Proliferation

Quite a number of years ago Michael Draper from the S.V.R. famously claimed that there were too many preservation schemes starting, & that many of these would not survive. This has since proved not to be the case. However, we now seem to have a similar situation with new-builds. There is a new-build scheme appearing virtually every couple of weeks. Some of the existing established ones are taking many years more than envisaged, & the appearance of these new schemes might turn people's heads away from these.
Who is going to build these locos ? Some of the major heritage lines have the engineering capability but aren't prepared to stitch up their workshop space for years while funding comes in dribs & drabs.

Bob.

 

And about 15 months ago, Maunsell Man wrote:

Seems the topic is a perennial!

You'll find fervent supporters of new builds, and also some equally sceptical. My take is a really a commercial one: Is your project attractive enough to find enough people to support a burn rate of £50k - £100k per year or so, for 10 - 20 years. Obviously you can modify those figures a bit firstly depending whether you start with a reasonable supply of major components (Beachy Head, the GWS projects) or are doing everything from scratch (Hengist, 82045); secondly depending on the size of the final engine.

You also need competent engineers and a suitably equipped workshop, as well as experience in fundraising, compliance, design, procurement and a host of other skills. The need to find those skills, facilities and to mobilise a large number of supporters makes me think that while an entirely "standalone" new build is possible (for example, Tornado), those projects closely allied to a major line (Beachy Head at the Bluebell; 82045 at the SVR etc) are automatically at an advantage - and even then, they are hard projects. And of course, there is what are you going to do with it at the end. 82045 stands to be a really useful loco at the SVR (and 84030 at the Bluebell, for that matter). Beachy Head will fill a niche and can become a real figurehead "big namer" for us. That means in turn the host railways are reasonably enthusiastic about seeing the projects progress, so can offer non-tangible support even if the financial structure means the project is essentially arm's length. But the P2? No guarantee it will be allowed on the mainline, but which preserved line could really make sensible commercial use of it once built?

One worry I see is projects going through a sort of mid-life crisis. If a project never gets beyond a cab side (or even a FaceBook page) - well, ultimately no harm done. But, reading between the lines, what is happening with, say, Betton Grange? 10 years ago, that project seemed to be in the vanguard of new builds, but seems definitely to have been overtaken by other projects - and am I right (I might not be, if not apologies) but isn't the person here promoting the Fowler 2-6-4T someone who was originally associated with Betton Grange? That would worry me.

Tom

 

I guess that whether a project succeeds or not will depend on the factors that Tom mentions above, and whether there is enough support to cough up the necessary cash. Each to his own in that respect. But whether this proliferation of schemes is in the best interests of the preservation movement as a whole may be more questionable. To the supporters it may seem great, but what happens in the future when the completed loco just becomes another loco needing a 10 year overhaul, and competing with more venerable and genuinely historic locos for funding. Or worse still, who will care about a pile of components that never quite made it and is now rusting in the weeds at the back of the yard?

Many railways already have more locos than they actually need, and many of those need the investment in terms of time and money. Some could well be lost in years to come, whilst others might never steam again and remain stored away under tarpaulins. I feel that whilst some of the new build projects might have some value in reproducing something that is quite different to what has been saved (the railmotor being a good example - although I suppose it is technically a rebuild with a new engine) I would prefer to see groups getting to grips with restoring what we already have. As some will have guessed, I have a soft spot for the Bluebell, and it is a great pleasure to see that at last P class 27 is getting some long overdue attention. This was a loco that helped the Bluebell survive in the early 1970's when very little worked and what did was worn out. Having been dismantled and laid aside 30 years ago it is possibly in worse condition now than some of the locos rescued from Barry. How many other locos are there like that but which don't have the resources and volunteers of the likes of the Bluebell to call on?

Now I know that I have absolutely no right to tell others what they can or can't do, and others undoubtably have other ideas, quite possibly better ones. But I would hope that we don't neglect what has already been preserved - or it might be that a generation or two down the line that someone is starting a fund to reproduce a lost class that once had been preserved.

And don't forget the coaches and goods stock.

Steve B

 

As I've said to our good friend whose new builds frequented facebook a while ago, you have to ask yourself whether or not your project will be sustainable. People always use the 'it will be perfectly suited to heritage lines' ploy, and some of these claims i daresay would have been accurate, had the new builds actually been completed and running ~20 years ago. From what i've seen, the locos we already have probably had/have a useful working life of 60+ years of service, then they start getting worn out, although nothing that can't be fixed by cut n' replace and boiler transplants. Even if all these new builds steamed tomorrow, we'd be into the 2070s by the time they've been used to their full potential, but where will preservation be by then?

