Replica builds for heritage lines.

Think wishfully if you must.

PH

 

I'm making a very generalised comment of course Paul: there is no need to be quite so dismissive.

Yes maybe some enthusiasts do seek excuses to run bigger engines. So what? Variety is the spice of life. That doesn't also mean there aren't real and quantifiable reasons as to why you'd run a bigger steam locomotive over a smaller one.

If you're going to go down that route, don't have a steam locomotive at all, use a diesel. And don't use a big diesel with mk1s behind it, god no - use a Pacer, it's more efficient for the small crowd of people you'd have visiting. #sarcasm

Gotta say Paul that post sums you up. Narrow minded and probably imbuing all of the qualities of papal infallibility.

 

Preserved railways are in show business. It isn't about providing transport but about putting on an entertaining show as possible for the paying customer.

So they feel they are getting the maximum value for their money.

Sawdust.

 

"Gotta" say S.A.C. Martin You always have to have the last word which, with reluctance, I have. Bye bye.

P.H.

 

Pot, kettle!

Sawdust.

 

You'd think the time would come when its cheaper to build new than seek to repair indefinitely, but I suppose if 1234 gets a new boiler at the 2020 rebuild, new frames at the 2030 rebuild and new wheels and motion at the 2040 rebuild the difference is somewhat notional.

 

"Beachy Head" is being built by the Bluebell Railway for use on the Bluebell Railway, as is 84030 (rather than by independent groups aiming to hire them out subsequently).

Tom

 

I didn't know that - so do they get an annual budget from the general railway "pot" in the same way normal departments do then?

 

I'd say the difference is huge, as you get 30 years' worth of running and steaming fees, so more useful than a set of frames sat in a workshop, and income above and beyond donations, but the net result is still a good condition loco.

 

I stand open to correction on this but hasn't the FR built 4 New Locos?
I am however totally ignorant as to how they were funded. Perhaps someone can enlighten those of us who don't know?

 

The FR "replicas"/new-builds (rebuilds?!?) are all FRCo pwned, although there were appeals for their construction.
They were, of course, eminently suited to FR traffic needs.
Where PH is right (he generally is although here as often he overstates the case) is that it would be much better for new builds to concentrate on class 2/3/4 locos suitable for the lines they will run on, rather than Class 7/8 locos. He is also right to say future generations will bless us for choosing locos which are easier to operate and maintain.
However it is highly unlikely that more of locos we already have would attract enough initial seed funding to get built.
Personally I would like to see more of an attempt to fill the larger gaps in companies and types operating today. Also locos which would actually have run on the line in question (or in the area/type of line).
However I confidently expect we will see appeals for every class 6 and above loco before we ever see a class 3/4 tank such as a GCR 4-6-2T or another L&Y 2-4-2T or similar useful types - let alone another post-war 2-6-2T.

 

I haven't included narrow gauge in my post due to the costs being cheaper and there are quite a few newbuilds in narrow gauge.

With regards to the Brighton Atlantic and the class 2 tank I didn't know they were Bluebell project. That's quite interesting. So do they have their own newsletters? How does the funding work for that? Or is it a case of a group of Bluebell members wish to build this loco and run it here and be owned by the railway and in return the railway let's them use its publications for funding? But they still have to go out and fundraise like the rest of the groups and put it in a segregated bank account? Or does the railway actually put money into it?

What I meant was that from Paul's posts he seemed to be saying the railways should pay for a new build rather than a group who go about funding and I was saying that I'm pretty sure most railways would prefer not to have the Hassel of building a brand new loco. It takes up a massive amount of time and effort to build one which the railways would prefer to use keeping the line open.

With regards to the enthusiasts wanting locos that are over powered for the job, well then that's a simple yes. I don't even see what's wrong with it. If your wanting to run a theme park then you could do loads that would make the line cheaper and easier to run. Might as well remove all the toilets in the coaches for buggy and pram space, remove the tables so that there is less to clean and easier to vacuum the floor etc etc etc. But why can't we as enthusiasts just do what he have always done and put our money into our pockets and pay for the work to be done? Just because it's not the most efficient doesn't mean we can't do it, just means we have to be smarter about how we go about doing it. I know I have a load of ideas about making a site and it being very profitable and heading in a direction of a theme park but you wouldn't know from the outside.

 

Sounds fine to me. How else do you explain the success of the several different NG lines in Saxony? Having spent a happy few days over there in 2009 visiting 3 different lines and two further static museums, seeking out as many Saxon-Meyers as possible (I think I managed 6 or 7, 3 in steam), I would quite happily go back for more.

 

Generally speaking though the only option for the NG lines is newbuild as there are not large numbers of (insert gauge) locos around unlike standard gauge.

Having said that however the WSR created 9351 to do a job which there was not a suitable loco available for

 

It would be interesting to know the weights for 9351 to see what GW route availability colour it would go in, and also the factor of adhesion. Does anyone have them?

 

If you were to build a new fleet of locos and lay aside the old ones you could guarantee:

1) There would be calls to restore them and not let them rust away or be plinthed / caged / stuffed etc;

2) Somebody would start a fund to restore them;

3) Somebody else would pull them apart and spread the bits everywhere; and

 

Maybe the debate here is getting a bit too polarised?

Surely the proposition is not that the Lower Snoring Heritage Railway should get hold of a couple of new build 2MTs and then stop using all its older locos.

It is much more likely that a small build of modern, efficient, small or mid-sized new locos, spread around several heritage lines, would be used to step in and shoulder much of the day to day burden of running trains. Using the new locos in this way would still enable (and indeed facilitate, by saving some of the everyday wear and tear) the older and more unusual locos in the line's historic fleet to be in use on special occasions (or even for a limited part of the everyday running). Both the general public and the knowledgeable enthusiast ought to be happy with this.

This seems to me a good concept, and may be the direction some of the larger preserved lines (like the Bluebell) are already heading in.

 

Unfortunately the loco, of whatever size and age, has to generate sufficient income one way or another during its ten year ticket to finance its overhaul at the end of that ticket. If it hasn't raised sufficient, it then becomes a matter for benefactors to make up the difference. If it is used only on high days and holidays, then a) it won't have earned enough to pay for the overhaul, and b) benefactors willing to spend a lot of money to see it spend most of its time standing idle will be few and far between.

 

An E2 would make a neat project for the Bluebell

 

You are quite right. IMHO this is the principal reason why locomotives should be in the ownership of the organisation operating the railway. Some lines are moving towards this situation.


PH