New builds - how many will ever really work?

What happened to the tender from NBR Atlantic Abbotsford ?


Keith

 

That was very helpful and this is clearly a scheme that is being well thought out and planned - may it flourish!

I still think there are arithmetical and demographic arguements to be made about the number of schemes that can flourish at the same time. Maybe we tend to think that, because we inhabit a forum whose membership is somewhat specialist in outlook, that there is a large group of people out there with similar specialist knowledge and interest who are going to be hell bent on producing one from a long list of proposed prototypes [you only have to see that the next post to your last one is suggesting that we scour the list of Scottish classes to come up with some suggestions - not a bad idea considering their under-representation in the preserved stock, I would like to see a Pickersgill or McIntosh 4-4-0 or a Clan or a Castle [no not that kind!]. Give any of us half a chance and we are lost in a fantasy world where we dream of recreating what we, usually, never even saw in the flesh, or rather the steel. I think the potential for support is much less and getting smaller as those who actually saw some of these classes, or even know something of even earlier designs that they did not see, grow older. I have to admit I had to look up Craven because it was a name I did not recognise, maybe because I'm a bloody Northerner! Sure there will be younger enthusiasts who will want to get involved but I think we over-estimate their number because of our perspective.

Anyway I am clearly being a party pooper so will shut up and let the passage of time prove who is right on this one.

 

I really hope to be able to give you more concrete facts and figures over the coming weeks and months, and I fully expect that I'll be able to do so. I realise that I'm still currently talking in non-specifics and generalisations except where in a fews matters we have a degree of clear resolution, such as the promise of matched-funding in tranches. There are specifics behind the scenes which if bear out, should add quite a bit more meat to the bones of this proposal but as they're still under negotiation and may not pan out, I'm unable to discuss them right now.

But please be assured that if I make a claim or assertion here, I expect that I'm to be cross-examined and challenged on them. After all that's what a forum such as NP is about. I also recognise that everyone here broadly shares a common passion and wants what's best for preservation steam in the UK, even if people might disagree about priorities and methodologies. By keeping this in mind, I'm sure everyone hopes that discussions can be civil, respectful, interesting and informative even where there's passionate disagreement.

As to the number of new-builds that can be sustained, it's impossible to tell whether saturation has been reached. Some said that one new-build was too much (ie. Tornado) even though I would posit that much of it's financial support stemmed form individuals who don't hold an interest in preservation per se but were rather attracted to that particular proposal. If there were no Tornado, chances are they wouldn't have spent their money elsewhere in the preservation scene. It would nonetheless be interesting to know exactly the break-down of numbers.

As a number of new-build projects reach maturity and see the finish-line in sight even if that line is still a few years off, it's understandable that there'll be a 3rd wave of new-builds commencing (Tornado being the first-wave, Patriot, G5, Beachy Head et al being among the 2nd). There'll of course be frivilous proposals even if the engines in question may have merit. The thing is, we're all becoming more discerning through sheer experience and familiarity with new-build projects - more able to pick the serious contenders from the so-called 'facebook' new-builds. and who knows, if in 10 years there happens to be a '4th wave', perhaps we'll see a Pickersgill or McIntosh 4-4-0 or a Reid Atlantic.

As to encouraging youth to take an interest in preservation steam, while we may be over-estimating the appeal equally it's true that the movement can be doing more. Discussion on this topic can only be helpful. Anyway, thanks for your comments and for the scrutiny. No need to shut up. If you feel compelled to pose questions when next I'm able to present some further information or clarification on the project, then please do so!

 

As a Parthian shot, I have just travelled behind a USA tank on the Kent & East Sussex, hauling five corridors up 1 in 30 in damp conditions. It would be entertaining to see a high wheeled four coupled machine trying to cope with this.

Remember everybody that the speed limit for "yer av'rage" tourist railway is 25m.p.h.

 

But you keep forgetting that not all railways have 1 in 30 gradients and/or run 5-coach trains!

 

Actually I think the opposite may occur. 30 years ago, it was notable on preserved railways that the "big 4" era was in vogue for liveries; driven no doubt by people then in their 60s and 70s who remembered that period from their childhood, were nostalgic for it, and were influential in the world of railway preservation.

Those people have largely passed away or are now very old and have handed over the reins to a new generation. This new generation of those with influence - i.e. those currently in their 50s and 60s - are similarly nostalgic for 1950s and 1960s BR steam; hence the dominance of those liveries in preservation; and the desire to new build locos such as Tornado that are in many ways symbolic of that period.

