LNWR George the Fifth Steam Locomotive Trust and proposed new build

Having another little stir, why not just build an NSR 4-4-0? More appropriate, better looking, better engineered (if E.S. Cox is to be believed) and, being 6 ins. shorter in the wheel, better suited to tourist railway use. It could be either superheated or saturated to choice.

Stir over, I am now being deadly serious. There are far too many schemes going at once, which tie up far too much money and thus seriously jeopardise getting anything completed in a reasonable timespan.

I have no prejudices against newbuilds as such, indeed I drive a 2ft. gauge example which has proved very successful. However, being a sensible size it has actually been finished!

P.H.

 

Duly noted Paul I'll be sure to pass on your assessment of the situation. No doubt, given your assessment they'll have no choice but to pack it all up and head home.

 

That must have hit below the waterline!

P.H.

 

Why would it? Throughout the history of railway preservation we have seen rival projects competing for funds, it's nothing new. For instance, why would anyone bother supporting the 5593 appeal when they know that both 5690 and 5699 are likely to reappear shortly? Because that's where they choose to put their money, is the answer and in general we have no right to deny others the chance to put forward their scheme, although we retain the right to support it, or not. Provided the promotors of this fund (and those of others) are tenacious and long lived there's no reason why they shouldn't succeed. Although we are still far from the situation where all th ex-Barry engines have been steamed we're not far now from the situation where at least one example of each class has been. As people continue to look for a challenge it may well be that the construction of something new will be more appaealing than the rebuilding of another example of a 10-strong class from not much more than its very basic components. What's more, there is likely to be a ongoing demand for more engines - look at the Churnet Valley for example - big plans, 20 miles of track and just two steam engines based there. Others may move there, of course, but that would be diluting collections elsewhere.

 

Should worry too much about the detractors. I realise that a new build is a magnitude or two greater than a Barry wreck restoration but back in the day there were plenty of people only too happy to tell others that there were far too many Barry rescue schemes on the go and they were jeopardising existing schemes. What they fail to take in to consideration is that supporters of scheme A would not necessarily support scheme B if scheme A didn't exist/folded. Good luck with your efforts.

 

"5. Financial backing. The trust has a generous donor who wishes to be anonymous. He has offered £50K in five year tranches of £10K provided the trust can first match these sums through fundraising efforts. Currently the trust guesstimates a £1.5 M for the project. That is a relatively small sum compared with the cost of building much larger locomotives and certainly achievable if the trust is well organised and determined. However it is still an enormous amount."

This is, in my view, one of the most important statements that the group has made. Whilst I have no desire or spare money to support this new build (already committed with the Patriot and 82045) I believe it seems more credible than several others. One reason is paragraph 5 quoted above; the financial "incentive" with one donor already prepared to commit and thereby more likely to encourage others - I'm happy to donate some money to 82045 and 45551 partly because I know I'm not alone!
Interesting also to note that, today, according to a magazine anyway, a considerable amount of money has just been bequeathed to the GWS "County of Glamorgan" project, and I mean considerable.
Money isn't everything of course but if the LNWR George the Fifth project can attract the necessary engineering support and some more funding then I think we shall see this rather elegant 4-4-0 in action once more. That said, it is made quite clear that this is a big financial commitment. I wish it well.

 

@61624, Spamcan81 and Kinghambranch

Thanks so much for your posts. I'll reply to them tomorrow when I have the opportunity to give them full consideration. Cheers!

 

I have to admit, for all the questions being posed, Knotty seems to know what he's doing and have reasonable answers to them wherever possible, he certainly seems more set up to suceed than quite a few other new build projects.

 

Agreed, trial by forum is a hard fought victory.
With existing locos the debate is about livery, with new builds its what's your boiler made from, how is it made and when

 

That's how I see it too 61624. 'Competing for a pool of funds' is nothing new to the preservation movement and yet somehow, the UK today has managed to develop a steam preservation scene that is unrivalled in the world. 'Competing for funds' is not a phenomena that's somehow unique and discrete to the emerging new-build scene. The accusation is premised on a simple but perhaps flawed piece of logic - originally the cry was 'new-builds draw vital funding away from restoration work of existing stock. This has now become 'new-builds draw money away from other new-builds'.

