GWR 'Dean Goods' no. 2516 - suggested restoration in Steam Railway issue no. 401

I must admit I find this slightly strange and maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick so please correct me if I am wrong. It sounds to me as if you are saying we want to build a new one as we don't think the guys at the NRM will take us seriously if we try to take on there (for want of a better expression) real one.
It is my experience that regardless of your age if you have a good idea and can back it up with a strong argument and more importantly a robust plan, that people like Anthony will stop and at least hear you out. Whilst it is by no means simple or easy it is surely better to restore where possible rather than build new.

 

I would disagree with the latter part of your comment. Yes, it is definitely easier to start with something, no matter how bad, but in terms of whether it is better, I doubt it. A new, fresh out of the box, piece of kit is always going to be a better bet, if you exclude cost and I don't think that the NRM, or anybody else, is going to give you their historical gem to play with just so you can save a bit of money. Having suggested building a Dean Goods anew, you are effectively ruling out the restore option. That would only come back to the table as an idea if the new build scheme fails.

 

Incorrect. There is a lot more to deciding whether an artefact in the NRM's care is in a position to steam or not than the paint. Obviously it can be a part of it. Each locomotive is assessed on its own merits and condition. There is not one hard and fast set of rules.

To use your example, itt is currently planned to cosmetically restore Churchill which will result in a repaint, however that has no bearing on whether it will steam again. A dominant argument in that instance is that there are a great deal of original-spec light Bulleids out there already, so there is no need to steam Churchill, it doesn't plug a gap.

 

I remember seeing 34051 at Didcot many years ago and loved it's just out of service look...imo though there is more justification to steam this than 2516 as 2516 is unique and 34051 is not. As for a replica Dean Goods, I can't see many people subscribing to it when there is a real one already there.

 

Umm, you know I'm not totally convinced that "providing motive power for preserved lines" really ought to be one of the NRM's key priorities. I can't help thinking that "ensuring there are a few genuine 19thC steam locomotives about for your great-great-grandchildren to see" maybe ought to come a little higher.
If building a new Dean Goods is a sensible and viable project then it will remain so whether or not there is one in the Swindon Museum.

It does occur to me that the first part of such a project is probably not that expensive, highly worthwhile no matter what else happens and is something that's maybe fairly readily taken on, and that is a major search of the archives to establish what Dean Goods drawings are available and cataloguing them, and establishing what's missing. If there are mjor engineering drawings missing then the whole project gets difficult. I suppose the thing to do is to make contct with the folks involved with the Grange project and various GWS projects and establish what is going to be the best way to going about a drawing hunt... And correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect doing the hard yards in terms of scouring the archives is probably a good way of establishing some credibility.

Jim C

 

Which is what they've said they are doing on their Facebook group, hence I've suggested giving them a chance. I am not saying they will have a new loco by next week, but they've at least started off saying the right things and seem prepared to put the effort into the initial research. It may come to nothing, but we wont know if they aren't at least allowed to try!

 

Whilst 2516 does exsist, it will be project impossible to remove it from swindon, so any talk about how easy it may be to overhaul it, even if it would make a very good substitite for City of Truro if the NRM are looking for another GW engine to fly the flag are a non starter, unless someone somewhere has plans to rebuild the museum (if only) with running line and usable workshop so that a steamable engine could stretch its legs occationally and could do it properly this time,
then a replica is the best chance, so good luck with it

 

While it would probably indeed costs less to remove and overhaul 2516, how much red tape, obstacles, shopping centre and council objections etc etc trying to make it impossible would you run into ?, seeing how many people are making it difficult just to retrieve 2885 from Birmingham Moor St in a relatively simple operation makes me think getting at 2516, while not physically impossible, would run into too many people who you need to get onside being unwilling to help, for reasons only known to the designer of STEAM, the side 2516, 4073 and possibly 9400 (though strangely the side 4003 and the Railcar reside on has rail access to outside) reside on has no access to outside without knocking a few walls through and laying temporary rails out into a busy car park.

2516 may exist, but has very little to no chance of steaming given it's current situation.

 

Dont start me on steam, they had stacks of room if they had built the museum on the un used traverser roads, and also ease of loading or unloading and probally would have been cheaper to build to boot .
to remove 2516 and its tender, you would have to remove 9400 to make room, clear the rest of the exibits off the other road slew 2516 sideways then turn it through 90 degrees to access one of the traverser roads when the museum was built, 4073 was put in before the side wall was built, then 2516 and 9400 all crammed into a very tight space, then the museum was built around them.

