82045 The way ahead?

Edward makes the comment that the G.W. 4-6-0 locos won't look like the originals.
As far as the Grange is concerned the boiler is correct, the chimney an original Grange one, wheels original G.W.R. . All other parts being manufactured are from original drawings.
This silly statement was also made by Pete Waterman several years ago. You'll be be saying next that the A1 isn't right .

Bob.

 

Yes, as far as I can see the Grange will be pretty much as original as if one had been saved and had been in use on a preserved railway regularly over the 40-odd years since. Because the GWR engines are so standardized components presumably get swapped around all over, and as we already know some engines had more non-original parts than original when purchased in the first place! I doubt it will cost more than restoring an untouched Barry hulk either, possibly less.

It is going to be really interesting to see if any of the groups building smaller, less glamorous engines manage to complete their builds - a great deal of logic is on their side, but its not totally a logical subject...

 

The A1 is an achievement in its own right, but it is not a PeppercornA1, it's the A1 you have to build in the 21st centuary in order to comply with current legislation. As will be the G5 if & when...

I don't doubt the GWR projects will look right to someone pointing a camera at them, but I doubt they will behave like the originals. The Grange might be largely a "kit of parts" from various hulks, but when you see the amount of modification that has been necessary to produce the Saint, or when you have to modify an 8f boiler to make a County, you really are getting into replica territory, albeit using components from extant locos.

This idea has been raised by a lot of people. We've all got our own pet projects, and we can all get a bit defensive if they get criticised. But our "pets" are not always the most logical or cost effective way to provide locos for railways.

 

Once again Edward makes a silly statement- The Grange won't behave like an original. He's partly right - it will be better than most of the originals, as the boiler has a 3-row superheater, whereas all Granges except one had 2-row superheaters. The rest of the loco will be identical to the the originals in every respect.
I would imagine that other new build locos such as 82045 & the Bluebell's Atlantic will also be pretty close to the original designs.

Bob.

 

"This idea has been raised by a lot of people. We've all got our own pet projects, and we can all get a bit defensive if they get criticised. But our "pets" are not always the most logical or cost effective way to provide locos for railways."
Indeed, Edward, which brings us back to the subject of this thread, 82045. In my view this locomotive might (and I use the word carefully) just be a logical and cost effective way of keeping steam alive on heritage railways in the next 20 years or so. It isn't in the same niche as Tornado but, as a small standard tank, with a GWR pattern boiler almost identical to a 51xx to boot, it might just be a good bet for a production run let alone a "one off". There are a number of ex-Barry locos in need of restoration but it all boils down to the base statement that people will put their money where they want. I reiterate that Tornado's recent media attention will do no harm to any of the other new or part-new builds; indeed it has kindled far more interest in me than I expected and, whilst I would love to place an order with the Darlington Locomotive Works for No 60164 "Typhoon" complete with RAF Coningsby badge above the nameplates, I think I'd be stretching it just to order 1 nameplate! However, if enough of us (including heritage railway loco departments) put some money into 82045 then, well, its a possibility that we might see more than one. 82045 could well be one way ahead and there is usually more than 1 option.

 

If someone's got the money, and wants to build a replica engine, or convert some bits into somthing long scrapped, then good luck to them, but it cannot be as cost effective as overhauling an out of ticket loco. As I said above, this loco has an estimated cost of 1.25 - 1.5 million. When you see the amount of work done to 60007 for half that, it does not represent good value. Also, look at the overhaul of 45428 at Grosmont - new tender tank, smokebox, barrel, tubeplates & substantial firebox surgery, plus full, thorough, mechanical overhaul. She'll be as good as new, literally, at far less cost than building a new machine.

Would be interested to see a cost for the Grange conversion; the web site mentions patterns for cylinders at £25k for a start...

You're right that the next 20 years are going to represent a major challenge in keeping engines running. The costs are escallating, and I expect what we will see are more composite loco appearing, such as 30825/ 30841. Plus, if lines become hand - to - mouth to get somthing in traffic, I suspect a few J94's will be getting dusted off as a cheap option.

 

Is that a glimmer of hope for Antwerp (Not wising to raise the ownership issue again :-# )

Back to the thread I'm not in favour of these new builds that butcher other locos to fill the 'missing links' for example the GWR 4-6-0s. But they aren't / won't be as bad as a steam roller converted to a showmans engine because these 'new' locos will at least look right unlike a road roller with more brass, more wheels a dynamo & canopy. To me these hybrid locos for example the saint will be a hall thats had some alterations to it like the roadroller-showmans engine to produce a compromised copy

 

oops double post sorry ](*,)

 

OT: I know pretty much zilch about traction engines but I understand from someone who rebuilds them that there is something of an 'originality' renaissance going on where many are now being rebuilt back into their original 'working' conditions. Not sure whether this is a reflection of modern trends in preservation generally, or just in that specific field(?).

 

Antwerp would hardly be a cheap option, as it needs new inner firebox plus heaven knows how much else boiler wise, full mechanical overhaul, axleboxes, etc plus asbestos removal before you can do anything remotely serious to it. I was more thinking about the smaller lines that probably have somthing similar stored away, but are now running "big" engines that they don't really need. A J94 type engine would do the job on virtually every line in the country, and if you had a knacker that only needed a retube and some minor work... quick, if unglamarous engine. As I said above, there are an awful lot of complete engines awaiting overhaul, before you start on any more Barry hulks or to build anything from scratch.