But in another 25 or 30 years, there will be no-one left who remembers even BR era steam. The generation who will at that time be influential - which is to say people in their 30s and 40s now - will have other reasons for wanting to be involved in railway preservation. Maybe they will be nostalgic for the early years of preservation itself, sparked by a visit to a preserved line as a child in the 1970s or 80s. Maybe they will have a historical, or engineering, or economic interest in railway preservation. Maybe they will have some other reason. A few will get involved in preserving what they remember of BR at the time (i.e. blue diesels), but for the steam enthusiasts, I think we will see a greater diversity of what people are interested in. Sure, some will still find the 1950s their "chosen" period, but once you are no longer constrained by memories of what you personally saw as a child, and instead want to recreate things precisely because you didn't get a chance to see them when you were young, I think it opens up far more avenues of what that generation (which is to say, my generation) may or may not find sufficiently interesting to want to recreate.

So actually I think we are already almost (but not quite) past the point where recreating childhood is the dominant factor in what people want to restore and recreate - whether that means simply in liveries, or in new builds. I predict in 25 years time, that tastes in preservation will be much more catholic than they are now.

As was Craven :smile: (born in Leeds; worked with a veritable who's who or northern locomotive builders before coming south to Brighton).

Tom

 

Yes, but the gradients on the KESR are exceptional by the standards of most preserved railways. Go to the Bluebell (max gradient 1:60) or the IoWSR (similar) or Swanage (1:70 I think) and you will find 0-4-4Ts, 0-6-2Ts and others romping away with that sort of load with no real problems. As I said before, I don't think the T9 or City of Truro (or our Dukedog, when it was running) have engendered too many complaints about their capabilities on preserved lines. The T9 has 6'9" coupled wheels - you don't get much more high-wheeled than that!

Tom

 

Nice to see that expression used. Parthian shot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

As a student of Classical history when at University, (Yes I did an Arts major followed by Industrial Design) I appreciated it too, even if the shot was kind of aimed in my direction.

 

My last posting was intended to be a Parthian shot but for those who "don't take their shots" here is another one!

If we care about the next generation they will not thank us for bequeathing a series (that's assuming they get finished) of locomotives that are not particularly well tailored to the job in hand. Please do not select these on a "wouldn't it be nice" unduly sentimental basis but on a still sentimental but less starry eyed foundation of "what will do the job at a reasonable cost to build, run and maintain".

You will be relieved that this will be my last posting on this topic but ladies(?) and gentlemen please get real.

 

Won't somebody please think of the children!!!

Sorry Paul, I couldn't resist. Seriously, there's a lot more critical things that we should sll be concerned about bequeathing future generations in this world. So once again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I really am struggling to understand your point of view Paul. Everyone is in agreement, I am sure, of the economics of new builds and that they must justify their case for building once in traffic, but rarely is railway preservation sold on the basis of being practical, moreover it was a case of "what you can get, you'll grab" in the 1960s with what was available.

Hence why there are 18 Black Fives and other LMS 2-8-0s and 4-6-0s, most of the BR standard designs represented, and a vast amount of GWR 4-6-0s of differing sizes, contrasted with an extremely limited number of pre-grouping and ex-LNER locomotives. The point being, it's these sort of locomotives which are being announced and built now - and I wonder why...!

Which job? Every preserved railway in the country has a different business case behind it, different track layouts, train lengths, timetables, coal suppliers, water quality, volunteers interested in X, Y, or Z and many have built up their empires, so to speak, on the back of what was available rather than what is practical.

Railways have adjusted to what they have and adapted to suit changing circumstances. FR no.20 is not a locomotive which is "practical" in what your very specific definition of "practical" is - but it's a crowd drawer and for that reason is worth hiring in by preserved railways.

4472 is not a practical locomotive on a daily basis for the vast majority of preserved railways, but won't it draw the interest and keep people coming back!

I think you're overlooking the showmanship side of railway preservation and looking at it almost too objectively. The general public and the majority of railway enthusiasts which visit these railways are not objective to the extreme of "we must run a wholly efficient service". There has to be a level of the spectacle about it too. Hence why an apple green 4-6-2 was built and is running on the mainline now. The A1 Trust tapped into that through their marketing.

In the end, arguably the locomotive roster for any preserved railway is as much about marketing the spectacle as it is about practility. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have the sheer number of gala days!

New builds will feature in that more and more. The "Tornado effect" is palpable and railway preservation should look to tap into that ideal more.

If that were the case, all we would build in preservation and maintain would be BR Standard 4MTs. No ifs, no ands, no buts; a one size fits all locomotive that has proven its worth in preservation in spades - but let's be frank, variety is the spice of life and it's variety which makes railway preservation in this country interesting and fresh year on year.

"Get real" - I wonder how many people said that about Tornado when the A1 Trust first came out?

