L1 new build

Re this quote - the people involved in the L1 were only ever on the peripherals of the J39 group as the founder and project manager did everything.

This is a new group/project, with new people at the helm, some of whom do actually know a thing or 2 about steam loco's and do have some contacts in the industry to ask for help and advice from.

This group will be set up properly, with a proper plan of action, constitution etc.

Whether this loco gets built or not is to be seen, but please don't knock us for trying, it seems that some of you just like to be negative and it would be appreciated if you would try not to be as it doesn't help when the first thing you see on searching L1 is the negative comments on here!

Thank you to the others for your helpful comments.

Link to website:
L1 Locomotive group - Home

 

Thank you Spamcan.

 

I know, but Granges & Patriots were needed by the GW & LMS and a lookalike County with an 8f boiler is not needed.

 

"Not needed" is a term that's been aimed at countless schemes over the years and is purely a subjective view. Back in 1976 we were told that another preserved BB was "not needed" as 34051 was already in the National Collection and a near identical WC was running on the Bluebell. Needless to say we didn't listen to the "experts" and got on with rescuing and restoring 34081.

 

Perhaps you need to tell the people at Didcot that; the last time I looked at the 1014 Web Page, which was yesterday, the new build/composite/kit build County seemed to be coming on really well, including the tender, much of which will be brand new. Indeed, I would suggest that the Didcot County will be up and running relatively soon (note the careful use of the word - relatively) unlike some of the other projects mooted. Although I don't support the County project financially (unlike the 82045 and Patriot projects which I do) I think many people, not just GWR enthusiasts, will be intrigued to see this last "missing link" in GWR 4-6-0 design up and running. There is, of course, some argument over the locomotive's pedigree etc but money and manpower talks so a County appears therefore to be needed.

 

And there was i thinking that someone was going to try to bring back an SECR 4-4-0 im heart broken to find its another northern engine shame

Now being serious, Tornado has opened the bottle and the jeenie wont go back in, before if anyone said, les build a new engine you were told it cant be done and there was no real proof that it could because no one had built a large steam engine from scratch, where as now, people can say, well if the Tornado folk and do it we can, and you going to get every last dreamer coming up with this or that scheme to build a lost engine , some can be done,and if they have the backing and the right project management, will most likily be built unfortunatly quite a few appear not to have this in place so would probally fail

 

Now if they had been talking about a Maunsell 'L1' ,or 'D1' or 'E1', then I'm sure they would find a lot more people interested in getting involved in one way or another.

 

I think you missed the point a bit. With a new build, there shouldn't be a "subsequent 500,000". With an entirely new loco, like 82045 for example, when all parts are new it should need a fraction of the work at overhaul. Thats where the economic sense comes in. As existing locos get older and more tired, more parts require replacing, the complexity of these tasks goes up and so too does the cost. 82045 if treated sensibily when it has finished the mythical "10 years" should require a boiler exam, perhaps minor remedial work, some tyre turning and a bit of mechanical fine tuning.

Look, I would much rather no new builds were necessary, that all locos "wanted" had been saved and that the surviving locos weren't gloing to reach a crisis point of being "worn out". Even the majority of standards are now 60+. There comes a breaking point but if a few new build, historically accurate and economically viable locos can be manufactured and supported, then we can extend that breaking point way into the future again. A good thing, no?

As for this particular project, and the related J39, I admire the ambition, I really do. I hope with all my heart that it succeeds but there seems to be a big case of biting off more than you can chew.

Cheers,
Andy

 

...Somebody earlier asked where the idea for building an L1 came from, I suggest that they look at last years Hornby catalogue. I see it as no coincidence that both the J39 and L1 have been proposed as projects when they exist in 00 gauge and not in preservation. We all get our love for particular locos from somewhere...

The problem with the L1, as with the J39, is that it is the direct result of the internet and Tornado. Tornado showed it could be done, and consequently many started their proposals, the internet unfortunately does not offer a good check on reality. People can form groups to build new locos, meet and talk online and get absolutely nowhere apart from a couple of inches in the railway press.... for the sake of it I'm going to announce my intention to build a new class of 14xx s used LD Portas proposals for better steaming. There you go I've done it, so can we all.

New builds can and do work... as we can see with Tornado and will hopefully soon see with Beachy Head, Patriot, 6880, 1014, LoL, G5 etc. However none of these groups were started as random conjecture on the internet that started with I want a "xxx" followed by "lets start a facebook page" and "we're deadly serious" and "it'll have a copper boiler". They start with proper discussion, funding, strong links to organisations such as Didcot and sensible aims.