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/images/052504_coal_peak_figure3.jpg - I've gone on about this sort of thing before, but this shows how UK coal production peaked nearly 80 years ago (data from UK coal authority, Durham Mining museum and EIA), and the graph is starting to repeat the world over and the bean counters know too well that this is being reflected in the price! NYMR hit by "doubling in coal costs in less than five years" NYMR cash for coal, anyone?
Come 15 - 20 years time when 82045, Fowler tank, Hengist and *insert name of new build here* are running, there won't be enough fuel to get them through their useful working lives the way 60/70 year old locos have and still are. There'll still be coal, but prices will be so high, running becomes unfeasible. Then there's the cut n' shut new builds which defeat themselves by using already existing knackered bits! :madgrin:

People in their 50s and 60s don't need to worry about this too much, but we under 40s will probably see preservation come to mostly stuffed museum exhibits and even more rusty hulks within our life times. There's only so high you can put ticket prices before you stop getting bums on seats to pay hire fees, maintenance, fuel, water costs, etc. I can't say how long preservation will last in its current form, at a VERY wild guess, I'd hazard 25/30 years as we know it (regular steamings, overhauls (comparatively) forthcoming, War Weekends, DOWT, galas, etc) but I'd say we can get there with what we already have, no need to add to the dole queues and donation buckets with umpty-umpt other locos. Then there's the aging workforce you've got to factor in....

As much as I might want to see an LNER P2, Ivatt diesel and LNWR George, there's really little or no need for any of them, and the whole new build bubble might be propped by multiple cases mostly of heart leading head (But then when has preservation NOT been?). I'm glad, in a way, that so many newbuilds have popped up recently, which "might turn people's heads away" (Thompson1706) so we can get back to what we already have, but then each to their own, so whether Fred Bloggs wants to fund a Merchant navy restoration, Std 4 restoration, std 3 new build or P2 new build is up to him, so we'll see how things pan out, but i really don't think the new build bubble is sustainable.


*assignment submitted, professor*:cool1:

 

There's an interesting crossover here with the "what is preservation?" thread. There are different ways you could ask "does constructing a new build replica contribute to preservation?"

The case for the prosecution: We shouldn't be putting money and resources into building new locomotives when there are still "original" locomotives lying in sidings and airfields unrestored.

The case for the defence: Preservation is about preserving more than original fabric - it is also to preserve heritage techniques. So the very fact of building a new engine helps keep certain skills alive - even if nowadays some groups use CAD for design and fabricate parts that may originally have been castings. The fact that people choose to do it with new builds rather than the remaining Barry wrecks - well, if that is where people want to spend their money, better they keep the skills alive building new, than they die because no-one is interested in the last few Barry engines.

Here's an infrastructure (non locomotive) example: At Horsted Keynes, the canopy on platform 1/2 was reconstructed (60-odd years after the SR demolished the original) using original cast iron pillars of correct pattern that were recovered from other stations that were being redeveloped on the national network. Meanwhile, at East Grinstead, the lamp posts have been cast from new, using original SR designs, but with newly produced patterns. So which will long term be the greater benefit to preservation: the reuse (and therefore safeguarding) of original material at Horsted Keynes; or the construction of new material (thus helping to safeguard a heritage technique) at East Grinstead?

I must admit I don't know the answer, but it does seem that new-build locos to original designs are controversial in a way in which new-build infrastructure, when done to original designs, isn't.

Tom

 

Probably there were far too many diesels preserved and we are starting to see a thinning of the ranks to the distress of some folk, but for preservation to work long term there has to be some scarcity value the makes an item worth preseving.

 

As with any project, new build or otherwise, people will support those that appeal and supporters of project A will not necessarily switch their support to project B, C or D should A fail. Their are a couple of new build projects that I would support if and when they are launched but in the event that they are not, I won't be throwing my money at other projects instead. I doubt I'm the only one who thinks this way.

 

Waiting for the Leader, eh Ian!

Tom

 

Was Micheal Draper wrong? Maybe, maybe not time will tell. I suspect he was right, but too early.

We know how close several major railways have come to going under in very recent times, and certainly it is the case that the more railways there are, the more competition for resources. However, what Mr Draper underestimated was the continued expansion in money available to enthusiasts (as they aged and got better salaries and as they passed away and left legacies) and of course increased choice does tend to increase market size. As Spamcan said if certain projects launch he would support them, but that does not mean his money is available for the current crop of projects. I suspect that increasing life expectancy has also played its part.