There's no doubt in my mind that the business case for a P2, for example, is sound (from a purely mainline and marketing perspective) but others will disagree.

The 3MT is a superb, "practical" machine for the SVR, but will not be wholly suited or practical for longer trains and more intensive timetables on, say, the Great Central Railway (hence why it's being built at the SVR, a line for which it is very much suited).

Beachy Head will be a large locomotive for the Bluebell railway that will complement the rolling stock available and other locomotives from the south of England, but it would be too big for the Elsecar or similar.

One thing which is clear in all of the new builds built or being built is that their individual business cases are not as clear cut as "practicality" and it shouldn't be - a certain amount of heart must rule the head, and the marketing potential of a new build locomotive must be taken into consideration also.

tl;dr - there cannot be a one size fits all business plan for new build locomotives.

 

And I am struggling to leave this thread but people keep posting things which IMHO are non-sequiturs!

The subject is new-builds rather than what, through a combination of happenstance and individual whim, got preserved in the nineteen sixties. These new-builds represent an opportunity to fill in the gaps and, at the same time produce equipment which will be genuinely useful on a typical tourist railway which (I'll say it again) has a 25m.p.h. speed limit. Hopefully this new stuff will reduce the maintenance requirements from those needed by old machinery and be of a suitable size for the job in hand, thus having a modest fuel and lubricant consumption. Ideally it should be pretty and sport an attractive livery (an argument against the 3MT I suppose) as was observed in a previous posting. Apart from questions of civil engineering restrictions and distances between water supplies that is about it.

Quite a lot of people travelling on these lines have difficulty in distinguishing a steam locomotive when they see one. I was once asked whether a given locomotive was a diesel disguised to resemble a steam one! If all gricers just stood and listened to what the general public actually said rather than extrapolate their own thoughts, they would realise that most could not care whether the motive power was an 0-6-2T or a 4-6-2.

 

The vital link between the donors hand and wallet is often the heart.

I agree that from a purely practicle sense newbuilds of small wheel BR standard tanks with all the modern gubbings and machanical lube would be the best, but I hazzard a guess that if we put forward the newbuild of a Dean Single (The most dissimilar I can think of) we'd get a hell of a lot more funds collected.

If I won the lotter my money would be building a Dean Single & an M&GN C Class. (And I'd be more than happy to clean 'em out and oil 'em up!)
Steam ended 9 years before I was born, so I have no connection with the dirty last days of steam - I'd like to see the glory days alive again, polished brass and big wheelers, technicolour liveries not just BR black!!!!

 

I too am attracted to the pomp and ceremony of the glory days of steam and I too, was born after the last days of steam - over 5 years. So whether it's 1902 or 1962 it's equally beyond living memory for me. Since you mentioned a Dean Single I thought I might take the opportunity to post this image for you. It's a wonderful photo of 3003 Avalanche from this blog, and has been digitally-coloured by John Smith, the owner of the site. - Early Railways Unpublished. What a wonderful looking machine (though admittedly I'm just ever-so slightly more partial to a Midland Spinner in their original guise and with the original Johnson frontend).

 

Well said James, and pretty much what I was aiming at in my wall of text.

 

At the risk of debating trivialities are you really sure about that? Jamesquared has already stated that the P-class 'Bluebell' is popular with the punters because of its size and livery. People like to have their photo taken with it. Equally the more ornately painted locos - those in SECR and LBSCR liveries seem to be more popular on the Bluebell according to him (If I've understood him correctly). Moreover, when I browse Flickr albums of people's holiday snaps from the NRM (when in search of images of particular locos in google image searches) - hardly images taken by railway fanatics and trainspotters, I've noticed that the engines which seem to inordinately receive the most attention are the SECR D-class with its ornate livery and brass-work, Gladstone, and the streamliners - The Duchess of Hamilton and Mallard. Surely, if all engines were alike to the general pubic there wouldn't be this bias in people's online albums. So I really think the general public are more perceptive to the differences than you acknowledge.

In any case, even if your argument is entirely valid, the general public won't care whether the machine is a USA-tank or a LNWR George providing the motive power. The argument you're employing cuts both ways.

Anyway, really when we're getting down to such trivialities and when I and others have addressed the arguments about suitability on a number of occasions and about what constitutes a 'sensible' engine, yet they're repeated, it's clear where just end up going around in circles. Besides, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to achieve. By all means apply rigorous scrutiny to the project. Ask hard questions - if you feel something doesn't add up with the project as outlined thus far then say so. I feel however, you've decided that singlehandedly, your mission here is to bring a stop to the project altogether; that if you repeat the same claims about the class's suitability enough times despite these having being addressed on a number of occasions, then you can then somehow stop it from going ahead.