It's equally plausible to consider that there are many people out there among the pool of potential donors who aren't necessarily choosing to donate to one fund over thereby depriving another but rather, are driven by personal appeal to donate to a given fund. Take Tornado for instance. Did the membership and donation drives for Tornado draw funding away from other funds in the preservation movement or did it rather attract a large body of people who otherwise wouldn't be inclined to donate to a preservation fund because they were attracted to the idea of building a Peppercorn A1 Pacific from scratch? I would think that there was more of the latter - plenty of people who otherwise wouldn't have donated to a preservation fund (people with no particular interest in the scene but rather in Tornado) and who actually now, seeing the fruits of their efforts come to life, maybe now more inclined to contribute to other similar new-build and preservation ventures in future. It would of course be an interesting study but certainly it's not absolute either way.

As to the demand for more engines - I completely agree with you. I strongly that a in 10 to 15 years, a small but sizable pool of new-builds will prove beneficial in providing more cost-effective power and in taking the strain off more elderly stock. Already there's a good chance that within 10 years we'll see around 8 operational new-builds spanning Pre-grouping, the Big-four and BR era standards and spanning everything from diminutive tanks to Pacifics. If anything there's more likely to be room for more, rather than fewer new-builds although it'd be a stab in the dark to suggest a precise number. New-builds in 15-20 years could readily do the 'heavy-lifting', while some of the more elderly engines can be used more sparingly thus prolonging their lives and potentially reducing the maintenance costs associated.

As to Churnet Valley - again expressing my personal opinion, which in no way reflects the position of the trust, I think a potential association with that society would be a very good fit (if of course they would have us!) I'm supremely impressed with what they're quietly achieving and what they plan to achieve and I would love to see a completed LNWR George storming through the Staffordshire countryside.

 

Thanks Spamcan81. Not worried at all - it's to be expected and to be honest, I think the response here has been very positive and I hope that the trustees received a similar response at Railfest. I completely understand the skepticism - an ambitious plan (although perhaps not as ambitious as some out there, including some which have come to fruition) and a lot to prove. Naturally when questions of a home-base are addressed and when people begin to see parts fabricated - a frame-spacer here, a set of horn-blocks there etc then naturally some of the reticence will abater. Ultimately seriousness of intent needs to be matched by seriousness of action in tangible way. I can point to behind the scenes plans, developments and agreements all I like however ultimately seeing physical results - that is fabricated parts tending towards a completed locomotive is what really counts - as it should be.

Absolutely. I just wrote this in response to 61624 albeit less succinct and clearly.

Thanks for your support. I hope to have more to report over the coming weeks and months.

 

I admit, upon hearing of this generous offer by an anonymous benefactor, I felt more comfortable in getting behind this project. I've been speaking with Paul, Bruce and Derek for around 10 months now and assisting were I can. Again I'm not privy to the finer details of this particular agreement but I can say that Paul, Bruce and Derek didn't want it to be publicly announced until they themselves were certain of it's veracity. They've also had to prove themselves to this benefactor before they would give this assurance.

There's no hiding the fact that this is a huge task to undertake and what is crucial as you say is that potential donors feel that they aren't wasting their time, effort and money. Having considerable financial backing in the way of tranches helps but so too does having a base and being able to demonstrate a high level of competency and organisation. The task now for the trust is to demonstrate the latter in order to make good on the former. We're at this stage.

As to the Patriot, I too am very excited by that project. I'm not a regular donor but I made a donation and I can't wait to see the first steaming. What is exciting about the preservation and new-build movements is the power of collective action - people coming together in whatever capacity to achieve a common goal. It's a very good feeling and deeply ingrained in us as human beings. A completed Patriot will be an expression of something good in people. I like that.

Also, I'm very glad to hear that the 'County of Glamorgan' has received considerable support. While I haven't donated to it personally (my new-build donations have gone to the F5, Brighton Atlantic, Patriot and of course, the LNWR George) I again wish it well and have little doubt that she'll steam in the not-too-distant future. Again a real credit to the team and her supporters.

Finally, thank you for your well-wishes and considered post.