For sanity's sake conjecture like this needs to stop. It's creating alot of confusion across preservation, weakens the arguments for existing new builds and could ultimately undermine much of what has been achieved already.

 

These are my opinions, and my opinions alone

Patriot will succeed, it is the only LMS Newbuild and also being the new national memorial engine is important.

County will succeed, it has the backing of the GWS and is well organised

Saint will succeed, it has the backing again of the GWS.

Grange will succeed, it is at a far more advanced stage to not.

47XX will most likely succeed due to the GWS yet again.

82045 will succeed, enough people want to see this and with the SVR on its doorstep it has a huge amount of people on its doorstep

Hengist will eventually succeed, although this loco has very mixed opinions i do believe the new guys at the helm are moving it in the right direction

Brighton Atlantic will succeed, its really getting there now and is to date the only southern newbuild that i can think of (apart from the L&B ones)

Both P2s will depend on the report, which is being done professionally to see if it is possible to build. The Tornado one obviously has more of a chance.

Both B17s, unsure if its two or one? as there is the new Manchester united one now, im not convince by BUT the appeal to manchester united fans could raise a huge amount of money!

Claud hamilton, for all i do like the guys doing this project i am afraid i dont believe this will go ahead. I do hope you prove me wrong.

F5, there doesnt seem to be huge progress on this and it was supposed to be built for this year!! from what i can gather they do have a coal bunker and a pattern for a wheelset

G5, Yes this will succeed, it has a few larger donors who want it to be built

GCR 567, im really unsure of this project, while at the GCR last weekend i looked at there figures and they expect a boiler to be built for just 90K? and there wheels for 60k?

J39, not a chance, the "project leader" is already retiring at the age of 16. as he doesnt have the time, and its his project

L1, again im afraid there has been no real research into this and it "in my opinion" wont happen


NOTHING against anyone doing these newbuild projects, your a good enthusiastic group of youngsters who really should not leave the preservation scene, as your the future. but some of the ideas are a bit over the top with no real idea on how to approach them. I recommend EVERY person who wants to be part of the newbuild scene to join another more advanced newbuild FULLY for 1 year, then see how hard work it is, how much commitment is required, and then youll have more of an idea of weather its possible, treat it like a business, market research and all that!

Cheers Gav

 

I didn't mean for my comments to cause the controversy they have done but I'm standing by my opinion re new builds that use bit of other locos.
New build B16 anyone?! ;-)

 

No mention yet of the 5AT project, which has probably completed more fundamental engineering research and development work than any other new-build project, yet I doubt it will ever be built since there seems to be little enthusiasm in this sector for a non-heritage design.

 

When I saw this thread, I also assumed it related to a Maunsell 4-4-0 rather than an LNER tank loco.

The 2 cylinder Maunsell 4-4-0 family is one of the great omissions from the preservation scene. By all accounts, excellent locos. On the one hand, I too would love to see one built, but on the other, maybe it would be best to see Beachy Head completed first - another Southern omission being rectified.

Going back to the LNER L1, best wishes to this group. The history of preservation (plus, for the sake of the pedants, new build steam) contains plenty of examples of schemes dismissed as pie-in-the-sky, AND some bright ideas that really did seem to be fantasy for many years before being resurrected and confounding the critics. The back-conversion of a Hall to a Saint didn't seem to be going anywhere for many years - at least to those of us on the outside - but there are few doubters now. It's a tough time economically, and you need a certain amount of optimism if you're going to start a new build scheme at the moment, but the downturn isn't going to last for ever. The corner will be turned one day, and who knows, in 10 or 20 years' time what will be running on our heritage railways.

 

I think you are missing the point yourself. With a newbuild, as with any steam engine, there will be a subsequent spending at each overhaul for new tubes, stays, sheet metal replacement and other repairs etc. Understandably, it probably won't cost 500,000 first time round, but each one will increase until you're at the stage preserved locos are now. This subsequent spending can be better spent on preserving what we already have [which we currently can't as it is - see the scores of Barry wrecks]. Surely this is better?

With a [true] newbuild, every single thing needs making from scratch. On a loco which already exists, a lot of things can be retained e.g. frames, wheels, cylinders, and only things which are life expired need making again. The first overhaul savings of a new build will only be short term, and we won't know for certain until Tornado undergoes her first. Once a new loco undergoes 3 or so stints of intensive heritage line service, this novelty will be gone, and then you've just added to the dole queue.

