as they were characteristic of the line in its later years. I don't think it'll be a big crowd-puller and I wouldn't envy the crews having to pull 7-coach trains with one, but I don't think it would be any less attractve to the majority of visitors than the Q6 or Repton.

 

Sorry Brian, dont know whats meant by troll but if its a put down i cant help but agree. The KWVR couldnt and doesnt manage on Ivatt 2's and jinties. Only the quieter days or the secondary (5 coach) set is entrusted with them. It may only be a short line buts its steep with a lot of stop start. That said, those locos do have to work hard to keep time and to my mind that generates more atmosphere than something big purring up. Sure people would turn up for Flying Scotsman, but even more turn up for Thomas or some other Tank engine. Embsay runs industrials but i dont think they are desperate for punters. Both lines would i am sure be very happy if they had a Standard 3 in their collection...

 

So Foxfield needs a couple of big locos at its July Gala does it? I don't think the organisers and visitors to this excellent gala will go along with that somehow.

 

Don't quite see the relevance of this, it is describing performance on a different bit of railway with nothing like the gradients and curvature. Based on the performance of the class 4s on the NYMR I would have thought 5 or 6 coaches would be about their limit, and it isn't very often that the NYMR run five coach trains nowadays.

 

Maybe not, but it is interesting to know what footplate men of the day thought about the 82XXX`s. Seems to me that they were pretty gutsy locos.

 

Am I right that the 3MTs were the "Standardised" version of the 51XX Praires, with a similar boiler and size of cylinders (and smaller driving wheels)?

Steven

 

http://www.82045.org.uk/82045_history.html

"The genesis of the Swindon-built Riddles Class 3 engines (82000 prairie tanks and 77000 moguls) is somewhat different from that of many of the other BR Standard designs, which were essentially developments of LMS types. As no existing LMS boiler was available which would suit a Class 3 loco, it was decided to use a slightly adapted version of the Swindon No.2 boiler (the barrel was shortened by 5 13/16 inches) as fitted to the GWR Large Prairies and 56XX 0-6-2 tanks".

Cylinders were smaller, 17.5" x 26" on the 3MT and 18" x 30" on the 5100 class

As you say,the wheels were 5" smaller, and so was the tractive effort.


Patrick

 

You are not quite right about the use of the No2 boiler for the Std 3 2-6-2 tanks. The flanging blocks used to make the No2 boiler's firebox were used, as were the copper templates for the inner firebox. The boiler barrel sections of the Std 3s were made from high tensile steel, which was thinner than the normal boiler plate used on the No2s. Whilst the two boilers were similar dimensionally, there is quite a difference in their construction.

 

I have no doubt that 82045 will be a very popular engine when its finished. Yes perhaps it is of limited utility at somewhere like the excellent NYMR, but they are hardly representative of the majority of heritage lines which tend to run shorter distances with fewer carriages over less challenging terain.

The fact that a loco might cost much less a day to run in the long term makes a real difference to the smaller railways. Initially 82045 might be a headline loco at the big gala's, but even I recognise that eventually interest will reduce in time. However, the smaller and medium sized events will always have a home for an efficient, reliable standard tank loco.

The debate about why build it was a battle that I had thought was fought a long time ago and I would rather we focussed on building it for now. I and many others fully intend to keep writing the cheques when we can afford to.

 

Thank you for the latest cheque Pesmo, it is most appreciated.

As mentioned earlier in our publicity officers letter, 82045 will never be the "belle" of the ball but she will prove to be invaluable to the SVR (and others) in the day to day running of the railways. SVR production manager, John Robinson, has already said "we need this engine". Chris Proudfoots comment "horses for courses" fits the bill very well I think.

 

Another thing, now that 2807 is restored and running (well its now having its winter maintenance) what the hell else can I focus/spend money on? 82045 and hopefully its fellow new build 82xxxs are the way ahead you know! Pesmo has shamed me into reaching for my wallet again.

 

Trust members who are readers of the SVR and National Preservation Forum websites will by now have heard about the break-in at Bridgnorth during the night Thursday 20th/Friday 21st January and about the consequent theft of locomotive firebox copper. As many of you will have surmised, the copper stolen included that which was stored pending use on 82045.

We wish to reassure all our supporters that this negative development will not hinder in any way the rapid progress the Trust is making with construction of the new locomotive; and that the Trust and the SVR are cooperating in every possible way towards ensuring a positive outcome.