New builds - how many will ever really work?

You're referring to the facebook groups established every other week by the same individuals who have undoubtedly scoured the Hornby or Bachmann calatogue for a lost class. In that respect I entirely agree with you. However, these schemes are also fairly easy to spot and I seriously doubt that there'd be many people squandering money or time on them.

Where possible the enthusiasm demonstrated by these young lads (it's hard enough to get kids interested in Steam and getting their hands dirty - at the age of 15 I was climbing into fireboxes to scour it of clinker - I was the only one in my class and this was the late-80's) should be encouraged and channelled. I appreciate that you're skeptical to our particular project but I will say that since Railfest we've had a number of young people in their 20's approach us and we certainly want to encourage them, potentially looking at ways that they can become involved with more experienced individuals in critical areas.

As to new-builds earning their keep, again I agree with you. Where individuals direct their donation money is entirely up to them however if a new-build is an adjunct to a preservation society, funds from preservation of historical stock shouldn't be diverted to the new-build. The fund-raising for a new-build should always be freestanding. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I know of no examples where a new-build has directly siphoned funds away from preservation and restoration. That's certainly been the case at Bluebell with the Atlantic as I understand it - an independent funding stream. Also, I know for a fact that all the serious new-build projects have assessed the cost versus the benefits, and wouldn't venture into into what is a massive undertaking without assessing whether there's a good chance that the project at the end of the day, will be self-sustaining.

As to sensible, by what criteria do you determine sensible? I'm far from a pro free-marketing type, but I'll say that surely punters will determine whether a project has merit or otherwise by choosing to back it, or not even if (and this is where I part ways with free-marketing mantra) the choices aren't entirely rational? Your definition of 'sensible', which you've outlined here on the forum would necessarily preclude the Rocket or Firefly replicas, and yet both prove themselves to be huge draw-cards at any public outing. Your definition of sensible would equally preclude investing funds into preserving what little 4-wheeled stock exists (typically almost a new-build) or into a diminutive late-Victorian Manning Wardle 0-4-0 tank because its use will be limited even if it proves popular with visitors who want to get their picture taken with it. If a very narrow definition of sensible ruled the preservation scene, I doubt for one that we'd even have a preservation scene and if it did exist, many of the public's favourite engines and rolling stock would've been broken up years ago.

If Bluebell determines that a Craven-era engine might make for a nice new-build following the Atlantic then that's for them to determine. They'll do the risk analysis but I strongly suspect that if they do, it might be a sensible prototype - that being, a huge drawcard (something different on offer to the public) and will no doubt earn it's keep. I see the Bluebell being able to tell the history or Southern region steam in one place - from mid-victorian, late-victorian, Edawdian and Georgian through to post-war and nationalisation Steam. Sounds pretty exciting to me. But hey, like you I'm just another opinion.

Yes there'll be more 'pie-in-the sky' schemes but the scene is savvy-enough nowadays not to be too swayed by them. And maybe, just maybe some of the schemes will have a spark of merit which might become something exciting and beneficial to the entire scene? We don't know if the ideas aren't put forward. As we move towards the mid-part of the 21st century and sadly past operational steam in living memory, preservation steam will have to find ways to invigorate itself to attract the public and to attract young people to it. This could be an interesting time.

 

Not a wind up.

At the moment there is no project, and it is unlikely that there will be one until the Atlantic is finished - we don't have the space to pursue too many projects at once, quite apart from the funding issue.

But - at some point in the next few years, the Atlantic will be finished and in revenue earning service, and at that point it is natural that thoughts will turn to "what's next"? A K class mogul would certainly be a good day-in, day-out, bread and butter engine, appropriate to the line and with a fair amount of support. But equally, a Craven engine would be something completely different; probably attractive for renting out to other lines and steam centres when we are running a peak service (just look at how Furness No 20 gets out and about). It would also match our Craven-era carriages, though in all likelihood these would also need to be replicas, as the originals are really too fragile to restore in a conventional sense. But I think a full Craven-era train would be commercially quite attractive, not least for filming work. Right at this moment, some filming is being carried out on the Bluebell dramatising a (historical) train crash in southern England in the 1860s. But the rolling stock is from the 1880s and the engine, though of the right period, is from Cumbria! How much better if we could offer a full, in period, 1860s train (albeit replica), to go with complete trains from the 1880s, 1900s, 1920s and 1950s?

So no project right now, but if I were a betting man, I'd suspect there might be a project up and running within say 10 years. The place to look for an announcement would be on a future revision of the long term plan. Remember, our current long term plan says, amongst the Loco Department Objectives:

A Craven loco would fit that objective (as, indeed, does Beachy Head and as would a K class mogul).