Another reason I have for wanting to 'pop' the bubble and try consolidate what we currently have is the age profile of preservation itself. When i was last working at Llangollen several of the older members commented on the age structure, and i agree. The L1 and J39 groups seem to have been set up by some kids, but young people getting into the hobby are very thin on the ground. In 2010 i think the ELR produced a very interesting graph, showing the age profile of their members, very thin before 40 and a massive bulge around late 50s to late 60s. Its a similar story for preservation in general, this bulge is where most of the labor and, importantly, money comes from. In 15, 20 years time when they've moved further up and off the graph, there will be a massive loss of money and we'll REALLY struggle to keep up with what we have. Building more engines willy nilly, regardless of how useful they are, i feel, will just stretch the movement further and spell the end even quicker. Being in the thin 'young end' myself, I'd like to get to at least where the majority of preservationists are now before UK railway heritage just becomes a thing of static exhibits and rusty hulks.

I'm sorry for sounding so cynical about these things, but the gusto and money of those who started it all just won't be there forever, which is why i doubt the new build craze will work like the similarly criticized Barry projects, etc in the past did. I actually hope some of them like 82045 do succeed, because if what they say is true, it will add on some more years, which can only be good news for the younger generations.

 

I have checked my "list" against yours Gav and I think there is much we can agree on; especially the Patriot and the 82xxx, both of which I'm happy to put some money into.
I think that the GER F5 has progressed slowly but its eventual home - the EOR, is progressing so well now that this may well increase funding and support for this useful little 2-4-2T.
I understand that the GCR 4-4-0 (567) already has a boiler and a cylinder block so this may well progress satisfactorily.
The Claud represents a class of loco that should have been preserved and it was a travesty that one was put to one side but still cut up. This loco does have a rather more dedicated following amongst railway heritage aficionados so may well succeed. I agree with you that the J39 is a product of internet wishful thinking (shame as it would look good on several lines) and is most unlikely to get anywhere.

 

Look I'm with you on the "new build vs barry wreck" debate. I really am. I said in my last post, I'd much rather money be spent on existing locos. Sadly its not a case of moving fund pot A from new build 1 to barry wreck 2 as new builds seem to generate funding because they are a new build whereas a rusting loco in a siding on a heritage line doesnt seem to create such a desire to donate with a lot of people. I wish it did! If I ever win the lottery, a vast chunk of the money will be going to the 4150 group on the SVR to complete the restoration of that particular barry escapee.

The way I see new builds is as a supplementation of existing locos to "take the strain" a little. not to replace. Never to replace. If we ever reach that point the whole movement has lost its meaning a little.

I'm also with you regarding the age profile too. I'm at the thin end too, I'm only 20 and i'm very aware of the skewing of the age profile and I hope that all those involved with these projects stick with heritage railways. My advice would be to get involved with other projects. Restoring existing locos, maintaining operational ones, even helping to construct an existing new project. No line in the UK is in a position to turn away volunteers of any age. Nor would they want to. Get a feel for it, for quite how much work it takes to keep these beasts running, and to resurrect them from the ashes. Then I think it becomes clear what a mamoth task recreating a loco is.

Cheers,
Andy

 

I think you might be being a bit pessimistic on the age range thing. Yes, if the standard profile saw people volunteer aged 20 and keep going into their 70s / 80s, there would be a problem if you had no-one volunteering anew and your youngest existing volunteers were already 40 with 15 or 20 years of experience - you'd be just waiting for a slow death over the next 30 years or so.

But I think in practice people around 20-30 (and I speak as a 40-something myself) have other pressures. University, starting a career, starting a family, getting a mortgage etc all take priority when you are younger. But then you get to 35 or 40, you are more established in life and you can start to think about re-kindling an interest that maybe you had when younger but has lain dormant for 20 years or so. At that point, volunteering becomes something you look at. (I think for the same reason, railway and other modelling is now dominated not by children getting a Christmas trainset, but older adults looking for more fidelity in their models, and with the cash to pay for it).

So I wouldn't necessarily be worried if a line had a predominance of volunteers aged 40+ and comparatively few under 20: It might just be the way of things that nowadays people start aged 40 and put in a stint of 30 years, rather than start at 20 and put in a stint of 50 years as happened with the preservation pioneers. The key questions are really: are you at least keeping up with your retirement rate at the "old" end by recruiting at the "young" end (even if that is now people aged 40 rather than people aged 20); and secondly do you have a development structure in place to mean that people who maybe volunteer once a month for 20 or 30 years can make significant progress into positions where they really make a valuable contribution - whether as restoration / maintenance or operating staff.

Tom

 

Perhaps time will tell if they succeed with this. As stated elsewhere however there does seen to be a lack of Southern New Builds out there.