Which loco do you think should be built in the future

Sorry about that. No slight intended.

 

I don't particularly buy the line of we should be focusing on "what we have already got", much of what is out there, unrestored, is too unappealling, common or impractical to raise the levels of interest needed for its restoration. Barry provided us with a glut of locos, consequently we have the best steam preservation scene in the world, but it has also given us an almighty hangover... The 9Fs, GWR"heavies", Southern Pacifics etc that are festering in long abandoned sidings haven't steamed in nearly 50 years! These locos are too sacred to scrap but will never steam and their only useful function will be as spares donors.

Railway preservation is subject to market forces, just like any other line of business, the market dictates where the money goes. Compare the fate of the unrestored Halls vs the Saint and County rebuilds at Didcot. If people want to sink a couple of million into the new builds, let them: We've seen good progress, indeed we now have a Peppercorn Pacific running on the mainline, the money invested will maintain the skills necessary to build and maintain locos and new build locos can help bolster our steam fleets. Afterall, many of the locos on the preserved lines are approaching their century!

As for projects I would like to see... After the completion of this tranche of locos, the prospective County tank and Dean Single from the GWS would interest me greatly.

 

That's great! (Assuming that no-one actually wants to built their fantasy unless it stands a fair chance of earning its keep)
Actually an "Aberdare" might fulfil this requirement better than a Bulldog.

Let's keep this discussion theoretical rather than tying up money in yet further projects which have the rate of progress of a three toed sloth.

PH

 

maybe the next new build should be oil fired. Could make summers more exciting than this one.
Was looking at an old 1940s ABC the other day.. I was surprised to see the extent of post war oil burning locos was more than just a handful.. in deed it was in the hundreds of locos a drop in the ocean compared to the thousands of coal fired.. but it was more than just a dozen to experiment with.

 

I think we have had this conversation many times before.

From an engineering point of view, railways need something designed for the job, i.e. hauling 4-8 coaches at 25 mph max. The line is 5-10 miles in length, with some exceptions. The grades vary. The engine should steam well and be easy to dispose and maintain. It will be running backwards half of the time.

The solutions to this problem tend to be tank engines of classes 2-4. The three standard tank designs being good examples because they are modern. The group building 82045 mad a very good choice.

Move away from these designs and you're compromising engineering efficiency for emotion. Sometimes the engineering compromises are reasonable, see Holden F5 project, the G5 project. With some there is other compromise but they have bits already Brighton Atlantic). With others there's a lot of compromise from this ideal, which might be OK if they had a lot of emotion (but a Clan, really??? wtf!?)

 

funding is a big factor. I have always thought a midland 2p 4-4-0 with it's SDJR connections would have one of the best chances of raising money, even if it isn't a GWR loco. Simple loco too and a usable size.

 

Just going back to the 2-8-2 freight engine that was ditched for the class 9 2-10-0, with respect I didn't make it up! I was quoting Cox in "BR Standard Steam Locomotives" who lists the proposed design as a "Class 8 2-8-2 Freight" locomotive. Not a mixed traffic engine. Although the diagrams in Cox's book do not show wheel diameters, it looks to me as though the 2-8-2 was proposed with 5ft drivers, to give higher running speeds. It looks as though it was the "adhesion" issue, and Cox's experience with the WD 2-10-0's that pursuaded him to go for the combination of a 2-10-0, and 5ft drivers, ie our class 9, as a freight loco.

Interestingly, in Cox's book "Locomotive Panorama", the exact same diagram for the 2-8-2 is entitled " Proposed BR class 8 mixed traffic locomotive!

You pays your money....

46118

 

Fowler 2-64t followed by another 3 of them.

 

A GWR 439 Bicycle would give a loco of broad gauge 'style' on the standard gauge. Big problem is it would look a bit silly pulling Mk 1s, or indeed any bogie coach!

 

Each to their own but I quite like the looks of the Aberdares, so that would be £10 from me to a new Aberdare group!

 

Thanks Tony M, i new you would come round ...
(but i dont speak at all like Spoilt b8stard from Viz though so you got that wrong... and its a bit bigger than 5" (ooo err, ) its a great Model, but its not mine ( another one with the same idea) and im totally flattered that ive become the lead Engineer...