I guess your view on this subject depends if your loyalties lie with a particular loco project, or with a railway as a whole. Whether you' rather see £1m get a replica project up & running, or the same investment have two locos in traffic & generating revenue for your railway.

 

i feel i should probably point out that there are only 2 J94's, one in kent and one in dorset. all the others are austerities. all hunslet WD 50550's contracted out to other companies are austerities, and all J94's are austerities, but only 2 austerities are J94's

 

You are assuming that the £1m is available to the 'preservation movement' as a single entity and 'it' will choose whether to fund a new build or restorations of other locos. As has been said many times before, people will donate to their own favourite project regardless of how practical it is in the overall scheme of things. If the A1 had never been built, would that money be available to other restoration projects? Basically, the answer is no! Why? Because people chose the A1 as having special appeal to them, a person could have £5,000 hanging out of their back pocket and 20 groups pleading for help, but the projects don't interest the person so the money is not available to the 'preservation movement'
until the A1 (or whatever) project comes along.

OK so some people may have a predetermined amount that they donate to railways/charities every year so it makes no difference if it goes to a new build or a restoration, BUT the vast majority of people will donate based on the actual scheme, their personal memories etc etc. so 'preservation movement' income is therefore fluctating depending on current projects progress, new projects appeal to the public/enthusiast and of course the state of the economy!

Keith

 

Of course the large sums of money to prepare tooling to build 82045, 82046 etc. will also aid the construction of 77020, 77021 etc. and the maintenance of several others including several other BR and pre-BR types thus justifying the costs further.

Is that really such a waste of money compared with all the one-offs out there?

 

Of course the large sums of money to prepare tooling to build 82045, 82046 etc. will also aid the construction of 77020, 77021 etc. and the maintenance of several others including several other BR and pre-BR types thus justifying the costs further.

Is that really such a waste of money compared with all the one-offs out there?

 

I think this scenario is very unlikely to happen despite the logic behind it.

I think for two or three railways to pool money together to build three new Standard 3s would create a huge set of problems. Who would get the first one? If only one boiler could be made at a time (more than likely if placed with the same contractor) which engine would it be fitted to? What if one of the railway's defaults on payment because of other committements or has a change of Board that no longer considers a new locomotive a worthy investment? Likewise what happens if the contractor cannot complete the job and supplies only part of the components, who would own them? I can see more detailed issues like this arriving before any sensible arrangement could be put in place.

A further factor is the lack of emotional investment. Members will dig into their pockets to see a railway's 'flagship' locomotive or favourite return to steam. Would a railway's supporters dig into their pockets to see a new locomotive with no history (or personal history for the individual) be built if compared to investing to return a favourite to steam?

 

The politics of railway preservation do not warrant further discussion in this post... well maybe.. One disadvantage of new build is that funds may be directed to buy something new rather than overhaul something old on the basis that the new build will have potentially a lower long term cost and improved availability.

Also, owners may be a fickle bunch and railways may see new build as a means of reducing their reliance on owners. This would reduce the income to the owners, resulting in lack of funds to overhaul and the sale of out of ticket locos at maybe bargain prices. BUT without the funds or a contract to run, who will buy?

 

I'm not convinced that new locos wil be any more reliable, when for example, you consider overhauls like that taking place on 45428, as I describe above.

With regard to reliance on owners, I don't know about other lines, but the NYMR has had several locos donated into trust (80135, 30926, WD 3672, Lambton No 5), and with 45428 we were given the chance to buy at a reasnoble price, as their owners died, or came towards the end of their lives. Perhaps the same is happening elsewhere. Plus, the railway already own a DEMIC S160. The result is that the bulk of our key locos are railway controlled, even though only one is operational. Therefore, where is the incentive to buy a new engine, for twice the cost of re - building the worst of them (3672, see above)?

I can understand the attraction of re-creating an extinct class, but i just don't think the numbers add up. Plus what happens after the end of your 10 year boiler ticket - it's just another loco to repair.......

 

As regards reliability of locos like 82045, well clearly I don't know as I'm not a locomotive engineer. That said, one can look to historical evidence. The BR standard class locomotives were all designed to be less labour -intensive and more economical to run than their predecessors. They were also designed to run on variable coal quality and to be easier to maintain. Clearly, in the heritage railway sector, these are less important issues but, as time goes on, we may well find that we need more locos with these attributes. I still think that there may (I don't say undoubtedly) be a market for a production run of locomotives like 82045 and, as was mentioned in a previous post, their constitution allows for the production of significant parts for other classes, such as the now extinct 77xxx class. The wonderful thing is that we may well find out sooner rather than later. Logistically, it is more economical to have a fleet of similar locomotives than many "one-offs" as Bulleid and GWR Hall, 28xx and other owners have already found out.

 

It isn't just "another loco to repair". It is another loco to repair but with far few years of corrosion, stress and other wear and tear to put right before it can re-enter service. Further, it is an ideal sized modern locomotive to operate todays heritage lines and thus far more ergonomic than many designs presently in use.

On the contrary. There is often supply of cast parts made from one railway's patterns to another railway or the loan of a pattern to enable such replacement parts to be cast. Did you honestly think every locomotive owning group is going to spend large amounts of money having patterns made for a locomotive in one part of the country when perfectly good identical patterns already exist elsewhere?

 

Yes parts for other engines, that already happens but the mass production of Standard Class 3s is just a fantasists dream which was the point I was referring to.