Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by aron33, May 22, 2016.
Didcot pick and mix at it again on two locos. If you are going to do a job, do it right.
well no, it would be entirely accurate as a replica but only if it carried number 4700. This would also have the advantage that it couldn't wear BR livery.
I can't see the problem with that. There are too few pre group GWR locos preserved
In other news Buckingham palace yesterday called all their staff in for an emergency meeting to announce the death of the Duke of Edinburgh.
The latest update on the County website doesn't make for too happy a read in terms of progress. The main issues appear to be the non-delivery of certain items from contractors and the change of policy at Crewe.
This makes for very uncomfortable reading, quite frankly:
As a former Ombudsman worker, I have always tried to work to the ethos of "both sides of the story". So far I've read on the Patriot project's issues and now the County's. We don't have Crewe's side.
It is difficult however to see the above as showing Crewe in a poor light. If true, it is rather saddening that both the National Memorial Locomotive and the County have been left entirely in the lurch.
Not a good reflection on one side of railway preservation quite frankly.
In the case of the Patriot, as far as I am aware, negotiations are quite advanced in the search for a new contractor to complete the boilerwork. I may stand corrected, but I believe that all major components for the boiler , inner & outer fireboxes are to hand, and the boiler barrel sections have been riveted.
Not good news for the County project though, especially in terms of the funding pool having been emptied.
I was wondering about that when I read it - how on earth could a bill arrive for considerably more than had been expected, when the work had been left uncompleted? (No doubt it was not for the full amount that would have been due had the work been finished, but still.. ) Does anyone know what happened to cause that? If that happened to me, I'd be looking to see what my potential responses could be...
I thought the same. Surely there would have to be a detailed contract for a project of this magnitude ? Even if it is a "mates' rates" agreement there should still be clear specifications , targets, and costings in place.
I would suggest a 4-6-0 Gala at Didcot, featuring the 6880 Group. Roll out 1014's chassis and 2999 out, have them lined up beside 6880, 6998, 7808, 6023, 5900, 5051, and 4003. This idea is sure to raise eyebrows and funds.
Have you tried getting anything in and out of Didcot recently that isn't cleared to run on Network Rail? Even if it were possible it would cost more than any funds would raise.
I don't know, and perhaps those who do will comment, but I wouldn't be altogether surprised if some such projects were run in small packages on a cost plus basis rather than a guaranteed price. If you can trust your contractor not to rip you off cost plus may work out cheaper, as you don't have to pay for contingency and dividing it up into separate small work packages might have advantages for clients who aren't entirely sure when they will have raised all the money. But I'm only guessing, and I bet there are people here who know.
It has currently being posted news from the building progress
"Unfortunately, although the height will be within Network Rail's height limits and has RAIB approval it has been decided, like the King, not to proceed with fitting 1014 with the necessary equipment to facilitate main line running."
That news, added to the earlier decision to use (a small part of) an 8F boiler, thus enforcing an even lower boiler pressure than the Counties ended up with and producing a loco not significantly more powerful than a Hall if it ever does go main line in the future, makes this one project that I have no inclination at all to support.
For me, this is one loco that really needed to be seen on the main line.
I just wonder though if in that statement is a tacit admission that the process is now just too expensive for independent owners to justify preparing a loco for mainline work if they are outwith the scope of some operating arrangement with one of the (potentially) three steam charter operating TOCs.
I assume the costs vs income are just too great, for what would be a something of a lame duck in mainline terms now. Needed to be 250 psig minimum to be a reasonable performer IMHO.
.... and a very sad day t'would be for all of us, if your worst fears were to be confirmed. The sensation of wanting desperately to be proven wrong is an odd one!
This is maybe the one new build where I’ve found myself questioning the bigger picture and plan.
The boiler is such an important part of a steam locomotive. Getting it right and keeping it in good nick is the name of the game.
I’ve never understood why the 8F boiler was used - given how much material has been removed and how much it is restricting the locomotives ability to do its job, this feels like the decision that has defined the county’s development.
Whereas the Saint continues to look better and better, the Atlantic on course for completion, and the Patriot with a brand new boiler likely to steam in the next few years, the County just feels more and more hamstrung by this decision.
A real shame given the originals potency and raging bull look.
But - I hope to be proved wrong. I really do.
What I have never understood, given the success of Tornado (stay issue aside) is why any group would want to use an existing boiler that isn’t already a very close match to the one they need - the 8F boiler as I understand it was similar but not the same and a lower boiler pressure.
A new boiler from the start would have been key to getting this loco onto the mainline. It’s not impossible - we’ve now got one and a half new express passenger boilers built and being used at the mo (A1 and Patriot).
I'm inclined to agree Simon, it feels like filling the "County" gap in nameplate form only.
Separate names with a comma.