New-build steam strategy coordination?

Last year I had an extensive and enormously interesting & informative discussion with a leading member of the 82045 locomotive project (one which, I think it is agreed, has long progressed from 'if' to 'when' completed). At the time, I was a member of a Faceache group proposing to build a new LBSCR E2 0-6-0T, but I was rapidly becoming disillusioned with the attitude displayed by the founding members thereof and thus the chance that their proposal would ever see the light of day, let alone prove useful. One thought that really came out of that, and which has just resurfaced at this un-Godly hour, is this.

Is any individual or organisation currently attempting to represent all new-build projects and/or coordinate strategy between them? I am aware that some individual groups with similar aims talk to each other, and I know of the new build steam blog, but I've not seen anything to suggest any kind of regulation of this market... on the one hand, we've seen some projects come out of nowhere and quickly establish themselves as thoroughly credible, and in the middle some which are quietly making progress at a fairly slow rate, but on the other there's been the Dean Goods, Thompson L1, Maunsell L1, Gresley J39 and suchlike... vapourware! A lot of talk resulting in nothing and it all going very quiet after a short while. Pot, kettle, black, I know.

So, before I or any other misguided and hopelessly optimistic young individual tell the world we're building a Brighton Atlantic, Pacific or Baltic tank, or K-class Mogul, an LSWR H15 4-6-0 or H16 4-6-2T or G16 4-8-0T, or Maunsell Z-class 0-8-0T, or a batch of Maunsell U/U1/N/N1/K/K1/W/L2 2-6-0s and 2-6-4Ts (as useful as a lot of those types would be, I feel, and the 'U' and 'N' are well-proven known quantities, their derivatives not too dissimilar) - would it be a better idea to establish some form of at least advisory, if not regulatory, membership body for all new-builds, with some kind of accreditation scheme to which potential donors should look for credibility?

I feel that, for now, the new-build market is full enough, and that for the next 5-10 years, any new groups should look only to work on background research rather than making any public announcement, while we focus on getting the existing twenty or so incomplete projects finished off. Around half of them (at a rough guess) should be finished in the next five years... I would also like to see more ex-Barry or otherwise long-term non-running locomotives finished, but people who'll fund new builds won't necessarily divert their attentions in that direction.

So, esteemed commentariat, your thoughts? Paul Hitch, if you're reading this, I think I know what you're going to say!

 

Simpler just to form a cat herding society I think...

 

I think those groups that share commonality of parts (e.g. 82045 and 84030) have shown themselves perfectly able to talk to each other in a constructive way where necessary. As indeed do those groups having "original" engines of the same type on different railways, between whom far more co-operation goes on than is necessarily apparent in the somewhat tribal atmosphere of some forums!. Beyond that, this just looks like adding a layer of bureaucracy for no obvious benefit.

Tom

 

Jimc, Saggin' Dragon, you may well be right... I am just concerned that the failure of certain projects (even some of the more credible ones have had their moments - how many attempts has it taken to get 72010 'Hengist' going?) may undermine the reputation of the whole new-build scene. Tom, I don't read this forum much, and I don't take too much notice of tribal politics on the internet either. I just wonder if there could be some way of structuring or accrediting schemes... about all I've seen was a rather unhelpful article by the A1SLT's David Elliott, talking rather dismissively of groups raising funds through shifting merchandise etc, and sying how you had to have a rock solid business plan, timescale etc before you even started fundraising - which made me wonder how on earth you can make such plans without knowing what your cashflow will be... and it's not like A1SLT haven't shifted a few T-shirts and baseball caps in their time!

 

I heard about the J39 and Dean Goods through the Steam Beano, as Sheff calls it, not on the web, oddly enough. Big grand announcement, group put together, money, engineering skills, a sob story in the J39 case too - then it all went quiet and disappeared. In terms of "general public" I don't mean outwith the railway community, but those who actually finance new-build projects.

One of my lottery-win jobs will be to commission Buckfastleigh to build the first of the Frederick Hawksworth 80xx "Cathedral" class 4-cylinder Pacifics... ;-)

 

I do know that the chairman of 45551 speaks to all the groups about this and that and ideas from us and asks for advice etc. We have in the past discussed at board meetings about having newbuild meetings with a few reps from each coming together to discuss what we have found works well/doesnt, what companys can do what work etc. But it has never happened.

I have to say in my personal opinion we have enough projects going right now and it would be better if groups who have established groups were to build the next set of builds after, or even established groups that have done restoration moving into newbuilds. We at the Patriot project have stated our next build, i would love more past that if funds were available, Tornado have mentioned their 3rd build already. The Brighton Atlantic are rumoured to want a second loco. Im not saying that new groups cant emerge and be successful but since the facebook newbuilds arrived there hasnt been many additions to the newbuild scene.