Coal in 30 to 50 years time will still be a significant part of the world's energy supply, but it is very likely to be scarce in the extreme in Europe. In the short to medium term coal prices are likely to stabilize or even decline slightly here, but that won't be the case for long. I wouldn't be surprised to see narrow guage locomotives at least running on biomass or biomass oil or something in 2050.

The ageing workforce will initially be positive for railways perhaps. More aged grandparents and great-grandparents to take the kids out on a weekend. Longer term it probably means fewer people with less free time to devote to a hobby like ours. That means more paid staff (if the funding is there) or fewer trains, and possibly fewer lines.

I am not going to assume that the biggest will necessarily be the ones to survive either. They have bigger overheads to support. Sudden economic shocks become very difficult to cope with, and recent years have pushed some. Some of the smaller lines may well fare better as there fixed costs are lower, and they can be run adequately with fewer staff. For example you can run trains on say the WLLR without a signalman, but the SVR requires a minimum of 5. That said of course the latter has a better presence in the market and better, nearer catchment being on the doorstep of the Midlands conurbation.

I suppose Mr Draper's real point was that the SVR (and by extension any of the "established" railways and perhaps projects in general) would be better off if people would act rationally and support and secure the future of what they have rather than go off and start another project. The flaw in the argument is of course that people are not rational. If they were we wouldn't have 100+ preserved railway sites and 400+ preserved steam engines. These concerns of his will start to be realised if the supply of money dries up as the young start having to support too many old people, and the primary fuel source gets suddenly more expensive without any viable alternative. My guess is that we are towards the end of a golden age of preservation, but there is still a future, and there will steam be steam in 30 years time and beyond. Not as much perhaps, and not in so many locations, but it will still be there.

In the short term the most pressing question has to be, what will another wet summer do to the business model? How can railways adapt to the fact that the 3 months that should be busiest are a washout with no one wanting to be out in the dismal weather, and many probably going abroad. This issue might (might) have profound effects within only a couple of years. Surviving a downturn is one thing, adjusting to a reset in both weather and economy that permanently reduces passenger numbers is much more difficult to achieve.

 

Make that three projects then.

 

I once heard of a stamp collector (this may be apocryphal) who was said to have the only example of a particular type of stamp in his collection. He was asked what he would do if he ever came across a second one. "Set fire to it" was his reply, the point being one unique example was worth more than two that weren't unique.

You can do stuff about that though. For example, an increasing amount of our traffic is pre-booked. This ranges from the premium Golden Arrow, through the Wealden Rambler service, to Fish and Chip trains, Rail-Ale trains and all the way to half-price fares for tickets bought more than a month in advance. Indeed, during the spring and autumn shoulder seasons, nearly all our mid-week provision is pre-booked, using our Bluebell Specials / Autumn Tints trains with small engine and Observation Car. You can turn up on spec, but only if there are still spare seats (72 each trip); in practice very few people do. What all those trains achieve is that the money is in the bank, even if it pours with rain. And even at other times, a lot of mid-week, term time traffic is dominated by coach parties, which again are pre-booked.

So while we live in challenging times, the lines that survive will, IMHO, be those that can adapt their traffic to suit the new demographic.

Tom

 

P class 27 will be virtually a new loco! The frames are paper thin and I think of the four P class boilers at the Bluebell the two that aren't in use are both pretty terminal. Many of the smaller components survive but it's still a "Murphy's pick" job which crosses the line between restoration and new build. That's no criticism btw, just a fact - I think more than 50% of it will be brand new by the time it's finished, and it won't be finished soon. There's an awful lot of work there.

 

You can do stuff about that though. For example, an increasing amount of our traffic is pre-booked. This ranges from the premium Golden Arrow, through the Wealden Rambler service, to Fish and Chip trains, Rail-Ale trains and all the way to half-price fares for tickets bought more than a month in advance. Indeed, during the spring and autumn shoulder seasons, nearly all our mid-week provision is pre-booked, using our Bluebell Specials / Autumn Tints trains with small engine and Observation Car. You can turn up on spec, but only if there are still spare seats (72 each trip); in practice very few people do. What all those trains achieve is that the money is in the bank, even if it pours with rain. And even at other times, a lot of mid-week, term time traffic is dominated by coach parties, which again are pre-booked.

So while we live in challenging times, the lines that survive will, IMHO, be those that can adapt their traffic to suit the new demographic.

Tom[/QUOTE]

You can, but don't assume that all railways can.

The MHR "catering" trains book out well in advance, and traffic is limited only by capacity to run the service. Capacity is limited by ability to staff the catering part of the service.

