M7 No. 245 - a couple of questions

Of course not. Keeping control of all costs will be an enormous challenge. Projects like this one make it even more difficult though.

P.H.

 

I fear you are equating enthusiasts with the general public who pay most of the bills. Gricers are notoriously tight fisted.

As an example of what I am getting at, can I cite a trip one November to the Isle of Wight. Three LBSCR bogies hauled by "Freshwater" (very kosher!) were well filled. With the modest fuel and lubricant consumption money was being made. Put the same number of people into five Mark 1's hauled by, dare it be said, a Brighton Atlantic and money would be lost.

PH

 

Yes, though to be fair, that's more an argument for lighter carriages! Technically, we could probably get as many people in a restored Birdcage Trio set (about 90 tons) as in a five coach Mk 1 set (ca. 175 tons) but the operating department tend to insist that on a longer line, people like to move around and also don't like it when compartments (that might be designed for 8 or 10 people) actually start to get close to having that many people in them. I don't know if that theory has ever been properly tested: personally I'm a bit sceptical. Unlike the IoWSR, I don't think we could pull a 90 ton train with a Terrier; the water capacity would probably preclude it, quite apart from our gradients (both in length and steepness). An M7 or 700 goods would, of course, be ideal for such a train!

As for the Atlantic: I think it will have a future. It is afterall only a class 4, not a class 8, and we do need locos of that size. So long term, it would fit the same sort of size / power / running cost niche as 75027 and 73082, but with the advantage of being new and therefore - for at least the first twenty years or so - of hopefully having lower maintenance costs.

Tom

 

Lol since when has an H2 been a "behemoth"?? It's a mid size loco, comparable in power to something like a U class or 4MT Standard, or indeed a 700. Yes the boiler is bigger but hey, we already have one. That size of loco has proven ideal for Bluebell operations, so what's the problem?

You're still assuming that not doing the H2 would have meant the same group doing, say, a 700 or a K class, but that opportunity never existed financially. Those involved would most likely still be working on the long-standing Bluebell fleet, which is increasingly tired. Most mid-sized locos in the overhaul queue have serious mechanical and boiler-related issues now. Yes you can make do and mend but they're always flawed: always have weak spots. The H2 will be as-new, and won't reach that same state of deterioration for at least 50 years.

 

If the existing fleet is so worked out as to require wholesale replacement let's stop and consider. This is a 25mph tourist railway which has scant need for a machine with 6ft.7ins. driving wheels, 31sq.ft. of firegrate and a tender holding enough water to cope with the Newhaven boat train non-stop.. The line has no real need for a K class for that matter. A C2X would do nicely. However the railway is now stuck with a specialist express locomotive which will absorb considerable financial and manpower resources before it turns a wheel. When completed its excess weight over something more suited to the job in hand will, in itself, cost money to move up and down.

Could these resources have been better utilised either by major repair to the existing collection or building something appropriate in size and complexity to the job? I think they could. The offer of the boiler should have been declined

PH

 

Yours is a very simplistic logic, and therefore flawed.

A Standard 4 has a 27 sq. ft. grate, a higher boiler pressure and higher degree superheat. So a slightly smaller fire (by 4 square feet), yes, but lower maintenance? Really? Especially when the majority of a surviving 4MT tank or tender is already 55 or so years old, and the Atlantic will to all intents and purposes be brand new? And being, in your view, over-sized, it'll never need to be worked that hard will it? Which means it's far more likely to work full, high-mileage 10 year tickets each time, rather than dying after 7 or 8 years, so have you factored that in?

Of course there is a requirement to maintain the existing fleet, and this is being carried out in parallel. It doesn't steal resources (either people or cash) away from anything else, because it's a standalone project. The people working on it and funding it do so because that's the loco they're interested in. If the H2 project didn't exist there's absolutely no guarantee that any of the people involved would be remotely interested in building a Black Motor. They might have been interested in a C2x, but we don't have a boiler for one of those, and the cost of making that would far outweigh any savings associated with the fact you'd be building something marginally smaller in size than an Atlantic.

Don't forget that the main cost (in time or money) is in skilled work such as pattern-making, casting, fabricating, machining. That's pretty much the same whether you're building a 700 or an H2. The cost of raw materials alone is only going to differ hugely if you pick two engines that are hugely different, say a L&Y Pug vs the LNER Garratt.

It's also laughable to say that a 700 is automatically more suitable for preserved work because it's smaller. For a start, cylinders and valves all between the frames makes for a harder engine to maintain. Secondly they had a higher tractive effort than the H2s so what sort of loads were they pulling back in Southern Railway days? And thirdly how efficient were they? At a guess I'd say, being L&SWR and not designed by Adams, probably fairly abysmal.

History and location are also valid reasons for choosing one prototype over another, if all propsals are equally valid from an operational point of view. Especially if someone happens to have a spare boiler lying around that would fit one particular proposal. The Bluebell is very much a "Brighton" line, albeit with some SE&CR leanings, and so tends to attract volunteers and cash for projects relating to those companies. About the only L&SWR locos seen around the area were M7s, which were universally detested. Fine, if you want to build a 700, put your money where your mouth is and build one, to run somewhere like the Mid Hants. But don't criticise us for building something just because it isn't your pet project, because the two aren't related. Deciding not to build the H2 wouldn't have magically created a 700 out of thin air. Same as spouting hot air from an armchair won't either.

