567 Victorian 4-4-0 New Build

That rather implies that a critical path has been identified. All that I can recall from AGMs is a vague intention to start at the bottom of the loco and work up, roughly in the order frames - bogie/ motion/ footplate - wheels - boiler. Then at the AGMs is the phrase, 'we've got xxx in the bank and we can use that to build yyy' (for the last 3 years that 'yyy' has been the bogie, the motion and the footplate, and yet the following AGM no progress has been made). As a financial supporter of the project, surely I'm not being unreasonable in taking a view that I should see some result for my support? If I were of a cruel mind I'd make the observation that the only thing that happens on time where this project is concerned is the direct debit out of my bank account.

Entirely agree with this point of view. The donor parts that are earmarked for use are spares from the Corby tanks I understand, so would otherwise be going idle.

Sorry to say that the last two years suggest this project is more the latter than the former.

The argument has always been made at the AGMs that this is a Victorian loco, it's that much smaller, lacking much of the complication that later mainline locos have. Think of it as an industrial engine with taller driving wheels and some nicer detailing. There's a perception amongst the Trustees that this relative simplicity should equal significant cost benefit, I'm not quite so convinced about that.

 

Sorry Tom I had mis-remembered and the cost was estimated as £500K as the 567 website makes clear....

"The project is well underway at its base at the Great Central Railway (Nottingham) (GCRN) site in Ruddington just south of Nottingham. The frames have been constructed and the project has benefited from major donor components including a cylinder block, GCR tender and coupling rods. It is estimated it could be complete in ten years at a cost of around half a million pounds."
This was written pre covid etc. It is a "relatively" simple engine with no superheating, hence the lower cost.

 

I think it is somewhat naive assuming that "relatively" simple is going to reduce the cost that significantly. For example, how much do you think a set of "simple" wheel sets is going to cost, relative to an "ordinary" set? Or how much the brakes are going to cost relative to a more complex loco?

The nearest comparison new build I'd suggest is the G5; both are four-coupled, eight-wheeled locos with saturated boilers. The G5 has the additional work of tanks and bunker to fabricate; but 567 has a tender tank to fabricate and chassis to overhaul. Up to the end of 2021, the G5 had spent just under £1m, and still has some way to go. It's hard to see how 567 can be substantially cheaper.

I think I'd also be wary about the potential savings of a set of cylinders from a different loco. Unless they are dimensionally exactly the same (not just bore and stroke, but things like inclination and cylinder centre lines) then you risk having to make all sorts of dimensional adjustments elsewhere in the design to make things fit. As a simple example, if the centre lines are not the same pitch, then you need to redesign the crank axle, which could have all sorts of other knock-on effects, relative to just copying the original design.

Tom

 

Wheelsets were originally quoted as something like £36K, which included the pattern (but not the tyres) - but it's likely that the figure quoted has gone well out of the window now, given the price increases oveer the last 4 years.

 

Hi Tom
I agree that the G5 is very similar and they are both "Relatively" simple compared to several other New Builds as they don't have so many axles, bogies, brakes coupling rods, superheater etc. Compared to the P2, Patriot, B17 they are both "Cheap" and yes the £500K for the 567 may well now be an underestimate.

 

It was always an understatement. I remember reading the breakdowns of the costings, and wondering where were these figures coming from. Steam railway did a really good breakdown of all the new builds a few years ago that had the prices in it. Cant remember what they were.

 

Is 567 still being built or has that project gone kerput?
Also, if it does get built and put back into service, what can it actually pull?

 

As of the present it is still ongoing (though, as you may have read from the above, at a glacial pace with precious little being communciated to its supporters). When completed, it will have a working pressure of 160psi which the Group believes will translate into being able to handle 6 bogie coaches.

 

Per Driving Wheels issue 107 (August 2023)
- Intention is apparently to use Ruddington as a base but contract more construction work out than originally intended;
- The Group plans to be in attendence at the 'Meet the Fleet' event at Ruddington in late August;
- Open Day and AGM to be held late October, date tbc.

- Drawings for the rear dragbox are being checked over before being released for manufacture;
- Brackets for the footplate/ running plate and valancing are being fabricated;
- Bogie hornblocks are around 50% machined;
- Driving wheel hornblocks are being machined.

Fellow supporters of the project will probably experience the same sense of Deja Vu that I did, on reading that. It's much the same list of 'works in progress' as was given in Driving Wheels 105 and 106.

 

If more work is to be contracted out than originally planned to speed up the progress, then more money will need to be raised. What fundraising initiative is being put forward to increase the income?

 

Good question Gav!
I believe the project actually has a reasonable amount of cash in hand as it had been raising about £20K per year via regular monthly donations. Then there were specific items for funding in addition.
However, there only appears to be four or five regular workers/volunteers active and with the problems (now hopefully over) at Ruddington and Covid, progress had stalled and funding has declined.
As the 563 T3 at Swanage has shown, there is a clear enthusiasm for such running locomotives and so, perhaps, the 567 project will gain a fresh burst of activity which will encourage more financial support.....

 

There comes a point when the fundraising almost becomes self-sustaining, which I think is reached when regular and obvious progress starts to become visible. For 567 at the moment I believe that would be completion of the bogie, getting the cylinder block sorted out and fitted, getting the Corby spares finally secured for the project, and getting the driving wheel hornblocks completed. Once a couple of those are done the frames can actually be set up and rivetted together, and at that point it becomes less an assemblage of sheet metal and more recognisably the foundation of a locomotive.

