L1 new build

L1 Locomotive group | Facebook

 

:blabla:

:doh:

:flypig:

etc

Tom

 

.....Somehow I doubt this one will go anywhere. It's seemingly started as a facebok group.

 

Hang on its not sunday yet.. There's only room for 1 a week.

Most people can't keep up with Hornby, how's everyone going to be able to subscribe to all these ?
Its funny how once a trainset was enough, then came the teenagers buying class 37s... Now everyone is building a steam locomotive.
Anyone read any books any more ?

Ah forget it.. I'm going to propose an LMS garatt rebuild using two class 08 chassis with a weltrol balanced on top and that recently scrapped avonside boiler. After the next overhaul or When I'm done I'll add cardboard sides and number it 36002.

 

You're already involved in one newbuild project you know nothing about which most doubt will get anywhere. have the J39 discussions not taught you guys anything????

Keep em coming. Then we can pop the new build bubble and get back to preservation

 

Ah ha... Missed the connection.
maybe the commonality of parts between an L1 and J39 means its cost effective... You know the parts... Vac pipe, screw link coupling, paint supplier... :rofl: Fowler tender

I must hold back now. :loco:

 

Wooo, some newbuild projects are VERY serious, and there is no doubt that some newbuilds are very much needed, 82045 for instance is an excellent newbuild tank and other tanks for preservation will be needed, weather or not this one is or does is a different matter tho, but dont target all newbuilds on some of the new newbuilds recent ideas.

 

Some are serious and will be finished, the actual new builds (not just lookalikes assembled from various locos) that spring to mind are the 3MT, Patriot & the G5 but there seem to be more & more that will never be finished or even anywhere near completion, this is just the latest in a long line of daydreams and it won't be the last.

 

I daresay Gav. Some projects i WANT to see work, such as the P2 project(s), LMS 10000 and Hengist but it seems to me an incredibly unsustainable business model for the preservation movement to be adopting. Although i personally may like some of these to come real, i feel the money being spent on stuff like J39, L1, 82045 etc could be better spent on restoring what already exists.

I really struggle to see how building new locos can possibly be a more economical alternative to restoring that which already has been built, even more so seeing how they're then 'needed'. Love to be proven wrong here

 

Is there any way someone (NRM/HRA) could devise some sort of accreditation scheme to prove the worthiness of new-builds as a measure of trust for those handing over their money? Factors could include how many years of volunteering the board members have and how many engines they have restored to fruition, how much management experience the board has, and so forth, so that investors know they are giving to a project that will go beyond a facebook group. Half the projects out there don't deserve any airtime due to the very low scoring on the factors I've listed.

 

Putting aside the credibility of those starting these new build projects, the fact is that a J39, L1 or Std Cl 3 tank are far more worthwhle projects than a P2, Patriot, County, Grange, LMS diesel or Clan. the heritage railway movement in general could do a lot with the first mentioned and they could see intensive use . The use of the bigger locos is really unnecessary on heritage railways and they are only going to fulfil their promise on the big railway, which will never utilise them as they need to be. The bubble already seems to be bursting with Tornado. At least, that's the impression I get. I'll hide, now!

 

I think its pretty unfair to link the 82045 project, which has the backing of a leading heritage railway and has already succeeded in creating the frames of their new build, amongst various other components with projects that, without wishing to offend, have little to no credibility AS OF YET. Personally I think it makes much more sense to be building locos that are suitable for the vast majority of heritage railways rather than named express loco after express loco suitable only for mainline running, a branch of our hobby that surely has a less secure future.

I imagine the argument is as follows; a reasonable "average" ball park figure for cost of overhaul for ex BR locos now is £500,000. Seldom are overhauls completed for much less now. So for simplicity's sake lets say it costs £500,000 for each 10 years of operation. Then an estimated cost of say £1m for a new build loco gives an entirely new machine for 10 years. Then at overhaul it is entirely reasonable to suggest that the cost would be a fraction of £500,000. After a couple of overhaul cycles surely it does begin to make financial sense, no?


(Please bare in mind that the "new build cost" is entirely a fictional estimation from me, but is not, i believe, totally unreasonable)

Cheers,
Andy

 

Indeed Andy and as soon as you factor in the toll that mainline running will take on many of our big locos, Flying Scotsman moneypit restorations will only increase in numbers as more and more of the "original" components will need to be replaced. The locos were designed to last a couple of decades in terms of active service, not 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, etc.

As for an earlier suggestion, it would be good to see a differentiation between those builds that stand a chance and those that are internet based conjecture. It would be difficult and contraversial to organise though.

 

I suspect that the pioneers of our movement were seen as a tad bonkers at the time but they proved their detractors wrong. Maybe these guys will succeed, maybe they won't but deriding their efforts is below the belt IMHO and shows the immaturity of those doling out the derision. Shame on you.

 

Before I get my head bitten off again about various schemes I would just like to make one point

As a 'fact' a steam locomotive is highly inefficient as a means of locomotion. It requires ongoing maintenance, is labour intensive and creates an environmental problem.

What you are dealing with are people's emotions and those very often do not very often follow 'facts'. Bigger locomotives with evocative names can have a greater emotional impact than a 'workhorse'.

 

There are too many new build idea about at the moment and a lot of the newer ones will just crumble into nothing im afraid, despite that, im curious why anyone would want an L1 of all things, from reputation were the things not a bit crap ?.

If you want a Large/Medium Eastern Tank then i'd suggest a V1/V3 would be a better option.

 

A couple of friends of mine handled L1s on the GN and they don't speak highly of them. Could be really rough riders at times and a bit light footed so they tell me.

 

In mentioning P2s and Hengist, I was just citing a few examples of ones I'd personally like to see, all the while maintaining it would be a better use of money restoring what already exists.

I can see where you're coming from as far as new build vs overhaul is concerned in terms of cost, but that 1 million pounds and each subsequent 500,000 could be better spent making new components for existing engines when and as needed. And in 40/50 years time when the new builds wear out, what then? Do we build yet more new? Just how much money does preservation actually have, and for how long?

(I'm not getting personal against projects like 82045, etc, I admire the enthusiasm but I'm trying to convey my flaws in the logic)