LNWR George the Fifth Steam Locomotive Trust and proposed new build

Paul, at the expense of rehashing the "New builds" thread, I assume your wish is that all the groups promoting new builds would concentrate on getting one finished first, rather than going off in 20 different directions. But realistically it is never going to happen. Firstly, people have different interests - I might want to see Beachy Head finished, but (no offence meant) I couldn't care less about the Patriot. So I'll open my wallet for Beachy Head, but if someone said "all you lot trying to build Beachy Head, please fund the Patriot first, and when that is done, we Patriot types will chip in for your Atlantic", frankly I'd have my doubts, and would wait until the "current" push was for an engine I favoured. So concentrating on one project would reduce the total amount of money available at any time. It would also reduce the engineering resources; it is hardly likely that the people in Llangollen building the Patriot would fancy making regular trips to deepest Sussex just because that was where the engineering action was, so to speak. So if all work was concentrated on one project, lots of talented engineers would drift away.

You might just about be able to argue that on a site with several projects (such as Didcot), it might make sense to concentrate on them one at a time. But even there, I wouldn't be surprised if the people passionate about, say, the Edwardian Churchward Saint might not actually be that bothered about, say, the post-war Hawksworth County.

So, like it or not, I think it is inevitable that there will be multiple new builds, and all will progress at different rates more or less directly proportional to how much interest they engender. The key tipping point seems to me whether they can generate enough input (especially cash) to make a build time of, say, 20 years feasible - ideally less, but I'd put that at the upper limit, beyond which it would be difficult to keep people enthused. Those that can manage that stand a good chance of seeing a fire lit in their boilers. Those that can't might end up being the proverbial smokebox door and cab side gathering dust in the back of someone's garage. So as always, show me the money - or rather, the support base and strategy that can generate, sustainably, £50k - £100k per year in income generation.

Also worth remembering - as you have pointed out on occasion - that increasingly even restoring "original" locomotives means building more and more stuff. To take just the Bluebell, engines in the collection have received new wheels (Fenchurch), frames (the Dukedog); tender (Camelot, 1638, 65); cylinders (Fenchurch again) and myriad small parts. About the only thing we haven't done is a new boiler, but the IoWSR have with their Terriers, and some of our boiler reconstructions have been a new boiler in all but name. So a new build is nothing that hasn't been attempted before; it is simply doing all those things in one project.

I made the point in another thread that the aeroplane world seems more sanguine about new builds. Maybe that is because the safety requirements for getting an aeroplane in the air, and the state of many warbird wrecks before restoration commences, means that even a "restoration" is often essentially almost all new construction, so the logical leap to an entire new build is smaller. Maybe it is because aeroplanes appeal more to the kind of wealthy man who can single-handedly shell out a couple of million to fly (or just own) a Mosquito, Messerschmidt 262 or Focke Wulf 190. Maybe it is because projects get a kick start from the movie industry (look at all the "pre-WW I" aircraft in the Shuttleworth collection that were built in the 1960s for "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines"). And periodically such projects don't get finished, but if they are stored carefully, they can always be resurrected - there is a Houston Westland replica fuselage just waiting for engine and wings if you fancy recreating the 1930s trip over the summit of Everest.

So I'm probably more sanguine than you: certainly (to take this back to the George V), I wish them good luck and don't really feel that such a project is doing any harm to the chances of any other new build around the country.

Tom

 

Sounding great guys. I like your painting on your website. Can't wait to see progress!

 

Thanks dman-lewis. So you're associated withe Whitwell & Reepham? You've all done a fantastic job there from all I've seen and I hope I can visit some day soon. The restoration of the station at Whitwell is a real achievement. It looks bloody marvellous!

Are you also involved with the Claud Hamilton? How's it going with that?

 

Like Tom, I've no wish to rehash a previous debate where the consensus at the end was to 'agree to disagree'. (oh and thanks Tom for the well-wishes.)

For our part, we've had a great deal of positive encouragement and helpful advice from new-build societies, locomotive trusts and preservation societies alike. In fact the the extent of the expressions of support has been surprising and humbling. Sure we've met a few naysayers but actually surprisingly few. Rather than being competitive, the atmosphere is convivial and communal. It's very much a tight-knit and supportive community and the general feeling we've encountered is that people (even on other new build projects) want to see you succeed, and we in turn want to see them succeed.

Speaking for myself, I periodically donate to other new builds projects and to other preservation activities in addition to putting money where my mouth is, and investing in the George the Fifth new build. Perhaps if I weren't financially supporting the George then I'd place my money elsewhere but perhaps too, I'd spend it on something else - i like a good ale after all! I should say that also a lot of our financial support to date doesn't directly come people involved in the preservation movement but rather some groups with a more generalist interest in railway history. We of course, welcome support from anyone (had to get a plug in there!) but we also encourage people to put their money into a projects that ultimately grabs them.

 

Yes to both. Thanks, having some problems with working engines this year. But next year we should have another guest engine to cover the home engines overhaul. Its taking some time to get the track extension up and going.

The Claud project is currently working hard on the bank situation, so its completely right and just how we want it. We have updated our website about the first section we want to build. Would be nice to see our two engines together.

 

Sorry to hear about your engine troubles there but good luck with the progress on the track-work and of course with the Claude. I've been watching the project vicariously and so it's gratifying to hear that she's still much alive. The Claudes are most definitely a class of engine worthy of a new-build and it sounds as though you're doing the proper due diligence. Seeing two handsome pre-grouping 4 coupled bogies double-heading would definitely we a fantastic sight!

