New builds - how many will ever really work?

What you say is very sensible..maybe something could be sorted out via Heritage Railways Association etc.
Interestingly I notice Tata steel in the UK are doing the frames for the F5. Also, maybe places like Poland could do things? (The cost of the plane ticket to keep an eye on things would be more manageable).

 

Hmmm, ok so which countries could work in imperial units and use whitworth threads?

 

The USA perhaps?? Their official measurement system may be metric but no-one uses it there.

Dave

 

I seem to remember Borsig built some 4-4-0s on the Southern Region and Tornado's boiler was also built in metric land (and I don't think anybody has argued they didn't build it to the dimensions specified) - and tons of 'modern' stuff comes from abroad, 67s from Spain, 66s from North America and emus from Japanese manufacture

 

Who was it said owning a steam locomotive is a very effective way of converting a large fortune into a small one?

 

Steel plate is only now rolled in metric sizes ,but saying that im sure that in the past special orders have been done to get correct sized plate, it depends on the works manager being able to be able to roll the plate to impeirial thickness even though i bet the paperwork would be in mm .

 

A short while back, I wanted some 1.25" plare to replace a buffer beam. Couldn't get this and was given the choice of 30 or 35mm. I opted for 30 and when it came it measured 32, which is as near to 1.25" as you'll get!

 

On a similar line have you ever tried to ask for an 8 x 4 feet plywood board?
Oh no sir we only stock it in metric sizes, are you some kind of dinosaur?
So what size do you have?
Length: 2440mm; Width: 1220mm I'll leave the maths to you.

 

Yep. Several years ago I wanted some 2" x 1" timber, only to be told "it's metric only; is 50mm x 25mm OK?" Er...yes it is... "OK, how many feet did you want?"

AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!

 

To steer this topic back a little, I notice that the V3 'project' Facebook page has been doing a little pruning of comments that ask awkward questions, including Sheff's question about why they would paint an LNER loco in SR green.

Sounds a little like the escargot plage forum/discussions....


Keith

 

Is there a line somewhere that would welcome a V3? I really don't know. Should somebody be doing matchmaking? It would be interesting to have feedback from different lines/centres as to whether they see new construction as part of meeting their future medium to long term needs.

 

I think if someone offered the NYMR a ready to run L1 or V3 they would be very interested - although neither type was used on the lin in B days they did run on the Esk Valley line into Whitby - but they don't have the space to host a new build project.

I suspect that most lines will continue to repair existing engines rather than build new, for two reasons. Firstly (and mainly), cost. The cost of building new is always going to be higher than an overhaul, because with an overhaul one starts with most of the parts and it isn't necessary to buy them. If a new build loco is used then come its next overhaul the cost of repairing it will not be very different to that of an old engine, either. Secondly, a new build doesn't come with the history of of a restored engine, and the link between the people who crew it now and those who did so 70 or 100 years ago is important to many. I'm sure we'll see more gap-filling new builds, but I think that finance will dictate that it is only a small number. Personally I'd rather see an existing loco restored rather than retired and replaced by a new build.

 

That much I agree with.

I'm less sure about that. There is a big difference in cost between restoring an engine that has maybe 50,000 or 60,000 miles in ten years up and down a preserved line; and one which has had 1,000,000 plus in its first life, and then perhaps two or three additional ten year cycles of 50,000 or 60,000. This can be seen in many heritage locos today on their second or third preservation-era overhaul, which are requiring ever more extensive work, to the extent of major frame renewals and huge sections of boiler plate being replaced. Were heritage lines better capitalised (and , depending on your point of view, less sentimental / not taking due care of their custodianship of historic artefacts), a lot of what are today done as repairs would actually just be wholesale replacements.

When you look at some of what needs to be done to keep old engines running, really some of them are essentially new builds (or at least, as much a new build as some current projects like the GWS ones, e.g. mostly new but with some donor components). The big difference is that rather than having to fund all the extra cost up front and then having years of cheaper maintenance costs, the new building gets spread over maybe two or three maintance cycles: It would not be unusal to have maybe new frames (in whole or part) at one overhaul; new cylinders at another; a new boiler at a third, with new platework at various times and a few components like wheels, motion and cab fittings as "donor" components. Not so different from a donor new build, except all the new stuff is spread out through a couple of overhaul cycles rather than concentrated in one hit.

That much is true.

Tom

 

Broadening this interesting discussion a bit - might a new build have some attractive operational features, e.g. roller bearings, a rocking grate and self cleaning smokebox- not features of the original design but maybe very helpful in terms of dat to day operation?

 

A medium sized tank loco would be very welcome on many heritage lines, particularly if it existed in the real world rather than as a Facebook page. Even if a millionaire came along with all the dosh tomorrow, this loco wouldn't be operational for 5 years, more likely 10. Heritage lines want locos that can work this season.

 

I've got an idea! How about a modern Class 3 2-6-2T? :thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb:

 

Better still, make an extra set of nearly all the bits for 82045, and produce 770??. (Sorry, my '56/'57 "Combined" only lists up to 77024 and says: "locomotives of this class are still being delivered"....)

Same wheels, same cylinders, same boiler and firebox, same motion, same fittings, just forget about the tanks, bunker and hind pony truck, a bit off the frames at the back, oh and a new tender!

In fact to my mind this is the very sensible way foreward, locos that will have considerable Heritage railway appeal, rather than cobbling together bits off engines withdrawn in the 1960's.

I say that with the absolute proviso that individuals are free to spend their money on whatever project they wish. That is never in doubt.

 

OT but 77000 thro' 77019 were the only engines of this type delivered. Were there any other similar errors in Mr Allen's books?

 

Quite correct , maybe as mentioned in "BR Standard Steam Album" the order was stopped due even then to advancing dieselisation. Ian Allen presumably made some assumptions, but you would think he was working on data supplied to him.

By the way, if you have that book, the lower photo on page 50 is of 77005 fitted with a larger Class 4 chimney, and it looks an absolute stunner! Much nicer than the slender Swindon chimney. Now, how about a "beauty parade" with '45 eventually !!