 

I don't have a pet project. In these circumstances they are not sensible, which is my entire point.

PH (Who, by the way, is actively involved with steam so is not confined to the armchair, except when writing these posts!))

 

Hear! Hear! To survive, preserved lines must attract, train and retain an army of volunteers to build and fix the locos, operate the trains, stuff leaflets into envelopes, paint the gutters, slew the track, serve tea and scones in the buffet, and dozens of other jobs. I agree that effort is likely to be disappated by too many ill-considered new build projects, but there's definitely a place for a few well-run, high-profile projects.

I wonder what the Beachy Shed team are thinking of doing next? Would they be interested in this 700/M7 scheme? (Once they've finished what they're doing at the moment, and had a cup of tea, of course! ;-) )

 

Unlikely - wrong pre-group railway company to chime with the major interest of most of the key people concerned. I'm sure with a bit of research you could probably come up with an LBSCR equivalent of the M7 / 700 goods / K10 / C8 family. (D Tank / Small Jumbo 0-6-0 / with crossover to the existing IoWSR E tank?? Not sure off the top of my head, but something like that).

There have been mutterings from some people about a K class mogul (modern, ideal power output at the upper end of what we need, a significant loco both to the Brighton and in wider British Loco development) and, at the other extreme, some kind of 1860s Crven engine (less useful day to day, but filling a significant historical gap especially if tied in to recreation of a complete 1860s train using the existing Craven carriages as patterns / templates). But we are probably still several years away from finishing Beachy Head, so time for plenty more discussions, both at Mess Room and Board Room level to be had before we have to make a decision. Creation of suitable new build locomotives is a stated objective of the BRPS though, both in the current long term plan and in the draft new plan that is up for discussion at the next AGM

Tom

 

Albeit a one off, but a C2X? Equivalent 0-6-0 goods engine, and an authentic engine for the Bluebell line.

Sorry, getting into Hornby territory again...! :nono:

 

You'd need to commit to building two from the get-go, however, as you'd need to satisfy both the one-hump and two-hump partisans.... : )

Tobbes

 

Ah, the veritable Bactrian and Dromedary of the new build world...

If we're playing fantasy new build, a D tank would be useful for us. It would fit the same "small" niche as a Terrier or P tank, but with 15,000lbs TE, rather than about 8,000lbs, and importantly 860 gallons of water, rather than about 500 for a Terrier, it would give you a lot more spare capacity in hand. Our strategic plan says that we will restore six coach rakes of LBSCR and SECR 4 wheelers. The SECR rake at the very least has a reasonable chance of being finished within the next ten years. Yet ironically, with an extended line that is 2 miles longer and has steeper gradients, such a rake may prove just beyond the range and / or haulage characteristics of a Terrier or P! It would already be technically overloaded for a P tank against our current sectional appendix, even without factoring in we now have steeper gradients. Whereas a D tank would do the job nicely...

Tom

 

Meanwhile, I wonder if young Anthony has had a chance to draw that file from from Registry yet? (I've recently re-read Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, and I'm imagining AC having to replace the 245 file with a look-alike, and then talk his way past the new men from the Ministry... ;-) )

 

I noticed the plan for a replica Craven loco in the Bluebell's Long term plan document when it came out last year. An interesting idea, and one that, as you say in an earlier post, does fill an historical gap, although it was a complete surprise to me. I'd like to see a working single driver, and considering that Craven's approach was the opposite of Stroudley's standardisation, there would be plenty of choice as to which loco design to recreate. However, I agree with you that a replica "D" class would be more useful to the Bluebell - less likely to slither around on the steep gradients near the cutting than a 2-2-2. 125 were built, and a few lasted into nationalisation 75 years after the desing first appeared, so they must have had some good points. A "D" tank has long topped the list of new builds that I would like to see (and would support) for many years, along with a SE&CR D1 or E1 4-4-0.

I also agree that with two LSWR preserved lines in existence, the Bluebell isn't the most logical place for an LSWR new build.

Still, all this, as you rightly say. Tom, is for the future. 32424 has yet to steam before any decisions on the Bluebell's next new build need be made.

 

Young? I like you. We requested the file last week and I just haven't drawn breath yet to go and see if it's out. Like the imagery...

 

Withdrawn 1962 Stored
Fratton Shed
Stratford Shed, Sept. 1964 – Feb.1968
Preston Park Feb.1968 – Nov. 1977
(Including an appearance at Brighton in ‘Oh What a Lovely War’ in 1968)
York – NRM, Nov.1977 – 1980
Derby – BREL 1980 – 1983
(Repainted by apprentices in 1982)
York, NRM – June. 1983 to 1988
Mid-Hants Railway Sept.1988 to 1990
(Including appearances at Winchfield 150 in Sept.1988 and Network South East day at Waterloo 1.10.88 and Woking 150)
York 1990 onwards at the NRM
(Including a repaint in 2001 at NRM)

 

Thanks Anthony.

One further question - given the two repaints (1982 and 2001), was there mention of anything else done in the way of restoration, or is the loco mechanically in essentially the same condition that it was retired from BR service? (And no, this isn't a prelude to a "what would it take to get her into steam?" question!)

Thanks

Tom