 

whilst 2516 is in a very difficult position i dont think it would be impossible to remove her. ok not easy, but not impossible.

i am pretty sure 2516's boiler is in much better condition than the one on the PBR. the PBR boiler spent many years in the open at Haworth. i think you will find that 2516 is in exceptional order... in fact i doubt if anything is required to the chassis, which was overhauled in the course of being preserved.

cheers,
julian

 

Julian, have you been to Steam? sorry to tell you but it is nie on impossible to remove any of the three engines without causing massive damage to the building, no curator is going to agree to that, the only way would be, if "Steam" was going to be rebuilt and the exibits were going to be moved out. its a shame, because i would bet that thouse 3 engines are probally in very good condition and would need minimal work Steam as built was a wasted opertunity, the workshop was not conected to the museum, a running line next to the main line,planned for never got built there was so much that was hoped for including a connection off the mainline into the museum that came to nothing

 

From an interpretative perspective as a museum, STEAM is not at all bad. Railways are about far more than steam engines and STEAM fulfils its role as a museum to the Great Western Railway and Swindon by telling people about the whole picture, rather than saying "LOOK AT THE SHINY THINGS! LOOK AT THE SHINY THINGS!"

It is a shame, I agree, that no running line was eventually incorporated and that the workshop as a consequence is a bit of a white elephant. But when STEAM was put together they were looking at 9400, 4073 and 2516 as artefacts, quite reasonably. There was not then and is not now a need for these locomotives to come out of STEAM and work again.

We need to stop looking at STEAM and the NRM as repositories for locomotives just waiting to come out and work again, as they are museums and their duties are quite different from, say, Didcot, Barrowhill or a heritage railway. Sure, some engines will, but others won't. Live with it. It's the right thing to do, in my opinion. The condition of 2516 is immaterial. It isn't going anywhere and there is a boiler around that is a strong starting point for a newbuild project. Let's get behind that rather than bemoan 2516's situation.

Unlike other newbuild projects dreamt up, the lads involved in this have got their heads screwed on. They are listening. They are asking for assistance and for people with the necessary knowledge to come forward and get involved, they acknowledge that they can't do it all themselves, and patronising them with "get involved in another project" and "don't be so immature you dreamers" isn't reasonable. This isn't about building a dung heap to crow from, it's about doing something they believe in. The GWS succeeded because people listened to the youngsters that started that and got involved, rather than damning them. I think it's worth doing the same for these lads. Don't judge them by what others have done.

 

Don't get me wrong, STEAM does a number of things quite well, the various diarama's and making 4248 look as though it's under construction/overhaul is very clever, it's just access to certain exhibits seems to have been overlooked at the planning stage.

 

I think I'd struggle to find any major project where, with hindsight, things haven't ben overlooked at the planning stage. Things like "yes, but what are you actually going to *do* with a big round tent in South London or a huge athletics stadium in E London"...

 

What an interesting thread, if time consuming with 200+ posts!

I rather think it is possible, if unlikely, that we may at some time in the future see a "Dean Goods" running on a preserved line.

But I suggest the most likely starting point would be an existing 5700 and the commercial or operational requirements of one of the larger heritage lines. The publicity of a 'different' but certainly very useful loco or the need for greater fuel capacity on a longer line such as the WSR could inspire such a rebuild (remember the mini 4300 rebuilt from a 2-6-2T).

The principal hurdle being the need for a complete 5' 2" wheelset and a new (or drastically renewed) tender. Niceties such as differences in the big end design or whatever could be ignored in such circumstance while this forum would of course explode with the sacrilege of destroying someone's favorite Collett tank!

 

The boiler is the same standard TVR design, the O2 just looks a bit more imposing as its boiler is pitched a couple of inches higher. In fact the boiler fitted to 28 in 1923 is a 160 psi one and the safety valves were certainly set at that pressure in the 1980s TVR 28 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! . The differences can be summarised as driving position (on the right on 28), trailing wheel diameter, four bar motion on 28 but single bar on 85 and most important of all a nice polished brass beading on the splashers of the O2s!

 

Bit tricky to find a Barry scrapyard condition 57 though isn't it? I doubt many loco owners would be keen on scrapping their own restoration work.

If water capacity was a problem on a long line wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler to just put a water tank in a coach and run on the external tank in one direction and an internal tank in the other?

 

There are other considerations for favouring a tender loco over a tank - more fuel capacity so no need to recoal half way through a day, and more room on the footplate for pay and play customers being two.

 

What's happening with this? Is it ready? Is the BR black being lined out as we speak? Will it be double heading with the J39 this weekend?

 

psst - it's under a tarp at Llan (see Patriot thread) but don't tell anyone! Ray.