Baldwin "Lyn" new build.

Just to correct you on two points, Martyn, Yeo was never perceived as anything other than a straightforward replacement for the original locomotive, hence the name. We did not need then, and do not need now "a Yeo for the 21st Century", as Lyd was launched specifically to do that. Project Yeo was launched - note the name - "To reproduce exactly as practicable, Yeo as she last ran in November 1935". The reason? Because a) a 21st Century version of Yeo would be diesel or battery-electric; b) we already have an uprated Manning Wardle, Lyd; and perhaps most importantly of all, c) at last we could fully appreciate and evaluate Yeo as she last ran in 1935. A look-alike she was never to be. By all means technically enhance Yeo later, but let's start at November 1935, not November 2015.
This emphasises the other point about Lyn. An uprated, technically massaged Lyn would be Lyn in name only, behaving differently from the original in most respects. It would be a "look-alike" hence New Lyn!

 

Hope you all don't mind me having a word or two about both these projects.

Firstly LYN:- as I understand it, she is to be build to the current standards as required by the railway industry and also to incorporate improvements to the design which have been discovered since 1935, superheat for instance comes to mind. I do know that she will have a higher rated boiler than the old Lyn which is not a bad thing.

Secondly YEO:- I know this will upset some but when the Yeo project was first discussed it was looked at bring back to life a missing type of steam locomotive, Lyd has done that, read the book brought the tee shirt etc, etc.

I think that one thing which has been learned is that each loco has to be able to perform its function, having a steam loco which can only haul three or four coaches is not going to go down to well with a project that needs locos that can and will have to haul seven plus all the time.

Like it or not, the current management will have the final say on what improvements will be added into the YEO Project (after all it is still a Trust project I believe).

The L&BR project, like all the heritage railways in the UK and else where has to pay its way. That means having locos which can do a job that we need them to do. If not then a Manning Wardle design 2-6-2T that is not capable of doing so frankly should not take up the space allocated to it at Woody Bay, as when we could still go and purchase steam locos which do have a genuine working history from around the World which will do a much better job for us.

It should also be remembered that fund raising for YEO is going to be that much harder since LYD has been built, I have already suggested commercial sponsorship to those that are dealing with such matters. It is just one of many items that need to be though about this project.

As someone who is well known in our group said, he (and myself) would rather listen to what the 25,000 visitors ask of us to do if there money was to help in the rebuilding of the L&BR, rather that say 2,000 members who only want to agrue all the time. If our visitors asked us to build a light blue 0-6-0T as the next project, which would increase the passenger number then we would both be for all of that.

I am not against the YEO project, in fact I think we have a unique angle on this and why should we only stop to build one? Why not all three of the old locos at the same time? It could save money in the long term by building all three at once.

I am glad to see the frames come home, as it gives the railway the chance to look at the project in full and make some fresh suggestions on how we go about getting this one finished in our life time.

 

I'd love to see a new Moel Tryfan - at 13 inches to the foot, superheated, with a boiler rated at 200psi and larger cylinders. But unless someone comes up with half a million quid, it ain't going to happen. And even if it did, Son of MT couldn't haul WHR ten car service trains that cover 50 miles and climb 1,300 feet every trip. The NG/G16s are doing this twice a day and covering around 15,000 miles a year each.

There are the locos you need to run a sustainable railway and locos that are nice-to-haves. Without a sustainable railway, the NTHs won't have anywhere to play. And the costs don't stop at £500,000 - you need to fund maintenance, running costs and a box to put it in if the loco isn't to become a financial burden to the railway it was built to run on.

Customers care more about comfortable seats, the view from the carriage window, decent toilets and car parking than they do about rivet counting. And it's keeping customers happy that funds our hobby.

 

Having no connection with the L&B and having ridden on it for the first time only recently, can I poke my nose in to say that the pictures of the frames for the "Yeo" emphasise all my misgivings about "new build" projects in the railway preservation era. Here is a set of frames, which must have cost a great deal of money and effort to produce, with no evident prospect of their being utilised. This money and effort is tied up whilst another project to recreate a different L&B prototype is being progressed. There may be personality clashes at work here which I am unaware of but I don't want to know about them either! It is regrettably similar to the vaguely anarchic situation on the standard gauge where there are umpteen projects in hand but only two completed whilst the others tie up a great deal of resources. The significant difference that both these narrow gauge projects are for the same railway which, to the outsider, does not impress.

