Potential New Builds

I haven't got the stats to hand, but that was indeed what I was going off. But to be quite frank, I can't be bothered to get into a circular debate whereby you deride everything I type. I am getting rather tired of being singled out for your aggression. Give it a rest, please.

 

Can I suggest you calm down a little, Neil?

There's little point trying to compare the preserved locos with what could or should be built in the future. Originally engines were preserved simply as museum pieces with no thought of future use: steam would finish and that would be the end of it. There would be no or few preserved lines, let alone main line running, so 'usability' wasn't considered. Then preservation became both reasonable and expected, and engines were then preserved on the simple basis that they still existed; e.g. Woodham's yard at Barry. Suitability was again not a consideration, merely availability, so the preserved lines ran and still run using whatever would turn a wheel, whether or not it is suitable, economic or efficient.

As to the 3MT versus 4MT issue, as always it will depend on the railway and conditions. The 4MT would be the better engine on the NYMR, but on the GCR off-season with three bogies in tow? The 3MT increases the options available to the preserved lines; it doesn't in any way supplant its larger sister. Horses for courses, in fact.

 

That is a fair point Paul, and well made. I defer to your very astute observation.

And another fair point. The crux of my point was simply that in the future - not as previously seen in preservation - we're going to see money belts tightened and fuel costs continue to rise. It's logical, surely, to assume that preserved lines will want more bang for their buck in terms of fuel efficiency in the future?

 

That's a shame as I would have liked to see them. I only pick up on points where you make rather airy generalisations or groundless theories...

 

Neil, I've read back through your previous posts aimed at me, and most of them are, to put it mildly, derisory to the point of harassment. I note there are other generalizations elsewhere in the same threads we've both posted in that you have not picked up on: some far more controversial or debatable than my own. I can only conclude you take some enjoyment in picking out one particular member for derision.

 

If you really feel this way then I suggest you contact the Moderators and raise your concern over my actions rather than making your feelings known on this thread.

 

Already have done.

For my own posts, you continued to pass comment, I responded.

My apologies to those in this thread who have to read the above. Perhaps we can agree to stop sniping at each other as of now, and let the topic return to its original theme?

 

What ever happened to the tenders at Doncaster?: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...=QV4dvDbDsuA13G0i2IpkOQ&cbp=12,202.77,,3,3.71

 

Personally, I'd like to see a Fowler 3F 0-6-0, a ditto 2-6-4T and an I3 4-4-2T for the Bluebell. A Robinson 4-4-2T would be nice and two SECR push-pull coaches for 178 wouldn't go amiss either.

It's interesting that we always think of locos when thinking of new-build projects. There is enormous scope for building carriages to match the locos we already have. Almost all the railways are exclusively BR Mk1 railways but there was a huge variety of pre-group and pre-nationalisation coaches in the fifties and sixties. For example, the last semi-fast from Nottingham Victoria to Marylebone comprised of Stanier, Ivatt, Gresley and BR vehicles. Now wouldn't that look nice on the GCR?

Regards

 

Very true, a train of GW clerestories would be rather nice if you ask me!

 

My goodness, what an excellent suggestion! Now as a GWR follower I'm not really on solid ground when discussing any CR locomotive but, many years ago, I purchased a second hand copy of OS Nock's "Pocket Encyclopedia of British Steam Locomotives in Colour." On page 68, sharing the page with a green G&SWR Manson 4-6-0 was this absolutely magnificent (in my view) inside cylinder 4-6-0 in "Perth Blue", Cardean. I was transfixed! Nock went on to describe this wonderful machine thus," It is doubtful if any single locomotive built in the first decade of the 20th Century achieved, at the time, a fame greater than that enjoyed by the first of this small class of 5 locomotives. No 903 was named "Cardean" after the country estate of the deputy chairman of the Caledonian Railway Board at that time and was allocated to one duty only, the 2pm from Glasgow to Euston which it pulled as far as Carlisle." He goes on to say that Cardean did this trip virtually every weekday for 10 years. "Simply and massively built, they were in every way an epitome of the neat, graceful British locomotives of the pre-1914 era." So, it's not a "Saint" or a "Star" but this lovely blue locomotive really would make an awesome "new build". Of course, its just a dream as only 5 were built and their geographical spread was very limited. But surely, if we can't have a lifesize one can't Hornby or Bachmann do one!?