Look forward to hearing more in due course.

 

All I am suggesting is that someone finishes something before another project appears. When the Patriot is done (it will be interesting to see if a satisfactory new boiler of this size can be obtained) then but only then start on George V.
Paul

 

But if the people behind the George V have no wish to be involved in the Patriot, why should they wait? My guess is these projects will for the most part involve different people and different money.

 

But that assumes specifically that the George V is cannibalising money and engineering resources that would otherwise go to the Patriot, and I'm not sure where the evidence is. You might as well say "don't start the G5 until the H2 is finished." But I doubt they have too many supporters in common, so in practice I don't see that one project is detrimental to another. In fact the knowledge transfer probably suggests having multiple simultaneous projects is a net benefit to the industry.

I'd agree with you if, say, the Bluebell launched a K class mogul project now while Beachy Head was still years from being finished. But that isn't what is being proposed; I don't see that either the Patriot or George V groups gain anything by putting one project on ice until the other is finished.

But to avoid derailling the thread, we should prob agree to disagree - or take this to the "new builds" thread!

Tom

 

Absolutely. Perhaps paul worries about the fluid and porous structures of these groups and wishes that they were conducted with military discipline however it wouldn't work in the preservation/new build scene. No group is a dictatorship and we certainly can't, nor would be want to monopolise or dictate where people choose to invest their time, energy and money. If our trust members choose to support for example, the Patriot instead, or choose to support both projects, then it's their choice. I know that many of our members support other initiatives within the preservation scene, which is fantastic! Our trustees are very enthusiastic about the Patriot project and are on friendly terms with them, and for my part, I've made a few periodic donations to that worthy project and will continue to do so. And I certainly haven't been told by any of the trustees to desist!

 

I can completely see what your saying but what happens if most of the patriot members don't want to pay for a Lnwr George? I happen to like them. And if it was up to me I would prefer to build either a Fowler 2-6-4t or now we have more spare tender parts something like a Fowler 2p. But I would actually prefer our own shed (If either money or suitable place was ever to come up) first.
At the end of the day If someone wants to build a type of loco and they can get enough support it will be done. If they don't try we won't have anything. Gws locos are lucky that they have so many wealthy members who can donate money at the drop of a hat to start so many different projects. The beachy head project had a/some legacys to give it a boost. The patriot had one chap who gave 5k at the start to get things rolling, and the 82045 project is building a loco for the svr which is why it seems to be popular with svr members and has great support from other enthusiast.

 

As Gav says, what project, if any that individual Patriot members wish to get behind either now or following the completion of The Unknown Warrior is entirely up to them. If any of them do wish to support us in any capacity either now or in the future we certainly won't complain. Equally our members are free to support the Patriot or indeed any other project they wish. Its their business. It'd be ludicrous to expect that our members support a particular football team and it's no difference with personal preferences within the preservation or new-build movement.

Anyhow, just to say that we'll be at Tyseley on the 28th October and we're attending a LNWR Society Luncheon in Crewe on the 17th November. See our blog (my signature) for more details.

Finally, we can announce that that after a lot of internal deliberation the first part to be fabricated will be the smokebox door (some may groan). Other parts were considered, however the smokebox door appears to be a natural place to commence especially in getting up to speed with the fabrication of a locomotive class that has few surviving parts. To this end too, we've been deliberating with some key people who have experience with new-builds and their insights and input has been invaluable. We hope to announce about this more soon but we like to thank all the support so far and encourage others to get behind this build.

 

I had heard on the grape vine that an Ex Betton Grange director is looking to build a new Fowler class 4 tank

 

Interesting if true Mike. We shall see what transpires there.

 

Whilst I do find myself veering toward the Paul Hitch mentality of 'not all at once!' (No offence intended Paul), it has to be said a Fowler 2-6-4T would have a lot going for it in terms of sense as a heritage railway loco.

 

I would say though that they're 'not all at once'.

Most of the current crop of the new-builds (there are about 8 to 10?) (or partial new-builds as is the case with the GW County and Saint builds) are either in a moderately advanced to very advanced state of completion. We are one of the few at a very early stage - we're only just approaching the fabrication of the first parts, and I really can't think of another new-builds save perhaps the Claud and the B17 that are at this stage (3 or 4 builds). Of the proposals over the past few years, many of them admittedly not serious, have understandably fallen by the wayside leaving only a handful.

By the time we seriously ramp up with the LNWR George, many of the projects currently in an advanced state, not least the LBSC H2 Atlantic, the GW 4-6-0's and the NER O/LNER G5 will be nearing completion. The whole new-build scene is naturally staggered with engines coming into 'production' just as others near completion.

Anyway if a project doesn't generate the interest, it won't get the support.

 

Don't worry Knotty, believe me when I say that I am a great fan of the newbuild concept and that I believe it has much to offer the heritage railway movement in the future. I also know, and agree with, the strong argument that a particular enthusiast may invest in one newbuild and not another for personal, emotive reasons, thereby reducing the currency of the suggestion that one be completed before another started.

I think the point that made me think 'now hang on a minute...' was that it was suggested it was a Betton Grange director who was keen on a Fowler tank. You would have to have plenty of time on your hands - and be provably, scrupulously fair to both of your interests, to carry that off.

 

At the risk of sounding like the "grammar police", whose postings I really deplore, I think you must mean "veering" rather than "erring". I trust I don't err (he says hopefully)!

PH

 

Good point well made!

 

I would never accuse you of erring or veering Paul!