Current and Proposed New-Builds

And the J-hangers for the tender springs (tacked onto an NR order for some for snowplough units).

 

If they are real classic cars, they won't have a VIN plate! Also, as an example, if they didn't have an original engine etc., they wouldn't be a classic car, only a replica.

 

I'm referring to the practice of re-shelling rotten Mini Coopers, Escort Mexicos and the like where an original VIN is put onto the new shell..

 

One might also note various Spitfire "restorations".

 

AKA building a new Spitfire around a data plate dug up from 30 feet under the ground

 

That's what is required for them to be airworthy. Where possible, other components are used.

 

Sorry for a somewhat dilatory response !

I have always thought that Mr. Marsh and/or the Brighton drawing office designed the H1s
with a higher boiler pressure and larger cylinders than the GNR original reflecting the
different operating conditions on the LB&SCR, inter alia providing a higher Tractive Effort.

The H2s I believe were ordered by Mr. Billinton ( as Marsh’s assistant acting in his
absence through illness ) . He incorporated superheating, presumably reflecting the
previous years trials between superheated and saturated steam members of the I3
Class 4-4-2 tanks. As you say concerns over the high temperature tolerance of then
available lubricants dictated a lower boiler operating pressure in conjunction with
installing a superheater.

I was lucky enough to occasionally see an H2 at East Croydon in the 1951/1952
period close to, when I was changing trains at East Croydon in the early evening.
The early withdrawal of all bar 32424 in 1956 ( due to frame concerns if my
memory is correct ) was a disappointment. My last sighting was of 32424 in
summer 1957 rushing through Purley station ( on a Willesden Brighton working
I think.)

Whether 32424 is a new build, recreation or whatever, it is a splendid achievement.
The care with which it is being brought to service is impressive. Thank you.

Michael Rowe

 

From memory its tyres and a chimney so not a lot! The Doncaster P2 has its frame plate which were acquired around 10 years ago.

Given that No. 2007 has stalled, it will be many years if at all until the A1SLT can get the V4 if ever.

 

Whilst I agree with most of these points there is also the issue of fundraising. Most new build groups are still using old fashioned fundraising methods - the exception being the T1 and historically A1/P2. With the P2 now estimated for cost over £5m and completion continuing to slip, to complete the locomotive in a reasonable time requires £500k pa plus. Legacy programmes should also provide a large proportion of funds.

Of course, many 'new builds', especially those of GWR locos, have a considerable head start with major components recovered from other locomotives.

Another major challenge is the changing main line scene and its consolidation into two main groups - presenting significant main line work challenges for the wishing to operate on NetworkRail, as is now being experienced by Tornado.

 

I'm not really sure what your definition is of "old fashioned" fundraising methods - as opposed, presumably, to "modern" ones.

FWIW, the Bluebell Atlantic - the most recent new build to steam - has cost something like £1.4million to build a large tender loco, spread over about twenty years - that's about £70k per year. (Obviously £70k was worth more in 2004 than now; in other words, building the same loco now would cost more than £1.4million even with the same original components available). The loco had a definite "help up" with two significant sets of components available: a boiler, and (from two separate donors) the major components to construct a tender underframe - though neither just sprung onto the finished loco without considerable additional restoration costs. In addition, the £1.4 million also left a legacy of a workshop building and significant tooling, built or acquired for the project but now available for future use.

Was the fundraising "old fashioned" or "modern"? I don't know. I believe in the main there were four main sources of income:

• Some legacy funding
• Regular donations from supporters (of which I believe there were a couple of hundred, each giving a minimum of £5 per month)
• Sales, mostly of books, railwayana and model railway equipment. The project didn't really seem to go in for their own branded souvenirs (t-shirts, hoodies, mugs etc) as some others do, though not to say that isn't a viable route, just not one that was pursued.
• Sponsorship of major components. Those were sensibly spread between tens of pounds to thousands of pounds, to fit varying budgets; sponsors received an attractive certificate listing "their" component.