So in summary: not a wind up; no plan yet; don't add it to the list of even "tentative" projects listed on the other new build thread; but don't be surprised if such a plan got announced in the future once Beachy Head is finished.


Tom

 

How does the HMRI view these really early locos and rolling stock for revenue earning work. Surely the brakes and construction aren't really appropriate for anything more than short runs up and down a single length of track? I realise the light railway speed limit is low, but would they be allowed to mix it with the rest of the traffic?

 

That's why you'd have to think out any project carefully - those sorts of ideas aren't worked out on the back of a fag packet. That said, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "mixing with the rest of the traffic". We have rigorous single line working practises to avoid exactly that sort of mixing

Clearly you'd need continuous brakes - the MOSI "Planet" replica has, as far as I can see, air brakes with a compressor in the tender. The underframes of the carriages are steel underframes from 1950s BR vans AFAIK. I'm not sure what the Didcot "Firefly" and replica coaches has. The Bluebell Craven carriages are at least fully enclosed, so no issues around people falling out (unlike, say, the Didcot broad gauge replicas).

Most existing 4 wheelers on the Bluebell (and also the IoWSR, KESR etc) have steel underframes from redundant vans, sometimes suitably shortened. However, the Craven vehicles have very obvious wooden underframes which I'd imagine you would wish to replicate in any reconstruction. That said, we do still run wooden-underframed vehicles, so I am sure that such things wouldn't be an absolute block on running; and a vacuum brake ejector on the loco shouldn't be too obvious an addition.

So building a replica train like that would open up a whole host of issues to be solved - but if there is one thing that railway preservationists have proven themselve sto be, it is resourceful, so I am sure such issues could be overcome.

Tom

 

Firefly has very discreet vac cylinders hidden away in the tender water space. The chassis of both coaches are wooden-clad modified wagon u/frames (the Second is from a Fruit D) & fitted with regular 18" vac cylinders. The Second also has a standard brake setter & small hatch in the trailing end for the Guard to use as a window when propelling 'just in case'. All historically inaccurate mods, but all low-impact on the look of the thing.

The Third has quite high sides, so no issues with people accidentally escaping. In order to 'fall out', you'd have to jump

Pete S.,
C&W Dept.,
GWS Didcot.

 

There are plenty of open coaches in service, not just on the narrow gauge (the Ffestiniog ones running on a line where leaning out isn't a brilliant idea, let alone falling out), but also on standard gauge (Bristol Harbour Railway springs to mind).

I think that it is good to see the sort of thinking that gives rise to creating replicas of early locos and stock. True, they may not be suitable for all year round everyday use on most railways, but they would be a great attraction for special events. Or, on the Bluebell, how about the Ardingly branch as the exclusive domain of 1850s - 1890s type trains? (Runs for cover before the third rail brigade reads this...!)

Steve B

 

I think that they were Salter valves. Saltaire was Titus Salt's wonderful model village in Airedale!

 

That is so. Also I kind of flag I think.

P.H.

 

Apologies, a mis-spelling on my part. Given S.W Johnson of the Midland used Salter valves on his engines extensively, and I hold his designs in high-esteem (a number of books on his work and on Midland practice on the shelf), I should have remembered the correct spelling.

 

And I was confusing "saltaire" with "saltire". One all!

P.H.

 

It shows the difference in cultures and standards between us and elsewhere. In Switzerland you can travel in open wagons behind an 1858 built loco on electrified mainlines, where the only form of braking is the handbrakes on the loco and wagons! And yet here we worry about trundling along 1/4 mile of track at 10mph.

 

Sorry all, I'd've commented on all of this sooner, but I couldn't reach the keyboard because my ego after Mickpop's comment got in the way! No, actually I was escorting my Girlfriend to her PGCE interview.

Anyways this is all very interesting. Mickpop, I totally take your point, the actions of those behind the J39, L1 and L1 facebook pages is immature and exasperating. My point was that whatever it is they are trying to achieve with this behaviour they are showing an interest in steam and that can only be a good thing. As S.A.C. Martin suggests, a 'gentle hand on the shoulder' is what is required, to bring them back down to earth and utilise their enthusiasm intelligently.

Regarding Beachy Head - well if the GWS can make two sets of top gubbins for 6023, I don't see why 32424 can't have the same treatment if ever Umber is on the cards. I'd put my hand in my pocket to make sure that a recreation looked right. And a K?? Yes please!! Very sensible to look at it as an 'after' project for 32424 though, than as a competitor.

