GWR 'Dean Goods' no. 2516 - suggested restoration in Steam Railway issue no. 401

Humph! Both the Single and the Atlantic share a similar problem of excessive wheel diameter along with ditto grate area and low adhesive weight for cost effective use on a 25mph tourist railway. Were the Atlantic to be made to main line running specification then it could be argued that the large grate made it a better proposition than a number of other small/medium newbuild projects. However this is not to be.

Forget blasted gricers, they don't pay day to day bills. Mummy pointing at a Maunsell mogul and saying "look there's Thomas" does! Her money exercising the safety valves on an H2 Atlantic with its 31sq. ft. of grate will (for I am sure this is one project that stands a very good chance of completion) not be used to proper advantage.

Paul H

 

I'm sure NR have no use for it but would want to be paid a fair price for any asset they might own if it was disposed of, even if only scrap value. Tenants cannot generally dispose of the 'furniture' which came with the property, or substantially alter it, without permission. (On the other hand maybe GWS should phone up their landlord and say "the heating doesn't work any more - we need a new boiler" )

As I said before I do not know whether this situation is still the case since there might have been an opportunity to resolve it when the new lease was negotiated a few years ago.

 

Have to agree with Tom, Paul makes good points about practicality, but the most popular types are not always the most efficient for heritage line requirements, if we went fully down the practicality road, we'd scrap 99% of loco's and create a batch of 200 new build standard 4's

Money that's available for a Grange or Patriot won't necessarily be forthcoming for a J39, a less efficient loco is better than no loco.

 

No, but to a very large degree, they do pay the initial capital costs of construction (or restoration, if talking about a Barry wreck), and then a lot of the overhaul cost ten years later! It's a sad but true fact that, for most lines, fare income alone keeps your head above water on running costs, but without additional donations, I doubt any preserved railway is truly a going concern.

I fully get the logic about non-superheated class 2/3s as traffic locos for many lines - I've argued it myself! But clearly the first hurdle of any new build is getting built in the first place, and by and large (honourable exception to 82045!) the money is chasing the glamorous projects. In the end, is it better to have a too-big loco that actually gets built, or the dusty cab side and smokebox door of a loco that, if only some "blasted gricers" would fund it, would be an ideal traffic loco?

Tom

 

I am afraid I find this argument very "otherworldly". In fact my considered reaction is "blood and sand"!! (My initial reaction was extremely profane).

If a heritage railway has insufficient suitable serviceable locomotives to run its services then it closes. Pure and simple. If the "popular" newbuild locomotive is favoured by the more benighted of the gricer community over maintaining the practical one then the railway concerned deserves to fail. Without looking in any particular direction (which would be unfair) there have been some desperate motive power shortages this year.

These heritage railways are small businesses without the economies of scale enjoyed even by the smaller pre-grouping companies. It is going to be extraordinarily difficult for them to maintain their organisations. Not least of their difficulties will be in maintaining enthusiasm without going off on tangents like building single-wheelers. One of the ironies of this present thread is the advocacy of a sensible prototype by someone who has been derided elsewhere, not unreasonably, for impracticality. Should this individual acquire practical or organisational skills to match his enthusiasm I wonder who will be laughing.

PH

 

This crossed with another one of mine in the thread and I don't want to repeat myself even more than usual! Much of the problem (and I do consider it a problem) lies in the multiplicity of ownerships. More than slightly anarchic to my mind.Thus it comes as no surprise that the railway with all the nice compartment carriages and the re-boilered, or about to be re-boilered, locomotives is an exceptional one for the standard gauge inasmuch as the railway and its equipment are in unified ownership. No doubt as to who decides what projects are to proceed and when.

If only this were more common.

PH

 

With regard a Dean Single, I think you have to recognise that Didcot is not like other heritage railways. With half a mile of flat running line and maximum loads of about two carriages, practicality is hardly an issue. Instead, I'd argue that for them, their remit and USP is much more about shewing the GWR in all its multi-faceted variety (almost said glory, but stopped myself just in time ) In that context, a Dean Single fills a significant gap.

Indeed, Didcot have probably the ultimate impractical new-build loco; a loco so impractical that it is limited to about 400 yards of track on one single preservation site in the whole world. (I'm talking about Firefly, of course). But who could argue other than that its construction is enormously significant, and certainly adds far more educational value than "just" another Pannier or Autotank? [Disclaimer: I'm not a GWS member, just an occasional visitor to Didcot].

For other, longer, railways, clearly a Dean Goods is a better proposition as a traffic loco than a Dean Single. I hope that the groups proposing a new build take on board the advice here and elsewhere; get themselves aligned with a major railway; build undercover construction / storage space; put in place a viable fundraising strategy etc etc. But I can't help thinking - based not on logic, but on observation of the existing scene - that fundraising is going to be bl**dy hard for an anonymous loco that won't even be unique when it is finished. I hope I'm wrong...