I have to agree with a lot of what Paul Hitch says actually, and i do hope he approves of the Fowler 2-6-4 as it does seem to tick every box he has mentioned in the past.

 

Beachy Head is to be followed by one of John Craven's designs, I understand. I know you're going to do a Fowler 4P, and I understand that RPSI are interested because they'd like more of their Jeep and have some components to use as the basis thereof. I'm certainly not opposed to existing groups building second, third or even more locomotives - but equally there is a glaring absence of any Southern-related new-build group...

 

There are groups which exist to share know-how and parts etc - eg the BRSLOG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRSLOG and no doubt there are others too - I'm pretty sure GWR loco owners liaise too, and parts/pattern share amongst LMS groups is happening right now. Most such projects are run by people who are steeped in the business and have a wide network of contacts, they just aren't 'visible' to outsiders on the internet. As for acreditation etc - all new builds have to meet their insurers standards, and if they are going mainline, that of the VAB (or what ever they are called now).

I'm indirectly involved with several new builds, via either membership or the consultation work we offer at the Advanced Steam Traction Trust (shameless plug) and I can't see that setting up some sort of over-arching body would really be of any benefit. No one is going to switch funding to another project because said 'body' hasn't 'approved their pet scheme.

 

Is that the real problem here?

 

Yes, I'm aware of BRSLOG, and the Didcot/Llangollen scene must involve a lot of "management synergy" (apologies for the yukspeak!).

Personally, I would like to see quite a few Urie/Maunsell types resurrected, not merely for serendipitous reasons but because I believe they'd be genuinely useful. However, nobody's building anything like that at the moment. I suppose the Fowler group are the nearest thing...

 

Bulleid Pacific owners formed an association and much cooperation goes on between groups as a result.

 

Correction - the J39/L1/Dean's Goods/E2 (and probably a few others that I've forgotten) had no money or engineering skills. That, alongside no planning was one of their major downfalls.

I agree with others though - the idea of some kind of group to put an 'Approved' stamp on particular projects seems like an enormous waste of time and effort. Groups (new build and restoration) already collaborate, the idea that an approval stamp will increase donations or volunteers to a project is quite frankly ridiculous.


Keith

 

Equally there is glaring absence of new builds from any number of railway companies but people will build what they want, not what others tell them to.

 

Indeed so, but you have missed the main point of Mr Elliott's argument. Look how long it took to build Tornado, even with a well thought out fundraising strategy - "A new A1 for the price of a pint a week". Now it's been proved to work, others have followed with similar appeals. Also, 19 years for Tornado to be built, but probably only 7 years for Prince of Wales. That speaks volumes. The T-shirts & baseball caps are/were but a tiny proportion of the A1 Trust's fundraising; it's worth remembering that fact.

 

Ghost, didn't the leader of the J39 have some kind of engineering diploma to his name and access to facilities through eng. college? Spamcan, I just don't understand why one of the Big Four is being completely neglected while we've got umpteen GWR projects, five LNER (one completed) and two LMS (Patriot/4P)... this of course ignores pre-grouping stuff!

Perhaps my idea wasn't a good one - it certainly wasn't thought through, just wanted a bit of feedback on the suggestion.

Mark, I'm not trying to bash the Darlington crew's success - just saying that Elliott's article wasn't exactly full of helpful pointers and came across as rather snide. I mentioned this to some folks associated with the PRCLT at Butterley and they were unsurprised. Since they lent their support coach (so I was told) to A1SLT, and allegedly got it back in a less than wonderful state, those two groups haven't exactly been the best of friends.

 

I seem to remember that there was a "Railway Preservation Society" formed in the hope of co-ordinating preservation schemes because there wasn't thought to be the capacity to preserve multiple lines. I believe their successors run Chasewater. Meanwhile, how many other lines have been preserved without the aid of a co-ordinating body?

 

Well, there is the Heritage Railway Association, and isn't/wasn't there an Association of Railway Preservation Societies? Or is that a former name of the HRA?

 

I think you are right about a J39 member being at college, but I don't think he had any qualification and as I understood it, yes he had been given permission to use the college's machinery although I suspect that the college would be expecting items no bigger than an axlebox cover. Any colleges I've been in would not have the capacity to machine large items, and nor would they want to, as it would leave machines out of use for some of their classes.

You are again falling into the trap of thinking that if there is some kind of overall group looking after new builds, then it could direct what future projects would be. This just does not work. People will only give to projects that interest them, if that happens to be GWR, LNER and LMS to the exclusion of SR locos then that's just the way it is. Learn to live with it!


Keith