If the Bluebell manages to have most mid-week trains pre-booked....well done. Others have either not got the right market or the right ticketing ability, or both.

The point about the weather though wasn't about the on-spec mid-week market. Much more to the point is that "people" in general tend to find other things to do (countries to visit) if the weather is bad. Some attractions in the SE saw between 20 and 30% drops in visitor numbers during the summer on budget, and that is the third year on the trot there have been dissapointing visitor numbers. Railways have generally held up better probably due to clever ideas like you mentioned, and perhaps the fact that trains are rain proof, but will we continue to buck the trend?

So I agree with you that there are things that can be done, and I completely agree with you last paragraph. That ability to evolve is key. Fortunately heritage railways have been pretty good at that over time. Here's hoping they haven't forgotten how.

 

I tend to think that there is more of a danger from the proliferation of "new generation" lines than from "new build locos". I think Michael Draper had the right idea but underestimated the number of lines the market and resources could support. Now,though,we are reaching "saturation" and an aging volunteer base coupled with a weak economy may call for some serious re- thinking in the not too distant future.
I realise that this crosses over into the "what is preservation" thread but wonder what some of the more recent schemes are meant to represent. After all a small industrial steam loco (or worse still diesel) dragging a couple of Mk2s along a mile of track from nowhere to even further from nowhere is hardly "preservation" it's really just playing trains. Don't get me wrong I love industrial locos and nothing beats playing trains but we need to keep it in proportion because in reality each new scheme spreads those precious resources and customers even more thinly. No offence intended - just my 2p's worth.

 

There is a further more subtle nuance with the recent use of original but heavily overhauled patterns thus begging the question "When is original not original".

 

Thanks for the comments - I had guessed as much. My thinking, though, was that it has spent quite a while deteriorating further whilst little if anything was being done to it. Again, this is not really a criticism, just how reality works out sometimes. Its future now looks a bit more rosy. My concern was to use this as an example as to how vulnerable some of our preserved heritage can be. If there isn't the man-power, money, covered accomodation, etc available, then much more will be seriously at risk. My concern is that new projects can seem quite attractive - but can the movement as a whole sustain them?

Steve B

 

The issue with 27 was that, many years ago, the then works manager was prevailed upon - somewhat against his will - to take on some Royal Navy apprentices; the only job that could be found was to dismantle 27, but without a plan to restore it and other engines taking precedence, she was tucked away and, well, one thing led to another and suddenly 35 years had gone by. Fortunately, she was never completely forgotten, and now seems to have an active group behind her. But as Steve B says, she is now in much worse state than maybe she should be. Fortunately, these days we have a more rigorous process such that you can't just start dismantling an item of rolling stock (loco or C&W) without a full plan for how it will be restored, both financially and in terms of fitting the relevant departmental programme. So hopefully we will never have a similar case.

That said, even in the best cases, more and more of each loco needs replacing at each overhaul. For many of our inside cylinder locos, they will really need new cylinders in the next few years. At the last repair, half the outer firebox of 323 was replaced. Half the frames of 9017 were replaced last time round and probably half the frames of 27 will need replacing this time round. 73082, 1638, 34059 and 92240 all have new tender bodies, having emerged from Barry without tenders and having picked up underframes from various sources. So realistically, the difference between a "new build" and a "heavy restoration" seems to me more psychological (a "new build" has no provenance, even if the "heavy restoration" is realistically a woodman's axe) and commercial, in that a new build all needs building at once, whereas with an original loco, the replacement parts may come over the course of two or three restoration cycles.

Tom

 

We haven't mentioned Trigg's broom yet!

Proliferation is irrelevant because preservationists always tinker with market forces! That's why whilst failing to take this into account,a former railway GM talked so much bilge or maybe he just liked the sound of his own voice.
How you put a loco together during heavy overhaul should not be governed totally by curatorial requirements, after all we are preserving an idea not old iron - which should be weighed in (especially at today's prices!) to pay for the refurb work. Obviously a cracked chimney or the like would probably fetch a better price as a flower pot so you have to be a bit careful!

 

But you ignore market forces at your peril, you have to cut your cloth to suit the economic conditions that your in, or find a new untapped market that you can exploit.
I believe that we will see some preserved railways cut back, or even close because they either can't cut their costs , or their method of operation doesnt remain cost effective with reduced income and it could include some big name players .Money doesn't grow on trees, and there is more competition out there than ever. whats the saying, evolve or die?

The next 2 years will be a taxing time for our industry , railways already operate on very thin margins , so in some ways, it could be very interesting times as people try new ways to get the public to part with their hard earned cash