A new-build BR Standard Class 3 is planned.

The wheels may be the same diameter, but the wheels on the Class 3s are a different design to those on a Class 4.

 

Yes, there is. A Jubilee is essentially a taper-boilered Patriot, and there's four of those. Also, the chassis is shared with the two Rebuilt Scots.

 

The rebuilt Royal Scots had new frame plates and cylinders. Only the stretchers between the frames were reused.

 

How about we support a class of standard locomotive designed to run up north, rather than the larger and heavier standard 4 for the rest of the network. Yet again everyone down south is indifferent to an engine that is not from their area historically. Sorry, but for some of us up north, this engine is very much missed and would be a brilliant addition to the preserved railway scene, long before any Ivatt atlantic, Patriot, etc, that everyone else froths at the mouth over.

As a result, I would love to see this project do well and am sure that in due course I will be joining for membership.

 

Well said David.

 

David, I'm not, and never have been from "down south" and I think most enthusiasts, or indeed those involved commercially with running our Heritage lines recognise that we have to be thankfull for working steam of whatever regional origin, whether it be on the NYMR for instance,or elsewhere.

The 77xxx were based ( with one latter exception) in the North-East or Scotland, so perhaps that indicates--as you imply-- where the backing might be for this new build, and maybe if the group are looking for a host railway, which part of the UK is going to be fertile ground for them.

Good point well made, David.

regards

46118

 

I don't think that intimation is far: that because someone might hail from the south, they have no interest in something built up north. I do wish you'd stop saying that, with respect David. My late grandfather was born and bred in Sidcup (South East London!) and his favourite locomotives (which he went to watch, clean and inspect on occasion) were all built and run "oop north", hence my own interest in the LNER, GNR and NER particularly as a result of his influence.

For the record, the first two locomotives he introduced me (aged 5) to were the NER 4-4-0 and the GNR Stirling Single at the NRM...!

Each to their own. Those projects which have prospered thus far have done so on their own merit in attracting people of all creeds to contribute in some way to the ultimate goal of a working steam locomotive - region has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

Yes but the chassis in the same standard design, even if bits were replaced.

 

Whilst , appearance wise at least, the Patriot brings something different to the Party, it does nothing for me... but I am extremely pleased with the progress that this project is made and full of praise for the people involved and I hope that in a few years its pounding the metals all over the UK
Sorry 46118 but for a mainline new build volunteer loco building work is a useful but minor part of the picture unless those volunteers are professional engineers or experienced shed staff (who tend to be pretty busy). The most important thing that a new build can have is lots of enthusiastic people contributing lots of money or encouraging other people to do so, a core of dedicated people who can project manage, balance the books and engage with the loco builders and component suppliers...

 

What you say may be true, but aren't most of the new build projects destined for heritage lines rather than the big railway? The standard 3, for example, or Dean goods is never going to be of use on the main line, and so it doesn't matter who builds it, volunteers or professionals, as long as the appropriate engineering standards are met and documented. 82045 shows this quite clearly, as did Firefly before it.

We do not need new or more main line locomotives, it is a market that will shrink with time as speeds of both passenger and freight trains increase it will become ever more difficult to fit slow moving steam trains into congested timetables other than in relative backwaters such as the West Highland line. It is debatable whether we need new locos for heritage lines as what we already have should be capable of running indefinitely - we just have to accept that as time goes by more and more will be replaced. Its only if we want to recreate lost prototypes or come up with new generation locos of improved efficiency that new builds can be sensibly justified as it will always be cheaper to repair what already exists. It's only when virtually everything on a loco needs replacing in the course of an overhaul that costs become comparable - for example, tyres may need replacing but wheel centres and axles do not, cylinders can be rebored and relined at far lower cost than making new. The odd new generation line might want a replica because it came on the scene too late to acquire a suitable fleet of originals, but then again, such lines are not normally known for their financial strength and are unlikely to be able to commit to the massive expenditure needed, even spread over many years because they will have more pressing calls on their money.

 

class8mikado: Point taken, but my example was really 82045 rather than the "Patriot".

The 82045 group have been very fortunate at their Bridgnorth location to indeed have that nucleus of experienced engineers.

It takes nothing away from the building of a large mainline loco to contract out the build to a commercial organisation, but of necessity it increases the cost.

Your last point about the people involved, whether it be supplying the funding stream or project managing etc is absolutely correct, and indeed vital to a successful project.

46118

 

The 5AT project would have addressed two of these aspects: better able to fit in with fast traffic on NR and improved efficiency. Even the extra cost of certification, above other new builds for the main line, because of the novel(ish) features wouldn't have been outrageous in comparison to some of the other projects; but sadly the backers weren't to be found.

 

I don't think it's as simple a matter as "volunteer labour = cheaper; contracted out = more expensive".

