The next newbuild

Surely in the end it is supply and demand of cash? There are several Bulleids, at least one 28xx, a 9f or two all essentially mouldering away. At the same time there is a Patriot, an LBSCR Atlantic, an LNER P2, a BR standard class 6 and several others that are sufficiently engaging to many people that each separately is generating tens of thousands of pounds per year in funding. Isn't that demonstrative of a change in what people consider important, sixty or more years into the "modern" history of railway preservation?

It's worth remembering that (1) new builds (2) using the partial remains of several wrecked machines to recreate one new one and (3) using common components of the remains of one type of machine to make a new build of another type using the common components is all common in the aeroplane world, without anyone seemingly batting an eyelid. And that's before you get into the issue of identity being carried

Tom

 

I don't really have an axe to grind either way here, but I think it comes down to priorities: what's more important, to have an Nth example of a class that already has N-1 examples in steam in restoration, or to produce 1 example of a class which has no extant members? A lot of people will think the latter is more important - and I don't think logic can disprove that position, it's a question of personal feelings, etc. Yes, one could always do the latter with an entirely-new build, but that will cost more (perhaps to the point of making it non-feasible).

So it comes back to priorities, I think: what's more important, to save every last bit of the past, or fill a bigger total void? I know, I know, I've previously said that once something is gone, it's gone forever, but try looking at it this way: suppose one had the magic ability to retrieve every last member of some class. Would it be the end of the world if one were then scrapped? If the answer is 'OK, if we've got all the rest, I guess it's OK if we lose one', one then winds up on a slippery slope where the question then gets asked of the second, and then the third... and pretty soon you wind up where we are now, with N-1 in steam, and the Nth being broken up to help re-create a member of an entirely missing class.

In a perfect world there'd be money to do the latter as a wholly new build, and restore the Nth, but money is not infinite... So it comes back to personal judgement on what's more important. (And, as Tom points out, if the money donations are in any way a gauge of that, the 'retrieve a non-existent class' position is one a lot of people agree with.)

Noel

 

I think the financial argument is effectively an outcome of the argument outlined by Noel: why restore the Nth member of a class if N-1 are already in service, especially if N is a relatively large number?

As an example, there are I believe 17 Halls / Modified Halls in preservation, and no Saints. Now, I'm no GWR aficionado and I am sure there are people knowledgeable about the differences between them, and the individual claims to fame. But it is probably not that surprising that recreating an otherwise non-existent Saint has rather more financial appeal than restoring a 17th Hall. Even more likely if the choice is not so much "recreate this new loco or restore the original" but the probably more likely "recreate this new loco or see the original slowly disintegrate for lack of interest".

Tom

 

You could make a case for building a representative of any class that did not survive into preservation. Further I suspect that I am not alone in thinking that I would happily trade one of the GW Halls or Black Fives for the ex-GC 9P "Valour" or a LBSC class K or a, well you name your own favourite. The same goes for some smaller classes, loose a 57xx in exchange for, say, a J6.
There are just so many missing designs. Though the preservation movement has allowed so many specimens to survive we miss those that we no longer have. Those we knew in our youth, old friends you might say, then there are those we would like to have seen, engines we have read about, locomotives that mere models cannot do justice to.
Model railways on a grand scale, 12" to the foot. We have, given the finances, outgrown 4mm. For some preserved lines some of the engines we have lost would serve them better than the locos that they currently have.
The next new build could be any design. Fund it and you can build it. But let us not rush in like fools. Build, by all means, but let us not out strip our ability to fund. Rusting, abandoned and incomplete projects are not required.

 

The even better news, is 18 Halls entered preservation.... There's 16 left as 7927 was used for the Grange / County project and 4942 is becoming a saint.

You could argue 15, as 5972 is unlikely to assume its historical identity anytime soon and remain a Disney fantasy.

The break down is:
2 to parts for other builds (4942, 7927)
5 have never worked in preservation (4979,5952,5967,6984,6989) of these 4979 is still in as withdrawn 51 years ago and 5952 is still shedding parts to others and is some what of a distant dream at the current point.
7 have run and since retired (some, if ever, to return) (4920,4930,4953,5900,6990,6998,7903), of these 5900 is approaching 30 years since it last ran, 4930 and 6960 not far behind it.
4 working (4936, 4965, 5972, 6960)

Rather than sacrificing something unrestored, is it likely someday we may see a one time preservation runner sacrificed to a new build ?

 

Is 6960 not in service? 4930,4953, 7903 and 6990 are all in the process of being overhauled I thought?

Chris

 

Mmmm, going through that list of 7 I get 2 stored undercover, 3 recently out of service and actively under overhaul, one long term out of service but progressing with a lump of lottery cash, and only one sitting in the rain rusting.

 

Going back to the original question, and having seen where your stand is at Tyseley this weekend, the answer is obvious. Why not ask Bob M if you can finish his Bloomer?

 

I quite accept that it is supply and demand.

I made my attitude quite clear back when 48518 was chopped up. We are supposed to be a preservation movement, and there are nowhere near enough normal freight engines surviving in any case. Some lines do not have a single example. The glamour stuff, in general, gets all the money.

I've nothing against new builds. Or even sensible non-destructive 'conversions' - a Hall to a Saint being an obvious example. But I do object to reducing the small pool of surviving freight locos even further. They were what earned the railways bread and butter throughout the period most of our preserved railways represent, and are an essential part of the story. Even as a static exhibit.

