A new-build BR Standard Class 3 is planned.

Afternoon everyone,

It seems that 77021 (yes, I know there's a missing 77020) is being planned.
The project's website is here :-

http://77021.webs.com

Very Best Wishes,
Bob.

 

Link doesn't work for me.
Has the group failed already ?

 

Sorry admin,

My browser works without the "http://", just added it to the link .

 

Bristolian, many thanks for starting a new thread. Its early days yet and there will be much incoming flak if this yet another new build thing isn't handled professionally, so we'll see.

However, on the 82045 thread I said, "In my opinion, a new Class 77xxx would be far more useful for today's heritage scene than some other new builds mooted and, although only 20 were built and all were based in the Scottish & NE Regions (one found its way to Guildford Shed for some reason) a 77xxx would not look out of place anywhere. I would certainly support such a scheme if there was enough interest but my caveat would be that the same team building 82045 would be the only choice to build a 77xxx. Of course, as we speak, major progress is being made on those BR Standard designs that didn't survive, with renewed impetus now being made on the 72xxx "Clan" "Hengist" and 82045 and 84030 at their respective sites. This now leaves us with just one extinct member of the BR Standard steam loco family - its just got to be done hasn't it?! "
I stand by my statement and I think I will do my best to help it happen.

I have e-mailed the 77021 contact address and offered my support. Obviously I'll need to know a bit more about their plans etc, but it strikes me that if I had to argue the case for this one, and I hope I will, then I would have a slightly better chance than some other schemes. Clearly there are many arguments against building one but the main argument for is that, historically and educationally, building a 77xxx would complete the BR Standard "set" and, economically, it would be an ideal, modern locomotive for heritage lines; most of the original locos worked on secondary lines in their brief lives with BR. One thing's for certain, this is going to take much longer and cost much more than anyone thinks so I guess if the 77021 group starts off on that footing then it can't be a bad start. The best practice in my view, is out there in the form of the 82045 and the LMS Patriot Project (there are others but those are the 2 that currently take my little spare cash) so this project will need to emulate them. It looks like my support for 2 new builds has now become support for 3 but since that nice Canadian man at the Bank of England has said we're unlikely to see interest rates go up for the foreseeable future then want's the point of saving your spare money? Spend it on large shiny steaming things, go on!

 

A nice, positive post. I personally wish them well with their plans, and dearly hope that they come to fruition.
It would be a nice sight to see the two new Class 3s together at some point in the future .

Very Best Wishes,
Bob.

 

Would love to see one.

Sent from my HTC Desire C using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

I remember the BR Standard 3 being called "a very ugly locomotive " in one the books ( ladybird ?) that I had as a child . I think they looked good in my opinion .
Did'nt one of them rescue an express on the WCML after a Duchess burnt through her firebars ? Good luck to the project .

 

Well done Bristolian. . The Observer's Book of Railway Locomotives of Britain pronounced them "very ugly engines" - but then, Beauty is in the eye etc. If the running plate height had been reduced to the level of the tank equivalent, the proportions would have been a lot easier on the eye - but it would have prevented the running plate from being mounted on the boiler.

I wish them luck.

 

yes good luck, after all newbuilds/replicas could be seen as 12" to the foot modelling of which there is a long and strong tradition. The only problem is sorting the wheat from the chaff....some projects are merely internet dreams,and these detract from the viable schemes to an extent.

 

Agreed. There is the additional problem of the schemes which get started, suck in a deal of money and then stall and represent resources tied up in "elaborate scrap".
As for the present proposal, for goodness sake get the tank engine at least 90% done (including boiler) before starting a new project.

PH

 

"for goodness sake get the tank engine at least 90% done (including boiler) before starting a new project."

Just wish to make it clear that The 82045 Steam Locomotive Trust is not connected with this new proposal (except advice if they wish!). Wish the guys loads of luck - long way to go!

82045 Membership secretary.

 

'We are a group of very enthusiastic people '

Will this last till after the Summer holidays?

'Reproducing one of Robert Riddles locomotives is the dream of xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx who by day is a professional railway man and in his spare time a Heritage Railway supporter and volunteer,'

Seems a trustworthy name...

Joking aside though, hasn't the 82045 website always said that if the tank is successful then they would look into a 77xxx new build? Is it not better to wait for a well established new build group to decide and plan it for the future rather than yet another new website/facebook page group appearing from nowhere and doing the usual and coming to nothing, specially from a group that seem to call the smoke box door the engines 'face'.....!?

 

hence the jump in the numbers?

 

Well, the smokebox door is the loco's face isn't it. Anyone recall those sad eyes on 48305's smokebox door.

 

Why wait? The promoters of this new build may not have the time to wait for the 82045 group to finish their tank and recover sufficiently to start on something new. If they have money and time now, let them get on with it. If they fail, then the 82045 group might be able to use what has been produced. If they get well established the two groups might even be able to (say it quietly) work together....

 

Quite simply, you wait (a) to learn from the problems already experienced (b) so as to ensure the income stream is not split and (c), partly following from (b) above, to ensure at least one project gets achieved in people's lifetimes!

If you count the railmotor power bogie then the number of standard projects actually completed is precisely two apart from various replicas of early machines. Not a high proportion of projects in hand

PH

 

Deleted

 

Wait to learn from problems? A new BR1 tender chassis has already been built (73156). A bit longer than a BR2A, I know, but it has been done. Tender tank, no problem building one. 82045's chassis construction is well advanced. As 82045MS has stated in a previous post, advice is available, if asked. In fact, a separate group building a Class 3 2-6-0 would benefit 82045 financially, in charges for usage of patterns. Other Standard Loco owning groups would also benefit for the same reason. Finances, I do not know, yet, where construction of the 2-6-0 will take place, but with a Scottish shedplate, I would expect up North. So, would income stream be split? Didcot seems to be doing OK with a County, Saint and 47XX on the go at once.

 

Again, nothing finished!

PH

 

Indeed, I thought I'd made that clear in my previous post, but I obviously hadn't! What I said was that the 82045 Trust (of which I'm a member and supporter too so that probably confused things) is an example, in my opinion, of a new build steam benchmark organisation and one which the 77021 Group would need to emulate if it was to succeed. Clearly, if the 77021 Group does manage to gain sufficient support, it would be crazy not to liaise closely with the 82045 group, since the 2 locomotives share many common features.

The comment from Kieranhardy regarding the website details is pertinent but probably due to the website being incomplete. Perhaps the group should have waited a while but too soon isn't soon enough, as they say in the news media. Anyway, it managed to attract my attention and I'm not a facebook teenager.

Paulhitch's comment about none of these newbuilds being finished apart from 2 if you count the GWR steam railmotor is absolutely correct but just wait a little longer and see! (It is a contentious issue regarding whether the Railmotor is a new-build and I put this forward in my illustrated presentation on new builds to groups and societies. I am available to bore you rigid with a PowerPoint presentation on new-build steam if you wish - seriously, I won't charge much and you already know where the money will go don't you?!)

There is indeed, a long way to go and a fortune in funding to raise, but much of the hard work has been shown to be possible; but one must assume that the fund-holders are more like Lord Sugar than Pete Waterman, the fact that its a steam locomotive cuts no ice, its the plan and funding stream that's important because this 77xxx will never make money but it is likely to contribute to a money-making railway.