Firstly, as you say there are tasks that simply can't be done on a heritage railway: cutting the main frames would be an example. Then there things that can maybe done on a few lines, but not on the project's "home" line: contracted out work on, say, wheels (which is often done at the SDR, as one of relatively few places that can do such work) is an example.

But beyond that, sometimes there are tasks that could be done in house, but which might still be cost effective contracted out. Speaking of the Atlantic, there are numerous examples where components have been sent out to commercial engineering works, even if technically they could have been done in house. Sometimes that concerns small but numerous identical components, where the economies of scale of a modern engineering factory with more modern tooling might enable them to be produced to a cost and accuracy and speed that couldn't be matched by volunteer labour in house. Or it might be a significantly complex component that producing in house might result in in-house machine tools being occupied for an unrealistically long period of time: the quadruple-start screw for the reverser was one such component on the Atlantic, which I believe it was felt could be made in house, but only by taking an unrealistically long period of time setting up the necessary tools. Speed in such projects is an underrated virtue, not least because with inflation, doing the next task in the plan now may be cheaper than doing it a few years hence!

What is clear in such projects though is that the skills matrix shifts. Contracting work out doesn't make the project easier or somehow less "worthy"; however it raises the need for skills such as contract management and project management. And of course, money is ever-important which is why my opening question for any new-build project is always "how will you finance it?" Solve that and anything is possible; have no solution and nothing is possible. I seem to recall that document number 1 in Tornado's filing cabinet is a back-of-the-envelope business plan that worked out that the project could be funded from a sufficent number of people putting the price of a pint a week into it. The rest, as they say, is history.

Tom

 

You're telling me! The timescales for all too many projects of this kind seem positively (or negatively) Biblical.
PH

 

Pace Tornado, maybe we all need to forgo two pints a week, and not just one...

Tom

 

I think we spend far too much time worrying about time...!

When they're done, they're done. Who would have thought within four years we'd have a rolling chassis for a Patriot? Or within twenty years, a working 50th member of the Peppercorn Class A1...?

We are living in a truly golden age for preservation projects, whether new build, extensions, new buildings and museums. We could argue ad infinitum that we should donate money here, here and here instead of there, there and there, but the simple fact is that people will only donate to projects and charities they feel passionately about. The heart always rules the head where life is concerned. There's some very sensible trains of thought that I wouldn't disagree with, at all, but life is not made to a set standard (pardon the pun) and is not one size fits all.

At the end of the day, we should consider this. If we do feel passionately about something - something you want to do, or achieve, then you have to get off your backside and make it happen yourself. No amount of "everyone should donate to this..." "everyone should donate to that..." "nobody remembers us" is going to get things moving. If you feel passionately about something, show it in the best, most constructive manner, and things will happen.

 

Hear hear, that man .

 

Yes, generally I think you are right; my point really was that sometimes doing something quicker may also be cheaper in the long term. As a movement, there is an occasional tendency to wearing hair shirts for the sake of it, while failing to see the opportunity cost of having lots of capital tied up in half finished projects. I suspect another advantage of being allied to a major railway is that a bit more discipline is exerted on slow projects. Space is always tight, and while Railway X will undoubtedly be pleased ultimately to have a new loco to use with likely reliable running, there has to be a limit on how long they can indulge a slow group taking a lifetime over a project while using valuable space. Of course, a project can't burn money quicker than it is raised!

That said, I'm pretty sanguine about the general state of the new build industry. Of those that have made significant tangible progress and completed at least one of the major costly components (frames, wheels, cylinders, motion or boiler), I suspect the majority will ultimately run. It is by no means inconceivable that in, say, twenty years, someone will promote a "Raising the Standard" gala, with an example, original or new build, of all twelve BR standards. Such a thought would have been inconceivable even ten years ago.

Whether they will be joined by a B17, J39 and a Dean Goods - well, I have my doubts!

Tom

 

Seconded! Like I said earlier, tomorrow is getting closer and the jam is getting thicker!

 

Tom: Your comments agreed, and perhaps we should not forget the idea doing the rounds a while ago that our Heritage lines in effect band together and "batch build" a production run of one particular type of loco, most likely one of the Standard designs, to keep our Heritage lines running in the future.

Mind you if that were to happen, life for the enthusiast would be pretty humdrum, even if the non-enthusiast visitors still had steam haulage.

Maybe things have moved on since that idea was floated, and with the engineering capabilities we have we can continue to repair and rebuild the many diverse classes of steam locomotive still in operation.

Big proviso though ( apart from finance of course...) we MUST train up a new generation of steam locomotive engineers before the current chaps in their 60's and 70's retire. Fortunately some heritage lines are taking this training seriously now.

Equally we have thriving commercial concerns, such as Riley's and Tyseley, who one hopes are also training up younger people.

46118