The argument 'we already have x number of this class' does not, with freight engines, really hold water because there are so few classes remaining anyway. In any case, the real railways had their standard designs mass produced - LMS 8F, GW 28xx, BR 9F, even SR had their S15 although they didn't need many of them. The LNER because of the ROD purchases had the O1/O2/O4 family, of which we have only a single survivor. Of the others, all have lost members in 'preservation' or have examples under threat. Imagine the outcry if we were talking Duchesses or A4's or Castles.

It is in my opinion very train-spotter-ish to be more concerned to have one of every class (no matter how useful or successful) than to preserve what was the typical motive power of the steam era. I am well aware the majority opinion differs from me on this and I have no funds myself to apply to the issue. Nor am I under any illusions about the difficulty of raising money for a freight engine project, even though they can be very useful on medium-to-large preserved lines and, as 48151 has shown, on the main line.

 

Is it a blessing or a curse that those that those with no financial stake nor hands on involvement in loco repair/restoration are the most vocal with there views on what others should do with their locos?

 

The haves and the have nots.
At the end of the day, the owners are custodians of pieces of British history and a bad custodian or a bad decision could destroy that history for future generations.

In that context is it right that owners should have carte Blanche to destroy that fabric without question if they wish ?

Coming back to Halls, whilst many have "run once" in preservation most of them are well looked after, can we say the same of 42789 ?

Some countries have listed monuments applied to railway locomotives, in the same way we have to properties in the UK, maybe the government should apply preservation orders and listed monument status some of our rolling railway heritage ?
Right now it's relatively high prices that have kept Britains locos in Britain, and out of reach of many, that might not always be the case when lack of desirability of a generation unused to steam (or even locomotives at all) come of post mortgage age and their grand parents pass away.

Had we had that the outlook of the only surviving 8f built by the LNER might have been different ?

 

I know the likelihood that that particular 8F actually had LNER built parts left on it to be unlikely, but it still rankles with me that - unlike every other new build or conversion - a perfectly usable locomotive boiler was chopped up to create something that is neither one boiler type or the other, and one that still won't produce something authentic and also isn't going to be pressed to the right boiler pressure for that class anyway.

Surely building a new boiler, as per Tornado/Unknown Warrior/Prince of Wales, would have been better than that which is being done?

So on two counts - the rarity of LNER built locos in preservation anyway, and the idea that chopping up a usable boiler to make something not even authentic - rankles me greatly. At least with an out and out new build, the new design boilers are at least dimensionally the same as the originals if not the same materials or processes - the County boiler is neither really?

Beach Head's boiler, on the other hand, is simply being retubed and restored to working order. Big difference between the two approaches.

Just my two cents, apologies if anyone is offended by my views.

 

42789 - What has a Scottish Region 'Crab' , scrapped in 1966, got to do with this ?

Bob.

 

Bob, I assume he means 42859 (or what's left of it) - on the other hand I could be completely wrong! Cheers.
Ray.

 

How about a Claughton? Does it share some parts with a patriot?

 

Apart from the boiler, hardly any.

 

I have every right to disapprove of and comment on what other people do with their property. It's called freedom of speech. I have however no right to prevent them doing it.

The 'new builds from scratch' I do not criticise. They may be creating something new which some would dismiss as 'fake', but they are preserving old skills in doing so. The Saint conversion - well, OK, there ARE a lot of Halls and the conversion could probably be reversed if desired for little more than the cost of a 10 year overhaul. And the Saint is certainly a genuinely important 'missing link'.

I also accept that some locos have been modified in greater or lesser ways to either make them more useful or keep them running (which is why it is also important to have some static unchanged examples such as Gladstone).

So I can accept compromise, but as said above, I cannot think it is a good idea for 'preservationists' to further reduce an already under-represented part of our railway history.

In fact I have a hands-on involvement in a loco restoration, and I have in the past contributed considerable amounts of money - one of the reasons I have none left now

 

That's an interesting perspective. I certainly agree with the notion that, as preservationists, we should seek to make our selection of locomotives and rolling stock as representative as possible (allowing for the fact that we are prisoners of history in terms of what Barry bequeathed us and which items were selected for official preservation). Personally I've always thought about representation more in chronological terms - as some forum members may have noticed my gripe is that little effort is being made to redress the balance between preservation's over-representation of 20th century designs and under-representation of 19th century designs. I'd never thought about it in terms of a freight/passenger divide before.

But then, I would argue, why restore another 8F when we could new-build a lost Victorian or Edwardian freight design? How about that Kirtley 0-6-0 I suggested a few pages back? Or an LNWR DX goods? The most numerous locomotive design in British Railway history (yes, they outnumbered the Black 5s!), but I wonder how many enthusiasts today have even heard of them?

Sadly, though, I'm in the same position as you - I don't have the funds to make a meaningful impact on the issue, or the time to co-ordinate a fund-raising drive. So for now I try to be content with what we have, and hope that one day others may come round to my way of thinking...!

 

Oops was looking at the model loco in front of me, when thinking about the rusted remains of 42859

 

There is some interest in a NSR D class from the Knotty Trust, not something that will be given any serious action over the next five years as we build our shed, restore No 28 & and created the new build / replica brake 3rd. But after that and we are bored, well who knows !.