There is no need for the time being for any new builds/ rebuilds but the amount of want is astounding ?

Thanks 242A1 youve pretty much said what i might have. Perhaps everyone mentions the 2-8-2 because its not such a bad idea either as a 9F Conversion or as a Clan with a chassis redesign ( because if its porta-ised to bits it wont need 42sq feet of grate...)

 

what would be better, a real 9f or one bastardised as a 2-8-2? so pointless...

 

Is suitability for the work more important than attracting volunteer labour and attracting visitors?

 

Pointless is the operative word on this whole subject of "new-builds". Quite apart from whether we need them, there is the question of whether the vast majority of the current schemes will ever reach fruition. Judging from this and other threads, many members seem to believe that several new-builds are sufficiently well advanced for us to be confident of their completion. This may well be so in the case of "Beachy Head" and 2 or 3 others, but I honestly believe that the rest are no-hopers. I have observed a couple of these "well-advanced" schemes at close quarters. The "progress" consists, at best, of a few cheaply produced, mainly cosmetic items and plenty of promises of jam tomorrow, but little or no engineering work in progress and an apparent lack of understanding of the basics of steam engineering.
Unfortunately, there are people who put substantial sums of money into these schemes, fondly imagining, having seen the websites, that they will live to see their "dream loco" steam. That money would be far better spent on restoring and maintaining what we already have or, if the donors can't bring themselves to do that, they may as well spend it down the pub!
So the answer to the question? None!

 

Given that modern, enlightened view of steam locomotives is more in favour of smaller driving wheel diameters, a 60" driving wheel on a locomotive capable of running at speeds on the Network higher than those currently permitted is most definitely mixed traffic judged by the old BR power classifications.
Why build a 2-8-2? Well the type was proposed as a Std. and would be a worthy project particularly considering the fact that we do not have a Standard Gauge locomotive of the type working in the UK. The type was widely used throughout the rest of the world and gave much satisfaction. We have the 9F, quite a few of them really, but they are no longer permitted on the mainline. They are perhaps worthy enough engines but the design does not lend itself to the modifications needed to combat the line side fire menace. With an engine based on the Std Mikado you could both eat your cake and have it. You would have a high capacity engine, coal fired, that would retain the traditional BR design style.
If you want to build purely for preserved line use, guided by the example of the sole surviving K4, I would go for a batch of V3s.

 

Not sure that's a fair summation of the sheer number of new builds in various forms already operating up and down the country! If you discount standard gauge, new builds have been commonplace in Narrow Gauge for the last fifty years and continue to be. If you bring back standard gauge, you've got the largest new build (Tornado) and the smallest (Rocket/Planet and similar) working on a daily basis.

In the middle, you have a Saint - nearly there, a Patriot - minus the boiler and associated fittings (but with a rolling chassis and tender), you have a Standard 2MT with boiler and rolling chassis, a Standard 3MT with the chassis sans wheelsets at present, Beachy Head which, though a kit of parts, has all the major components bar the tender, you have a rolling chassis of a 47xx in theory and both a Grange and a County in various stages of construction. Of all these have their dedicated supporters and are progressing slowly but surely.

I am certain there's a few other notable new builds which are also under construction and with significant engineering gone into them, that I have forgot there. That's at least eight there, four of which benefit directly from standardization of parts (GWR) and two which have benefited from standardisation period (2MT and 3MT). Beachy Head benefited from an original GNR boiler and the Patriot has virtually become a rolling chassis and nearing a complete locomotive in a very, very short space of time thanks to national coverage and a major charity backing its build.

No-hopers? Rather harsh.

Are we looking at the same projects...?

I think the issue with railway preservation is that no one will ever agree that there are two ways to do things: restore and new build, in parallel, to show what we saved, and what we lost. There's no middle ground for agreeing that, actually, some of these new build projects are doing rather better than we'd like to admit and that, lo and behold, they actually work...

 

In response to 242A1, I was rather hoping I could say "take one of the unrestored 9F's, take out the rear coupled wheels, modify the frames and stick a trailing truck under, and voila! the never-built class 8 2-8-2" !

Unfortunately looking at the diagrams the 2-8-2 would have used the "Britannia" boiler, not the 9F boiler.
Good try, good try....

46118

 

Gresley P1 2-8-2......