Tom

 

Paul,

I'm sure that shared ownership is helpful - though it is also true that the nice railway with compartment carriages and reboilered locos also currently has a £50k appeal in progress to keep some of those bogie carriages running, so clearly even with that nice structure it isn't able to cover everything on revenue income alone. And another railway with possibly more anarchic ownership of assets does in fact own about 20 locos (and nearly all its carriages) on its own account; and has sufficiently good relationships with the owners of the other ten that it is prepared to put company money into other people's locos (namely Camelot, and 65 - see the objectives of the "Keep up the pressure" appeal). So I don't believe that the mixed ownership is getting in the way of having a clear set of priorities.

To me it comes down to money, and the fact that you have to raise money from altruistic sources over and above revenue. Given that, glamour tends to trump practicality when appealing to people's wallets. The ideal project combines both, which is where I think our nice, named, class 4 new build comes in, though I know you beg to differ!

Tom

 

I just wonder if there is still the capability to turn up such a large set of driving wheels?

 

I'm not claiming your argument is wrong and without reason, just practicality and profitability with regard to new builds don't always meet each other, forget joe public, they may contribute to the railway via a train ticket, refreshments, shop etc, but very few will donate directly or through other forms towards the construction of a new build who's funds come from outside the railways main revenue stream.

While you have a point on driving wheel diameter and grate size, is it really good for the longevity of components to be pushing a class 2/3 loco's to near their load limits all the time ?, is it worth going for a smaller, economical type if the motion is worn out in half the time ?, with that in mind, is something like a 28XX not a better bet ?.

 

i think that with all due respect to tom he has to admit that at the moment the Bluebell cant put into traffic a loco of it's own larger than the 'C' class!!

i cant see much difference between the 'C' class and a Dean Goods. of all the 0-6-0 locos ever built, the Dean Goods has an unenviable reputation and pedigree and deserves to be supported, whether it be a new build (or as i have previously argued) extracting 2516 from Swindon for what i believe will prove to be no more than a light overhaul.

i also fully support the BEACHY HEAD H2 project. ok, it might not be 'ideal' for the Bluebell as now extended but it will be OK and far more capable than the smaller Bluebell fleet. if an H2 can get away from Victoria up Grosvenor bank with the Southern Belle i dont see it having any problems on the Bluebell extension! and it will be considerably more economical than steaming 'ARCHIE' or BLACKMOOR VALE! there is a trend on some of the more astute heritage lines to ditching Mk 1 coaches in favour of restoring wooden bodied coaches. the IW steam railway amongst others has led the way in this respect. a Dean Goods should be perfectly capable of hauling a decent rake of carriages without undue stress on the loco. those locos were built to very fine engineering standards and their longevity speaks for themselves . they were as tough as old boots, and the later examples with superheated boilers proved an equal match to the Ivatt class 2's when tested. all weight for adhesion, and ideal for a preserved line with a 25 mph speed limit.

any way thats my view for what it's worth!

cheers,
julian

 

That is exactly the attitude which I utterly disapprove of. If they don't continue to spend their money there will be no railways for us to "play" with. Pray be sensible everyone.

PH

 

The same railway, which I am not connected with in any way, turns out two complete trains of pre-Grouping stock. It is a tiddler amongst heritage railways yet it is having new steel sections of an obsolete form specially rolled to facilitate the return to service of other vehicles. No railway, as you say, can exist without appeals for money but in this case one can at least be assured that any contributions received go towards the corporate whole, as determined by its management and don't favour one aspect as opposed to another.

Paul H

 

Why would a less than ideal choice of new build put joe public off ?, good customers service, clean stock and refreshment facilities with plenty to do are more critical to them enjoying themselves, they don't care if they are pulled by an Industrial or Tornado outside of special events.

 

PH you could say a Green single looks just like "Emily" http://www.thomasandfriends.com/en-au/Engines/Emily.html
So a mum would say to their child OOHH look its Emily. haha

Ok so your right "joe pub" pays the way for the railway to keep afloat, absolutely agree with you, but the Enthusiast is the one who pays for Loco groups to keep going, they built tornado, and they are building the rest of the new builds and restoring the rest, Who wouldnt love a massive pit of money where you say right this year this gets built and next we'll restore Blue Star to running order and so on and so forth, but we cant. There are also many many business cases for different railways, loco groups, coach/wagon groups some are far better than others, say Tornado manage to turn over £200,000 per year on merchandise alone! But many groups are doing very well there own way, some have lost their way and will struggle for a while then get back on track (Hengist seems to be doing very well recently). If all you want to do is run a fleet of Paniers, and Standard 4's well then the whole purpose of the movement is lost, its not about being the most economic if the locos you use bring in enough passengers to pay their way. A standard will always be a nice looking loco, but my question to you is does it inspire the youth to want to get involved and keep steam alive?? I know when i went to a railway when i was 10 i wanted to see something with a name on the side and big, i remember standing next to some large driving wheels and thinking WOW.

 

And of course now im in a project building something with 6 foot 9 drivers!

 

All this talk of a replica Dean Goods... surely there are some other survivors on the sea bed which must be ripe for restoration?

 

This summarises one of my concerns pretty accurately. Why spend more money than you have to for something that only a proportion of people appreciate.

This is "jolly if you have the lolly"! It does nothing for the basic health of heritage railways which will become a big issue (it really is one now)

PH