We've done the due-diligence and assessments on the suitability both for preservation and mainline, we've talked to significant third-parties in the preservation-scene and we feel based on all of this that a LNWR George is a sensible choice.

Again, I repeat, let's agree to disagree. Cheers!

 

We're going to do our damnedest to see this project succeed, our financial backer who is prepared to put 50k of his own money into the project wants to see this project succeed, and people we've spoken to, some of them key and influential players in the preservation and new-build scenes have expressed to us that they'd like to see this project succeed. We've received considerable goodwill from a large number of people, some very prominent.

We are going to do everything possible to build a LNWR George the Fifth Paul. Just so you know. Oh and if we're successful we promise not to force you to ride behind her!

 

I was actually agreeing with Jamesquared about public preference for small pretty machinery and was referring to his posting.

Just remember that Flying Scotsman's inability to earn enough to keep itself going bankrupted two individuals and seriously embarrassed a third. There is no particular personal animus against the George V as a machine but it is too small for the 21st. century main line and too large in the wheel for a tourist railway. We can all come to a conclusion and then cast around for reasons to justify it. Whether it is you or I that is doing this, Knotty, we shall see.

PH

 

There's an economist's way of looking at this argument, in terms of how to raise the capital necessary to build a new loco, and the future revenue returns it might produce.

Taking revenue first, that splits into running costs on the debit side and income generation on the credit side. Clearly running costs are minimised by building modern, easy to prep locos of a size appropriate to the task likely to be encountered (gradients, loads etc on the home line). On those grounds, the most sensible new builds are those like 82045 and 84030.

However, income generation is a bit more complex, in that there is evidence that while the primary desire of most of the travelling public is simply that what is pulling them is steam, there is a secondary effect where locos that can be said to have some kind of personality actually generate traffic. That means (in my experience) preferably having a name; being colourful; and, at least for families with small children, small is often better. That is why, on the Bluebell, the Dukedog ran with nameplates despite that not being prototypical; it's why the SECR locos tend to stick around in pre-group livery. It's why many lines clamour to have "Tornado" visit (because it has a real public recognition) despite the fact that on practical grounds it is way too big for most lines: lines take the viewpoint (backed up by passenger numbers) that the extra fares generated will more than offset the extra running costs of having an 8P with big hire charges shuffling up and down with 5 or 6 coaches in tow.

There is also the issue of film work and other private hirings, i.e. away from the daily service. If I want to make a film set in the 1950s with a railway scene, pretty much every heritage line in the country is in competition for the job and associated revenue income. But if I want to make a film set in 1900, suddenly there are very few suitable candidates. If I want to make a film set in 1860, at the moment FR20 pretty much has the market cornered.

So in revenue terms, , 82045 or 84030 are going to be pretty efficient operators of the daily service. But I can't imagine too many people specifically clamouring to use them in film jobs, in a way that perhaps the LNWR George V or a Craven loco might be popular - those locos, which are more obviously unique, have more potential for raising future revenue.

On the capital side, though, funding is largely driven by enthusiasts, who generally (to a much greater extent than our regular passengers), know exactly what they want to build - and this isn't necessarily what is sensible in running cost terms. We just have to accept that fact. While I expect a pub discussion project for a new build Leader would probably fall at the first hurdle once the hangover wore off and people started to think through the revenue implications of building a loco likely to spend more time in the works than outside, for more marginal cases, if an unusual design has more capacity to get people to open their wallets, it is more likely to get built than another loco that, 20 years down the track, would have proved a more sensible choice from an operating point of view.

It is interesting to look at the capital raising streams through the Bluebell Trust: while everyone on the railway is agreed that 84030 will be the perfect loco for the line when built, it is being out-funded by Beachy Head. Now, there is nothing wrong with Beachy Head operationally (and 84030 is making steady progress, fundingwise and mechanically) but it is clear that from an enthusiast point of view, the more unusual loco is simply more popular. The problem is (at least in my opinion) is that, fantastic as they will be in future operational and running cost reasons, locos like 84030 simply aren't exciting enough to make me want to open my wallet in the way Beachy Head is.

So in answer to the likes of Paul Hitch asking that the new build community concentrate on "useful" locos, the issue is that firstly "useful" might encompass things other than daily operation (such as how much can you generate from film fees or renting out to other lines); and secondly before you ever operate your useful loco, first you have to build it - which means enthusing enough people to stump up the estimated £50k -£100k per year for 10 - 20 years that a realistic new build project will need - and this might best be done by proposing an "interesting" design, rather than necessarily a "practical" one.

Tom