A new-build BR Standard Class 3 is planned.

I tend to agree with Tony May above (post 57). Not being tied to a railway may sound superficially attractive in giving you the later freedom to be a roving 'loco for hire". But if you base yourself early on at a host railway, then not only do you gain access to engineering facilities, but far more important, you can tap into the membership of that railway as a market to start to build your fundraising network, without which you will get nowhere. Get a good relationship with one of the big railways, and you'll be able to put a fundraising flyer in the members magazine mailing to 10,000+ interested people at minimal cost; be able to have a physical presence on running days for sales stand etc. That kind of opportunity is enormously valuable.

It's true that Tornado was built without direct affiliation to a host railway, but that was probably inevitable given their aim being to run on the mainline - why would a heritage line host such a loco, knowing that as soon as it was finished, it would flee the nest? But for smaller locos which will spend their time wholly away from the mainline (such as a 3MT) association with a host line is invaluable. Look at the new builds that are well advanced and you will see all of them have a close relationship with a major railway or railway society: Beachy Head at the Bluebell; The Unknown Warrior and Betton Grange at Llangollen; 82045 at the SVR; Lady of Legend and County of Glamorgan at Didcot etc etc. Of the projects that have made significant progress, I can only think of the G5 that seems to be ploughing a lone furrow.

Tom

 

5521, 76084, 44767, 44422, 92203, 35028, 4464, 70000, 71000, 34046 are all no fixed abode when it comes to calling a preserved railway "home", but an engineering base..
(i may even add 44871, 45407 arent "at home" at the ELR.. more their home is an engineering base which just happens to be on the ELR).

 

... none of which is a new build!

For any project trying to get started from a zero base (which pretty much defines a new build), I'd contend that being associated with an existing railway makes that job easier from a marketing point of view. Not impossible to do it in isolation, as Tornado has proven, but more difficult.

Tom

 

I think Paul Hitch is right to question whether proliferation of projects is best for the "movement" overall, but I also agree with others that the world doesn't work that way. It would be logical and sensible to proceed by finishing 82045 and then doing the 77. However, that isn't how people want to spend their time/money. In the end analysis what Tornado showed us was that you have to make the project exciting enough, to enough people willing to part with enough cash. Nothing else matters, and nothing else will determine which of the myriad of projects started will get finished.

I also think that whilst there is nothing to stop anyone going abroad for a new boiler, the question of skills needed to build a boiler is a very real one. Indeed you could argue that even Meiningen is struggling to keep the skills alive.

I believe that it would be possible to manufacture a medium size boiler in the UK. It would regard the combined efforts of a number of suppliers and a very competent and experienced boilersmith to oversee the effort, but all the individual components have been manufactured. There are boilers being repaired at present, that it would arguably have been easier, and not much more expensive to throw away and make new from scratch. The engineering design would be the only thing that I cannot be certain is available, but the Tornado team faced that issue. I don't know how much of that engineering to meet CE and other requirements was done by Meiningen, but it seems to me that this might be the critical skill shortfall that we face in the UK. As PH notes it is a while since we built one.

 

Whilst a 77xxx will no doubt benefit from the work already done by BRSLOG members in researching and organising drawings, and existing patterns, and as a network for grouped component sourcing it is important that they have hoisted their flag now. There is no longer a neccessity to produce wooden reuseable patterns for castings with the advent of the poly pattern or if a welded fabrication can be applied - unless there is another group that would benefit from having a full pattern produced.

 

Been informed that poly patterns are OK for use with cast iron castings. However, with steel castings, carbon from the poly pattern could leech into the steel, whereby altering the steel type. Iffy, very iffy!!! Incidentally, poly patterns are not something new, they have been around for a long time.

 

Just going back to Tornado's boiler, I was told by Pete Waterman when taking a few Lms Patriot guys around the workshops that the only reason tornado had to go abroad for their boiler was that they wanted to change the design of the boiler and none of the companys in th UK could, something to do with the kite mark?, and that if it was built to original specifications it would have been able to have been built in the uk.