 

Thanks David. Of course there are things I can't answer now which leaves some people naturally reticent and there are things I can't say because they're either not finalised or not yet ready for public disclosure. I'm also not privy to everything going on 'backstage' since I'm just a supporter who is assisting where I can after deciding to personally back this project. I can assure you I won't state anything here that hasn't first been verified with the trustees. For example, with regards to a home-base I know that this is currently being considered and discussed but I don't know anymore than this.

Right now the trustees are in York, preparing the George the Fifth stall for tomorrow. I expect that anyone here who is at Railfest from tomorrow through to the 10th can pose the hard questions at the chaps behind this personally. I know too that they're signing up convenantors while there.

 

Would we want it any other way?

Part of the appeal of forums is the capacity to disagree amongst people who otherwise share a common passion. That it's a passion is precisely why people sometime become strident. (Some of the best debates are about liveries - don't get me started on the ubiquity of BR black for instance!) Stridency can be good; enjoyable even - trolling not so much.

Anyway hard questions should certainly be posed - the onus is on us to prove ourselves although it isn't always possible to have all the answers especially at such an early stage. We have some vital runs on the board but we're a long way from completing an innings or even the match (sorry about the cricket analogy). That's the task for us.

 

This is one of the more exciting, and certainly appears to be one of the better and more credibly organised new-builds going. In the future, I may be in a position to assist financially or otherwise - I'd certainly like to.

I echo the comments regarding the importance of a base, a point that seems to be acknowledged by the Group.

My own twopennyworth would be to try to follow a similar route to that which the 82045 Trust are making - very regular and solid monthly updates online on a neat and tidy website, and more importantly to build things as you need them, not as you want them. This workmanlike approach gets the 82045 Trust a lot of Brownie Points in my opinion, and it would do the same for you. By all means a nameplate/numberplate to go on your stand, but no more.

 

Cheers! If you are in a position to assist that would be greatly appreciated. Of course, your enthusiasm and support for the project is nonetheless welcome at this stage without any financial assistance.

As to the nameplate on the stand - as I understand it, the trustees were in contact with the owner of the original plates from LNWR 5000/LMS 25248 'Coronation' and were able to have a cardboard and plastic replica fabricated to decorate the stall. However, a decision hasn't been made on the name, nor is it considered a high priority. There has been some discussion about whether to build a 'replica' - that is a member of the class with the same name and number or by the standards set down by Tornado, a 'new-build' - effectively a 91st member of the class. If the latter I think the idea would be to use a name associated with the LNWR (the LNWR tended to use the same names over and over, recycling them to new classes as older engines were withdrawn from service as 'L&NWR Locomotive Names' by John Goodman can attest). It would therefore probably be a name which wasn't in use at the time the Georges were built and in service. Anyway, as I said, it's been an off-hand discussion with no decision made and it's not considered a priority.

And for anyone who hasn't visited the trust's website, here's a photo of what this thread is all about. Building one of these fine looking machines, which would singularly represent a 20th century LNWR express engine. Here's 1489 'Wolfhound' standing a Crewe North shed circa 1914.

 

Now that is worthy of respect.

 

It's certainly one of the finer points which has helped reassure me in my many conversations with the fellows behind this.

I'm going to be away until next Monday evening and I won't have reliable access to the internet (Looking forward to that actually!), so if anyone has questions or queries and you recieve get a prompt reply from me that'll be why.

Cheers!

 

Why not mainline? As long as the load is suitable for the power of the loco then this would be a very attractive proposition. Ok with fewer coaches the cost per passenger mey be higher but with good marketing in the right location - build it and they will come.

Preston and the Ribble Steam railway looks a great option. Dedicated and progressive team with good access to the West Coast Mainline - it's natural home.

 

Would make an interesting side by side comparison to rivals Butler Henderson and MR 1000.
When it comes to things like names and numbers.. remember it was industry practice to re-use existing locomotive numbers and names from scrapped engines... preserving the number sequence was higher priority from an accounting perspective than numbering all members of the same class in an organised sequence... that gives a few options. It was the LMS really started organising types of locomotives by a logical grouping of consecutively numbered engines.