A point often made on this thread in the past is the relationship between fundraising rate and completion date. The banal - but true - point is that if you want to spend £1.4million on a loco and raise £70k per year, it isn't going to take less than 20 years to complete. A £2m loco raising £50k per year is going to take a minimum of 40 years - but more likely, isn't going to get finished at all without a proverbial kick up the backside on fundraising; no small group can sustain a project for 40 years.

But there is an important flip side to that argument, which is the cost. A loco projected to cost £3m has to raise funds more aggressively than one costing £1.5m - but the question is why the difference in cost? Often it is put forward that you can swap money for timescale, but certain quite expensive projects also have long timescales. So efficiency of fundraising is important, but so is efficiency of spending, IMHO. In that regard, projects attached to an existing railway with a well-established workshop are at an advantage, in my opinion, to those that are dependent on finding space in the workshop of an external contractor. In particular, while I think it is inevitable that a project will sub-contract fabrication of major components - no heritage railway workshop could, for example, cast a set of wheel centres - I think there is a major advantage to having the project engineering team responsible for all stages of the erection of the components into a finished locomotive, at one base.

One other point - there has been discussion on the Tornado thread about the democratic involvement (or otherwise) of supporters of that project. It's worth noting in the case of the Atlantic that there is no such formal involvement of supporters; indeed, there isn't really a defined Atlantic organisation in any formal legal sense. Instead, the loco has been built by the Bluebell Railway by a group subject to that railway's normal project mechanisms, and it's gradually accruing value has appeared as an asset on the Bluebell Railway plc's balance sheet each year (and which, now it is in use, will I assume start to depreciate each year). My experience has been that, as a supporter, I have always been welcomed by those guiding the project to talk to them about it - but it isn't a "member-led" democracy and has never been styled as one.

All of which really is a long-winded way of saying that it is not just fundraising that will be the differentiator between successful and struggling projects. The entire project structure and governance is important to consider.

Tom

 

Thank you for that comment. The loco is certainly being handed over with considerable care. The operating notes run to many pages, covering things from both a driver and fireman’s perspective. Those of us rostered on the loco for the opening week are being put through familiarisation trips in advance, and there is a rostered person familiar with the loco each day in addition to the normal crew.

That seems to be increasingly the norm: the last three locos we have out shopped have all been done with some care. With “Fenchurch” we got familiarisation trips, and on “Sir Archie” a riding inspector for a crew’s first trip if required based on how recently their previous Bulleid experience was. I’d been on both locos 12+ years ago, but was glad of the refresher on each. For Beachy Hesd, it is new for all of us.

Tom

 

Out of interest, does this start to imply that steam crews will start to follow their diesel brethren in being passed out traction by traction?

 

(Deleted)

 

Perhaps new builds should pursue oil firing , irrespective of purity, given the assumed future we are heading into ?

 

Not much point if the oil is out of the ground. But there is a much greener alternative and the French are already using it.

https://transportrail-canalblog-com...ch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

 

Your link is not working for me?

 

Works for me. You might need Google Translate. Try the untranslated link: http://transportrail.canalblog.com/archives/2023/01/01/39763852.html



Note the lack of cladding on the firebox above the running plate - never seen that before. There shouldn't be any under the running plate. If you look at the video, there is evidence of leakage on the RHS of the firebox. Maybe they didn't have time to put the cladding back?

 

lots of great points Tom, I can’t argue with most of them. And I strongly agree on governance and structure. Different models will work with different people involved. A1SLT being a case in point where the entire culture of the organisation has changed in recent years under its new leadership and so has its reputation sadly. The Bluebell has demonstrated that there are other routes to success and hats off to all involved.

 

At least we have one going here in the US.
We have the industrial resources for new steam, but how our political situation currently is, with their stance against 'fossil fuels', I doubt we'll ever see recreations of a NYC Hudson or Niagara, a N&W Y6b, an SP Cab Forward, GTW 5629 or so many examples we wished could have been saved.

 

Why would you need to build a replica SP Cab Forward when you have one in the California State R.R. museum in Sacramento?
Ray.