One advantage of the Yeo project falling behind that for "Lyd" is that the latter found (so I understand) serious deficiencies in the geometry of the valve gear and carrying axle trucks as designed by Manning Wardle and Yeo could take advantage of this research.

 

I'd have thought there are loads of advantages to being second in this instance - the patterns for the cylinder and wheel castings and the insurance company-approved drawings for the boiler must represent a big saving even if a charge is levied for their use, and I would imagine there are patterns for numerous other parts.

 

My better half, who has a significant say in which railways we visit, declared that the WHR was on of the best railways she has visited, based on 1) the view, 2) comfortable CLEAN seats, and 3) a good cup of tea.

She couldn't give a monkeys what was at the front, but remembered it was green.

This sort of opinion is more indicative of the opinion of 95% of a railway's customers, rather than the much smaller minority who post on railway forums, concerned about rivets and liveries.

 

Good points! However the serious proposal to build an L&B Manning Wardle dates from February 1995 after it became clear that James Armstrong Evans would be partnered in Lyd's construction by the Ffestiniog Railway. It was felt that the L&B had to have a Manning Wardle, so integral in the original line's powerful brand image. It would be built in as-1935 condition at the height of its development. Launch of the project was delayed for 12 months to avoid compromising Lyd's launch.

Unfortunately Yeo's launch was overshadowed by the then-President's announcement of a project to build Lyn in the USA, of which little more was subsequently heard. Though construction of Yeo slowly progressed, unassisted by the Lyd team, Project Yeo finally sourced drawings, produced a tender document and contacted various potential constructors. A Trust was formed to ensure Gift Aid could be claimed back from donors.

Yeo was never viewed as integral to the L&B's future, however, and when Mike Buse suggested the Trust be expanded to include the whole of the L&B, the potential conflict to Yeo's progression was noted. However, the L&B's construction had to override one project, however much some of us desired it. So Yeo became just one of the expanded Trust's many targets. (The Trust was later replaced with a revised model, but with largely the same personnel).

Yeo was hit hard by the demise of the contracted builder, Winson's, and though the frames were recovered, cost of transportation and the need to find a replacement constructor dampened progress.

At this point, around 2001, the logjam holding back development at Woody Bay was overcome, and focus switched to tracklaying. Then, in 2003, the Trust's chairman suggested putting all other priorities behind the completion of Axe, then still a kit of parts, with Yeo to follow on at completion of Axe. However, just before Axe was finished the last of the board who had brought services back to Woody bay was replaced by the current incumbents, who have not given attention to Yeo.

This is why you see a set of frames on a wagon 17 years after the L&B decided they wanted an L&B Manning Wardle, and not merely to borrow someone else's version. Yes, customers mainly want good toilets, value for money and a nice lunch, but the idea behind Yeo was that it would attract all those who wanted an L&B of the original quality, and not "a spluttering petrol trolley on a length of reclaimed industrial trackage". These people would be the funders, workforce and champions of a new, high-quality line.

Maybe we were wrong....!

 

Okay, let's forget individual conflicts, although it is obvious these have been a factor. The railway is poised for a big expansion and will need to convince people with money that it should be expended on the project. In such circumstances the last thing the railway needs is a socking great underframe hanging around to remind everyone of the difficulties it has faced in getting one particular job completed.

Better by far to take it quite away from the railway.

P.H.

 

As I understand it, the plan is for the frames to stay at Woody Bay for the time being until a suitable contractor can be found to take the project on, in simple terms this means one of the following locations may be asked:-

1 Boston Lodge
2 Statfold
3 Alan Keefs
4 The Flower Mills
5 Gartell's
6 Dart Valley
7 Bluebell

The 8th location could be, if you want to go down this route and that would be to set up a new Manning Wardle Trust which is to be managed as an independent group or at arms length from the L&BR Trust, This could then submit a tender to carry out the work itself at a works located away from the railway.

Just an opening idea you understand.

Or if you want to wait until Blackmoor is up and running, why not wait and build it at our own works?

Colin Rainsbury

 

I had it in mind just to store it away from the railway so potential financiers were not given the idea that things did not get finished!

P.H.

 

No railway is ever finished.