I think the chat about really early newbuilds is interesting. It is an area that has seen a lot - Locomotion, Rocket etc., although that bit between 1840 and 1880 is very sparse. The info about the alteration of equipment to allow for continuous brake running is interesting, and heartening. Sadly we don't seem to have the same, perhaps more realistic attitude that may be found on the continent regarding these things. But there are ways around problems, and if you can get it through a risk assessment you can do it! The point about public appeal is very valid - steam is old hat to the punters and they want it to look it. Big funneled engines in bright liveries are popular. So that can alleviate possible issues of power/strength.

I don't think there needs to be a careful separation of replicas of 1850s/60s equipment and more modern equipment - at least, nothing more elaborate than a Tyers Key Token Instrument!

 

I never knew other replicas were being planned on Bluebell. I think a Marsh C2X and a L Billington K Class would be great and have been seen running on the line during BR days. I think a K was on the cards at Bluebell at one point. A Craven loco would be interesting given the line has found some Craven carriage bodies and there aren't any Craven locos in preservation.

Isn't there something similar being planned on the Isle of Wight as part of their long term plan.

 

Well I certainly learnt something there Paul - so thanks. I'd no idea that a Saltire was a flag and happens to be the St Andrews Cross. I just checked it on Wikipedia.

National Preservation - sometimes entertaining, sometimes heated but always informative!

 

Casting my mind across lost LBSCR-types, I personally think R.J. Billington's B2 to B4's were some of the most gracefully, elegant four-coupled express engines ever built (right up there with S.W Johnson's small-boilered 4-4-0's on the Midland) and part of me would love to see one of these (such as Bessemer which is depicted on sign at the Bessemer Arms at Sheffield Park.) evocative machines in steam again, however by all accounts they were not good engines - quite anaemic steamers and barely more powerful than the Stroudley B1's (Gladstone) that they were meant to replace. A K-class Mogul or a Craven would make an excellent follow-up to the H2 Atlantic.

But what beautiful looking engines they were!

A poor-quality image of Bessemer for those unfamiliar with the class:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/B2_Bessemer.jpg

 

Oh well said Knotty. I think that Marsh's rebuilding of them improved them too, but perhaps there we'll have to disagree...?!

 

Have people not already tried this, and they've just carried on blinded by their dream of building a new locomotive?

 

At the risk of being deemed aggressive once more by "Knotty", the people specified above are not the only ones in new build circles who are in need of being brought down to earth. The irony is that a J39 but sans copper boiler, is one of the more sensible ideas for a machine that could earn its keep day in day out. Not as sensible as a C2X would be though as the latter was a simpler, unsuperheated, machine which would cope with the requirements of any tourist railway.

The great thing about the A.1 project was the involvement of real businessmen who understood the need for financial control and to get the project done in a reasonable timescale. This led to inevitable harrumphings in some quarters, particularly over the sourcing of the boiler. More such awareness of time and money is needed.

 

Give 'em time... it's what I needed...

You are in so many ways right Paul. A newbuild project likely to succeed is 10% crazy dreaming and 90% hard headed realism. I think that many if not most of the projects we have seen spring up will be seen through, but I think a number of others won't, much as I'd like to see them succeed.

The only thing you'll pardon my questioning you on is your opposition to 4-4-0s / large wheeled locos in general, and the older locos. I think perhaps you underestimate the stronger 4-4-0s like the George V which I think would romp away with six or seven Mk1s without much hassle on most of the heritage railways about. And the real golden oldies? Ok they won't pull six or seven Mk1s, but they'll pull a replica train. I think given the right marketing a real 'oldie' look can be successful. On somewhere like the IoWSR, or the Bluebell, a smaller loco might find its place.

 

'Bu**er - failed to win the midweek lottery yet again! Guess that means my plans to build a new 'Bulldog' [3456 Great Tit] will have to go on hold again!:Cry:

More seriously though I think any new build scheme needs to convince potential supporters that they have a plan. By that I mean a fairly clear idea of a base for the construction, a timescale, source of components, projected cost and some kind of CV of the key personnel. Knotty has made a number of enthusiastic proposals on this thread and in promoting the George V project yet, if you look at the latter's website, there is precious little about how they intend to proceed other than to seek donations. I know some aspects of the plan, such as timescale, will depend on donations but surely there is a need to know that the 'X' Railway has offered shed space or the founders have access to somewhere and that some of them have financial or engineering experience before anyone dips into their wallet?

Oh no! Me and my big mouth - just found out I won £2.50 on the Plus 5 on Tuesday. Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope!