Will standard gauge steam railways ever be able to order a new loco ?

With various new build projects going on. I often wonder whether there will come a time when some of the bigger steam railways may decide to build new locos themselves particularly ones that are appropriate for their line.

Could it be for example that in the future a railway like the Severn Valley decide to build a new loco for themselves (or contract it out) ? At the moment it is only happening with private volunteer groups. ? or narrow gauge.
What do people think ? Will they ever be able decide, we would like such and such a loco and just go and get one built ?

 

In theory, sure. The larger railways certainly generate the kind of revenue to secure a loan, or perhaps buy outright, to manifest such an order.

However, who are they contracting it out to?

At present there is no one stop shop, either design house, project manager or machine shop/fabricator for a respective customer to order such a thing from, if I am correct?

 

I would have thought that once it was known that someone was in the market for a new loco there are individuals and organisations with the skill to offer to undertake the job

 

they are already in essence...82045 on the SVR and 6880 at Llangollen for instance.

 

"Beachy Head" is being funded and built by the Bluebell Railway, for use on the Bluebell Railway.

Tom

 

when you walk around the Bluebell and see the quantity of small engines they have when they really need larger engines, you can see why they'd build Beachey Head/ They need a decent museum building.(have you seen their new C&W building?

 

But yet have a 9F & 2x Standard 4 ( Tank and 75) that would be much quicker to overhaul than build from new.

 

In my line of business the client issues an ITT (invitation to tender), giving details of their requirements.
Potential vendors, or perhaps consortia, are then able to respond to the ITT.

 

they are already building BH, so I'm a bit non-plussed. Your arguement would be valid for any further new builds, although I always felt the 9F was too big for this line.

 

Coming by back to the OP, you could get really purist and say "will there ever be a company that builds a new locomotive lock, stock and barrel?" and of course the answer is no. Not even the great railway works did that - they contracted in items like lubricator, injectors etc - and in modern terms, there is no works that could, from their own internal resources, do tasks as diverse as cut a set of frames, cast wheels, press wheels onto axles, forge and machine motion etc.

So being less purist, all the new builds I know end up essentially project managing a complicated supply chain, with some things directly made in house, and others contracted out. At which point, the question isn't "will it ever happen?" but rather "how many places is it already happening?"

Tom

 

What I was thinking of is that at the moment new build projects have been 'one off' locos like the A1, P2, Patriot etc. In these cases a lot of work is done getting the designs together, then parts made, patterns made etc but just for 1 loco, then the next project is something different where it all has to be done again.

Could it be that a smaller loco could be built by such organisations, something simpler like say a Fowler 3F, Jinty, J15, or Pannier tank etc. Where a batch of 3 or 4 are built the same and then either sold or hired to different railways. In this way each loco would be cheaper because the design/testing process is only done once and only 1 set of patterns etc for the batch. Maybe they could advertise that they planned to build a batch of this particular design and see who might want one. There must also be wealthy individuals who might decide to have one of the batch. I see adverts in Steam Railway where this seems to be already happening for small narrow gauge locos. Also if they have the drawings/patterns already they could build additional locos at a future date.

Ironically organisations like the Bluebell and Severn Valley are probably the railways that least need them as they already have a large number of Engines already. It would benefit newer lines that need steam but started after Barry Scrapyard had been emptied.

 

I visited Bluebell and Severn in 1975 and liked it very much.
Tank, not tender engines I would say.
Maximum speed 40 mph?4 feet drivers OK?
Max axle load 15 tons and 60 tons ahesive?
2-8-2 three cylinder compound.
A bit of angle grinding platform edges.
Lovely and can even be usefull outside UK.

 

On a narrower gauge Hunslet (Statfold Barn) a few years ago announced they had produced components for a batch (not sure how many) of Quarry Hunslets - but only two were completed and none were sold.

 

It would depend on the railway. On the SVR, which is the one I know, the tank engines currently in use are restricted to six-coach trains, not by what they can pull but the amount of water their tanks can hold. And during the season the SVR regularly runs eight trains, often made up to nine, and occasionally ten. Four foot wheels are a bit of small for running sixteen miles (twenty on the WSR) at something over half their nominal maximum speed, and wear will rise in proportion. You are also suggesting an eight-coupled loco, which will suffer excessive rail head and wheel flange wear on the tight curves that many of these ex-branch lines have.

It might well be suitable for short runs and fairly straight lines, but I can't see the 'big' lines being interested in it.

 

Ok just to point out a few things.

The way you are talking is to build at a cost price. So take 82045 for instance. They have fantastic available skills to make the work cheaper and save costs. But what you seem to be saying is to just put up the money and someone else will build it and deliver.

So on this basis its going to cost more. A brand new jinty ish size loco on that type of build will still cost 1.5 million to project manage.

What railway could afford that?!?!??! When you could just offer a loco group a slightly higher steaming fee to bring their own loco down and have one ready to run rather than waiting 5 years for one to be delivered.

I love new builds as im only 31 and never got to see the different types in steam. But i do realise that all of them are quite simply "enthusiast filling up their ABC" to see a lost class that they liked. Building a batch is far far more difficult to fund as people already have one to see.

 

Thinking about it, aren't the GWR 2251 0-6-0's basically a tender version of the 94xx Pannier Tank? That would allow for a two versions of the same loco which would help costs and choice.

Presumably both designs would be big enough for almost any Heritage Railway job.

 

I think there could be a potential market for a series of trad looking 2-6-0 tender locomotives to cater to the family market. Outside cylinders, walshaerts, version of a 43xx type loco. Give it every modern enhancement you want to make operating costs as low as possible and reduce maintenance. Roller bearings everywhere practicable, oil/propane firing. Keeps the good stuff for the galas etc where the people who do care will be, an everyday, everyman loco. Regional sensitivities could be catered to in cab design/chimney styling and livery, but the core of the machine would be standard. Not a tank locomotive-the non-enthusiasts CAN tell the difference and do enjoy the "glamour" of a tender loco, and not a BR standard 3.

If a moderate number were built, using standard parts there would be many benefits-exchange boilers for 10yr overhauls anyone?

 

And who is going to pay for such an engine??

Look at the 5AT project. In the whole its railway enthusiasts who are paying for steam loco restoration and new builds. Not joe public. They would not be interested in funding locos that they have no interest in.

 

BR Class 3MT 77021 anyone? It seems to have gone quiet lately on this one. The boiler is not the same as a GWR large prairie design but similar.

 

The 5AT is a very interesting proposal, and one which I supported, but is a very "niche enthusiast interest" project. It was completely eclipsed by Tornado, and there simply wasn't enough interest/support from enthusiasts to proceed. Could it be that our technical interest in steam is not as powerful a motivating force as sheer nostalgia?

The point I was trying to make was a traditional looking locomotive would have marketable appeal to the general public. Such a machine could be built to be economical to maintain and operate, which could be a sensible option for some steam lines.

I do not think that the BR Class 3MT would fit the bill. They are certainly an acquired taste-To many of the general public, they are ugly, unattractive machines. However good they might be, they lack charm.

As to who would pay-get a loan, put it on finance the same way as a haulier might buy a new lorry or whatever. Make a business case based on operational costs etc. A locomotive with 30-50 years working life costing outright as much as a 10 year overhaul on an already aged locomotive. It is the general public who pay the operating costs of a steam railway, and a locomotive which can cheaply and reliably help the public to spend their money on a steam train ride might be a better business decision than restoring a barry wreck that has rusted for the past 50 years.