 

Some are better than others at avoiding dismantled odds and ends scattered around in the public eye.

 

It has to be built first before it can be dismantled.

Cheers

Alan

 

Colin,

The actual constructor is of secondary importance; it is far, far more important to ensure that 120% of funding can be reasonably targetted first. This was the biggest mistake (and I made many) I made with Project Yeo. The technical side, the tendering process, the construction supervision, and of course the exact specification were all fully completed. We even set up the first L&B Trust to maximise donations, but what we didn't do was sufficiently emplace our finance. We were under-resourced with sales, that and promotion we didn't properly drive. Whilst we had Colin Blackwell to technically supervise (he also looked after the Corris's Tattoo), we had no-one of equivalent stature to advise on fund-raising.

It is far more than simply deciding upon a contractor to build your loco, and handing over a wedge. What condition is the loco to be built to? What degree of construction quality is required? Are you getting value for money? Is the build to the right quality? It's very much a hands-on programme, and for those talking of an uprated version, by doing so you immediately throw in complexities that will significantly up the price and extend the construction time, and as we all know extended construction times mean even higher costs.

For those still wishing to envision a 'performance-enhanced' Manning Wardle (and how do we know it would be performance-enhanced without an original-condition loco to compare it against?), Gordon Rushton explained to me a few months ago that Lyd really required better valve gear and a larger boiler, perhaps even an eight-coupled layout like the SAR 2-8-2's - 'Lynmouth' in other words, as projected in L&B magazine 39 I think. Tinkering with an established design can easily lead to problems, and a Lyn with higher boiler pressure may just slip a little easier.

Barring a one-off rich donor, Yeo is unlikely to be built anytime soon, just like the Howard and 4W vans . In the meantime, without any sudden kneejerk reactions, putting the frames somewhere safe as Paul suggests, may well be the best option.

 

I totally agree with you about Fundraising, that is something which I find so strange even now, I know the L&BR Trust have tried at least twice in the past to have a full time fundraiser, but I don't think that is the way to go forward, well not at present anyway.

What we need the most is for more people to realise we need to have a fund raising strategy (business plan?), which without something like that in place, it becomes very difficult to raise the money required.

Taking on fundraising for a project of this size is a commitment all by itself, and sadly the L&BR as a group have not yet made the one contact which can turn this around. Also it should be noted that the L&BR has never asked for money in the right places before, as it has up until now, always relied on its members to come up with the money.

I feel that there always has been a need for a general fund which has now been set up and Martyn Budd has kept this going with donations for this and that, as I recall years ago, I think it was Nik Barrie who set up a wants list on the old L&BR website, a bit like the sponsorship list on 762 club website comes to mind and I feel would be a good thing to have again.

Having attended a number of Fundraising events in the past, I can assure you that not much changes, it is just the way you present yourself that does.

Also who ever does the fund raising will also needs to have a lot of spare time to be able to go to meetings with possible funders and most importantly we need to make contact with someone who has a huge personal contact list, as that will help with the fundraising in the first place.

 

Interesting new news feature on the Lyn website - pictures of newly fabricated items and updates on the boiler, and new newsletter. The 762 Club - Recreating locomotive history in North Devon

 

According to Lynformation on the website, by May the boiler/firebox, saddle, cylinders and motion will be complete, and also by then the already completed cab will be joined by the tanks, bunker, cow catchers, chimney and dome. Now's the time to contribute to the Lyn fund to ensure an L&B loco will be able to pull the 4 L&B heritage coaches that will be completed this year! The 762 Club - Contributing

 

Thanks for the link Felix. Although a lot has been going on in the background with the LYN build, we were aware that there wasn't much news appearing, so we have launched the monthly LYNformation Bulletins on the 762 website, to share the news. Do come back about this time next month for the next instalment...

 

An interesting design feature of the new-build Baldwin 2-4-2 for the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway is the use of a High Adhesion Wheel Profile as designed by LD Porta (and interestingly, applied to FCAF No.3 Camila - an L&B Manning Wardle-derived loco.)
Adhesion - HAWP etc

Does anybody know of other UK-based locos using this or similar technology?

 

There was talk of trying the Porta profile on both Covertcoat and Velinheli but, despite C's wheels being out this winter, neither has the profile....yet.

The 6x4tech Fairlie (aka the Fairratt) will have the Porta profile.