 

Could we keep on topic please as there have been posts reported to the mods in this thread.

Thanks, Neil.

 

92240 on the Bluebell was a Bluebell-funded restoration AFAIK - I think it was the first 9F to be restored from derelict by preservationists (as opposed to Black Prince and Evening Star, which were saved in operational condition).

Tom

 

Interesting - thanks for that.

 

For me, the starting criteria for a new build would include:

1) None preserved
2) Likely to find regular use either on a preserved line (so small and efficient, like the 3MT) or regular use on the mainline (so big and powerful, like Tornado)
3) Successful when originally built (like the 3MT)
4) Originally long lived (so options for livery variations)

And now an important one:

5) Can the proposed loco share major components between different classes? This opens up the opportunity of two or more different locos at reduced cost.

So now my preference: A Drummond Black Motor. A cheap, simple, easy to prep 0-6-0 goods, ideal for most preserved lines and day-in, day-out use except for the heaviest loads mid summer. They were highly successful when built, and could have liveries covering the period 1890s - 1960s, providing you're prepared to turn a blind eye to boiler variants between superheated and non-superheated (personally, I'd build the non-superheated form).

The killer, though, is that they share boiler, cylinders, motion, wheels and detail components with the M7 0-4-4T and the K10 4-4-0. Plus, there is probably minimal variation with similar 0-6-0s, 4-4-0s and 0-4-4Ts on some of the Scottish lines, as the Drummond brothers built many locos of broadly similar outline. So with one set of patterns and boiler design, there are a lot of different locos you could turn out for a variety of uses.

And the principal applies to many other groups of engines in the late Victorian period: if the South Western doesn't float your boat, then you can find similar 0-6-0 tender / large tank engine variants on several other lines from that period.

Tom

 

Good choice and an interesting set of criteria for building something new - certainly more in-depth than thinking 'we haven't got one of those so lets build one'.

If you're going to suggest a Drummond 0-6-0 could it possibly be a Drummond 2F from his Caledonian Railway days?..........once you've seen 828 in blue you'll know why.

 

Personaly a new build would have to be of a very successful class. The Heignst (sorry for spelling) does not seem to be the best idea to me as the class were relatively unsucessful and just like the patriot it is only a smaller version of existing locos. So something different (hence my personal favourite Claud Hamilton) because these wore GER blue. Maybe a drumond loco in their yellow livery would be nice too.

 

I would quite like to see a Claud back or a C class, As I am a fan or the M&GN.

 

one of the largest costs in any new build is the cost of patterns , as very often these are of no use to any other project , i agree with the idea of a black motor 0-6-0 which can also be used for any other drummond design engine. things like firebox dimentions would be vertially the same so pressings could be supplied as a kit of parts , there has to be a certain standardised size of cyclinders etc , it could mean that you might get a new build that might have internal diffences but would look correct where it mattered , this approach could drastically reduce the cost of a new engine to the same as rebuilding an barry wreck and by suppying only a kit of common parts, you could in effect build any small to meduim sized engine that would be suitable for most preserved railways need , anything up to class 3 power should be able to cope with what most railways need

 

If you are talking about new builds then build something new and not a replica build. For day to day work on a railway you require a locomotive with high power to weight ratio and maximum mechanical integrity. No replica build can offer this, they will deliver quite the reverse. But if you like high fuel and maintenance costs by all means go ahead and stick with designs that are over 50 years old and were poor by global standards even in their day.