As @Flying Phil says, if there's only a small group of regular volunteers that point could be some time away yet, however I do wonder just how much of that list the £80K sitting in the bank would buy.

 

There is a new newsletter to supporters which is gratifying. One of the positives is that the "Corby Spares", mentioned by J Rob't, have now been purchased - which will provide not only a cost saving but also a time saving.
The fundraising has continued with over £85,000 in the fund, so sub contracting of parts and manufacture can accelerate. A fabricated rear drag box is being made.
The AGM is set for Oct 21st at Ruddington.

 

I agree, good news indeed that the valvegear spares are now formally the property of the project. Good news, also, about the rear dragbox fabrication and the progress on the hornblocks.

Looking forward to the AGM next month.

 

Can anyone say what the "Corby spares" consisted of?

 

There's a list given in the newsletter;
- 2 slide valve castings
- 2 crosshead castings
- 2 valve buckles and splindles

 

I can’t help thinking that, by time those parts have been refurbished, the marginal cost saving over making new will be rather small. At which point you have to consider the design compromises forced by trying to use non-standard (for the loco) parts; those will result in considerable rework. (For example - what if the valve spindles are an inch too short? Or the crosshead half an inch too deep? You start monkeying around with the design to add an inch to the valve rods to compensate or space out the slide bars and suddenly you are in to whole reams of redesign, just to save a fraction on a recovered part).

I can see advantages in reusing some high - complexity, non dimensionally -critical parts such as brake valves, lubricators etc - things that would be expensive to make new but don’t force any design compromises. But I’d be very wary of anything dimensionally critical. The problems of reuse of unsuitable components ought to be one of many lessons from the Patriot project.

Tom

 

You dont

Not completely true, i know you like to bash the patriot project at every opportunity, however lets keep things factual.

Using component's from other locos and changing the design to fit what we had would have been fine for heritage only running, every part was also given the ok from the VAB we had at the time, however it was unknown to us that that VAB wasnt able to give us the certification we required.

If we had made the decision when we changed our management to be heritage only, a lot of the parts could have been used.

However i do worry that the gcr 567 will become very much a look a like version rather than a replica if they go down the route that has been mentioned in the past using boilers from something else etc.

 

When the project was launched I believe the intention was to reuse a boiler, however it was then discovered that said boiler was a relic from one of the last Midland & Great Northern locomotives and deemed to be too historically significant to be used for a newbuild.

Since 2016 (when I became a Supporter and started attending AGMs), various ideas have been put forward at various times;
1. "The boiler design is very close to that from an Austerity tank - within fractions of an inch - so we could use one of those, if one came available".
2. "The boiler design is very close to that from an Austerity tank - within fractions of an inch - so we can discuss with Austerity owners and look to putting in a bulk order for boilers with them".
3. "We could team up with some Austerity owners and put in a bulk order for boilers, with ours being very similar but bespoke".
4. "We'll order a bespoke boiler".

Mechanically speaking even if we do have a bespoke boiler built, it's still going to be a lookalike in some regard because the cylinder block is designed to run on 160psi whilst the original locomotives were set to 140. The last time this was mentioned at an AGM it was followed by 'so our boiler will be pressed to 160psi'. So performance-wise it will be supercharged, for want of a better expression. Then again, that additional 20psi apparently means she'll be able to handle six bogie carriages on the GCR and therefore would make her more of a useful engine to have around.

 

I'm not particularly an expert on Austerity boilers, but, superficially, looking at the diagram on the home page of the 567 project (https://static.wixstatic.com/media/...cacaa5a2d9cb13c7b52~mv2_d_6622_4677_s_4_2.jpg) shows the original had a sloping grate, whereas the diagram here https://www.ssplprints.com/products/pod1036845 shows a flat grate for an Austerity. That implies a fairly different firebox shape. Similarly, the diagram on the 567 homepage gives 10'8" boiler barrel length, 4'2" diameter; whereas a diagram here https://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/ldp/austerity/portaausterity.htm gives 10'2" barrel length, 4'3" diameter for an Austerity. Essentially the Austerity boiler is 6" shorter, slightly larger diameter, with a different firebox shape - and that is before you start looking at internals like tube layout.

My concern is that by attempting to use parts of similar - but not identical - design, you are going to bake in dimensional variation that sooner or later is going to make packaging the whole thing a compromise. In particular, on the mechanical side, the dimensional relationship between cylinders (and blast pipe), motion bracket, driving axle and trailing axle has to dovetail with the boiler dimensions of smokebox length, barrel length and firebox length and depth. If the diagrams I've linked to are right, cutting six inches out of the barrel length is going to start giving problems in laying everything out that you wouldn't have if you just stuck as close as possible to the original dimensions. At best you might end up with visually obvious compromises (for example , adding the missing six inches to the smokebox length behind the chimney so as to get the chimney lined up with the blast pipe); at worst things simply won't fit.

Not sure I understand the point about "the cylinder block is designed to run on 160psi". Do you just mean that the cylinder bore and stroke will be the same as the original locos, but with 160psi boiler pressure the nominal TE will be higher?

Tom