 

Thats a bit of a chicken and egg isnt it, the changes made are surely relate to the different (all steel,welded) construction. If a rivetted copper fire box option had been preferred/ insisted upon there wouldnt have been a redesign issue. We might still be waiting for it to happen though and might not even be discussing 'other new builds'

 

CE mark. That was the engineering knowledge gap I was referring to in my other post. In truth it isn't so much the knowledge gap - there are people able to cover that - but where is the company of sufficient "standing" to be able to provide the backing to a CE mark and accept the responsibilities that go with being manufacturer. I'm not certain that an all new boiler wouldn't need the CE mark even if it didn't deviate from the original design, as I believe it would be expected to come up to modern codes. Now if you could find a few suitable components from an existing boiler and call it a re-build that's probably different.

 

I'd like to see a 77xxx built. I might even put in a little money. I'd also like to see about two dozen others of different classes built, but even if I won Euro-millions I doubt it would happen. (An operable Stirling Single, anyone? LNWR 3cyl compound 0-8-0? A Problem? A K3?) .

The problem is that I doubt there are sufficient funds to actually do it. When some of the current new builds are well on the way to completion might be an idea, or several railways getting together and deciding to build a class of something useful for everyday service - Fowler 2-6-4t's? Gresley V1/3? SR River (not main line!)

 

originally posted by pete2hogs
"
The problem is that I doubt there are sufficient funds to actually do it. When some of the current new builds are well on the way to completion might be an idea, or several railways getting together and deciding to build a class of something useful for everyday service - Fowler 2-6-4t's? Gresley V1/3? SR River (not main line!)"

SR River .... I wonder if one day somebody will rebuild 31806 back to a River 2-6-4 T. Would it be allowed to run in the first place ? Just an idea .

 

The 77021 Group Website now has a membership application form to download. Membership is £15.00 per year. Needless to say I have printed it off and written out a cheque! That makes 3 new builds I'm supporting financially, daft or what? Still, stops me spending it on flash cars!

http://77021.webs.com/membership-how-to-help

 

I don't see why not - it was a track-sensitive design, not inherently flawed, as the high-speed trials on the ECML showed. At 25mph, I can't see any problem.

Not that I am advocating building one, mind!

Tom

 

Not wanting to hijack the thread I'd however like to chime in and confirm as we have been mentioned in passing here that the LNWR George the Fifth Steam Locomotive Trust is not only active but progressing and the supporter base is growing steadily. I've posted a more comprehensive update citing our news entries from recent months on our official thread 'LNWR George the Fifth Steam Locomotive Trust and proposed new build' but in summary I can confirm that we've had the outer smokebox door fabricated and are currently fabricating the central boss, dart, dart handle, hand-wheel and dart-collar. Beyond this we are now approaching the point where we can commence the frame-plates. We are speaking to partners and have a number of developments in the pipeline, which we hope to publicise in due-course.

To those behind the proposal for a BR standard class 3, we wish them every success.

 

I never said that there weren't. In fact quite the opposite. HOWEVER, there are no medium or large locomotive boilers built in this country under the modern regulations. Is there someone willing to take the responsibility? The skills are there, but is there a business willing to stand behind the mark?

 

What are the modern regulations? Please point me in the right direction. Fireboxes have been built, boiler barrels have been built. Are you saying that there is some difference in building a combined boiler barrel and firebox, i.e. a complete boiler?

 

Ok getting slightly confused here. If like the Lms Patriot project and 82045, your building a boiler to original designs then you dont need to have the kite mark so no issue stands regarding a new boiler. But if (I think im right but correct me if im wrong) your like Hengist who are doing an all welded boiler to different designs then that would have to be done abroad as currently no uk supplier can sign off the work on such a boiler.

 

At the moment we are very much in the information gathering stage in regards to the boiler and are seeking advice and costings on riveted and welded boilers.
Dave