Which loco do you think should be built in the future

With all these "new build" locos being built at the minute, I was just wondering if any of you could think of one which you feel should be one that should be built.
Perhaps its from a works that is not represented, or even one that ran for a particular company or shed.

I would love to see a Fowler 7F-B built of 1929 (49593) which was built at Crewe or even an Aspinal, LYR 27 (52248) built at Horwich in 1894.
Or one of the oddities from Newton Heath shed.

 

A GWR 80XX "Cathedral" 4-6-2...

Seriously though, I'd like to see one of the existing projects finished like 60163, what's going on with 6880 these days anyway, haven't seen much significant on it for a while.

 

91xxx BR Std 2-8-2 would be nice

failing that an L&Y 4-6-0.

 

Non whatever!

We can't even look after what we already have properly re both locos & rolling stock and with volunteer input becoming more scarce in some areas why on earth would we need more?

Take a look around any heritage railway in the country if you don't believe this.

 

Agreed, and thats the difference between the dreamers and the realists.

Regards
Chris:

 

Don't even think about new builds until existing vehicles ( locos, coaches, wagons) are either restored or scrapped. The volunteer pool is likely to get smaller as time goes by, for a variety of reasons, and many railways will struggle to survive without the considerable financial burden of new builds.

 

but the financial burden wont be on railways, it will be on the group building the loco. Such projects draw new labour into the pool. Many will however be only dreams and will fall by the wayside .
Can someone explain why someone always suggests a "BR Standard 2-8-2" which can only be a 9f with a trailing wheelset instead of one driving axle...is there any point to this when there are so many 9fs to go at?

 

A class 8 freight 2-8-2 was one of the original 12 new "Standard" proposals, but the release of many WD and LMS 2-8-0's back to the railways after the war saw a less urgent need for a heavy freight design, and Riddles, following experience of running the WD 2-10-0's decided that the primary requirement of a heavy freight loco was adhesion, and that a new 2-10-0 was the answer provided 5 ft driving wheels and a wide firebox could be squeezed in under the loading guage.

Anyway, what on earth good would some of the large "never built" designs actually be? By the time they were built we are unlikely to have steam on Network Rail, so they either become museum pieces or expensive white elephants.

I agree with posters above, lets finish what is already under construction, and some of the out of ticket existing engines before we embark on anything else. (Apart from a Fowler 2-6-4 tank, which would be an ideal heritage line engine....).

On a serious note, just look around at many--not all, but "many" existing projects, and the age of the engineers working on them. Doesn't that tell you something??

46118

 

The point behind producing a 2-8-2 is that it will provide a locomotive that could not only work on nearly all preserved lines but perhaps more importantly could access the National Network. Something the 9F is not able to do. There are ways round the flangeless drivers issue but you would have to carry out some serious modifications to the chassis to obtain the controlled lateral movement you would need.
Further, given the impact of the dry Summer on rail tours this year the 2-8-2 lends itself much more readily to modifications that would make it far more suitable for use on today's railways.
It would look very much like a Standard but underneath you could Porta-ize the living daylights out of it. Well, perhaps not enough to make me really happy, but enough to make an outstanding improvement over anything that could have been expected of the proposed original.
Not my ideal choice of engine but I could support it. I would far rather see the 5AT built.

 

An entirely new steam design offered to work on the National network? I thought not having "grandfather rights" means many more hoops to jump through, or am I misunderstanding the situation?

46118

 

My feeling is that a few new builds can be worthwhile, provided they contribute to the long term good of the railway upon which they are based. When I say long term good, I don't mean providing a loco that 10 years down the road is just going to take up already stretched works space, but by providing facilities that the railway may not have. The best example of this is, to my mind, the Brighton Atlantic project. The group are not only building a loco that will be useful to the Bluebell, but they have funded and built a workshop, and have gradually equipped it to a high standard. As a result, they have increased the engineering/workshop capability on the Bluebell for the very long term. In 15 years or so when it comes out of service for its first 10 year overhaul, the space and facilties to overhaul it will be there, nd it won't be a drain on already stretched facilities.

A new build loco that requires the use of all the existing facilities on an already stretched railway is of no long term benefit to the host railway. Saying "our loco will be easily maintained for years to come" is no good if the facilities aren't available. Lets see the new build projects take on the long term good of both their own projects and their host railways.

Daniel

 

How many realists where there in the 1960's?
Everything I see and read points to thousands of dreamers who made the reality we have today.

Now we have negative looking realists and declining numbers of positive dreamers.

 

How about a Wirral Railway 4-4-4 tank loco as originally built in the late 1880's by Beyer Peacock.

Bob.

 

Can't speak for ADB, but my suggestion was more tongue in cheek at the number of new build ideas.

 

It tells me that pretty much the only people who can dedicate the serious effort that these projects are required are retired. What's going to be sticky is when we come to the generations born after British manufacture declined and we have far more retired people who can create websites, and far fewer who can operate machine tools.

 

a freight 2-8-2 for use on the national network? That doesn't sound too likely.
And as for it being able to be used on preserved lines, I should think that a 9F could work more or less all lines that a 2-8-2 8F could, and there are real ones of them needing tlc.

 

I've told you lot before. It's the bestest engine for anything, as proven by the fact that the future lead engineer has built a 5" gauge model, and we urgently need to build a fleet of these engines because what we've got at the moment isn't the bestest.

 

Who said it was a freight engine? Based on the 504 rpm guideline this engine should be capable of a safe working maximum of a little under 90 mph. You would classify that as a freight locomotive? My vote is more for mixed traffic - think 8MT. Preserving industrial heritage is one thing, preserving steam on the national network is going to be another if we want to maintain it as a regular event.

The question was "what should be built in the future?" So I take it nothing would be your view. That is fine, you are entitled to it. I am just a little more interested in what should be built for the future, the more so with regard to what has happened this Summer.

 

46118 did.

Please don't attribute opinions to me

 

Got it absolutely in one. For tourist railway use (25mph remember) the only justification is to build something more suited to the work required than what is at hand, rather than a project prompted by the glassy stares of the "wouldn't it be nice" fraternity. "Wouldn't it be nice" if, for a change, we learned a bit from prior mistakes.

PH