New builds - how many will ever really work?

A lot of lottery money has also been sunk and lost on multiple heritage projects that if invested differently may well have seen a replica built more successfully.

Additionally I would argue some of the more "delicate" members of the National Collection (i.e. 19th Century locos) may be better represented as a replica than by restoring the original... things like L&Y 1008 as a new build part funded by the National Lottery could see a viable spin off of may 2 or 3 members of the class being built for preserved lines, thus protecting the original yet also demonstrating the past and being business viable.

Film new builds.. only one I can think of is the copy of 5972 Hogwarts Castle in Florida.. didn't this replica cost more to make than the cost of building an new Hall ?

 

Tom
I usually agree with you, but not quite on this one - despite the fact that I am all for vintage carriages. I think the lottery rules skew things very much in favour of some kinds of projects and against others. The upshot is that looking at things across the board the potential for us to gain the richest possible heritage experience is lost. Actually I get the impression that people get more from seeing a resplendent 'Tornado' at York than a derelict 'flying Scotsman' in a dull (? even incorrect shade) of black.
The lottery situation is different from railway preservationists doing things wholly off their own bat - they have plenty of money. Now if they had thrown in a replica Isle of Wight 2-4-0 tank to authentically go with the vintage of the carriages that would really be a project worthy of the lottery fund.

 

Some excellent points here... isn't this something the NRM should be talking to the lottery about?

 

I take it you are suggesting it is easier to get funding for carriage restoration (or projects that help, such as a storage shed) than loco restoration? I guess the rationale (from a Heritage Lottery point of view) is that, to maximise the benefit to the maximum number of people, with an engine the most that most people can get out of it is a photograph, whereas with a carriage multiple people can sit in it and take a trip. (I exaggerate a bit, but the point I hope is clear).

The question of whether "new builds" constitute "heritage" is an interesting one. To take a possible future example: the Bluebell, at some point, would no doubt like to recreate an 1860s LBSC train. That would be a unique attraction, at least in this country - the ability to travel in the style of 150 years ago. We have 3 or 4 carriage bodies of the right age, but realistically, there is no way these could be restored to a standard suitable for operational running, without losing whatever historical integrity they have. So if the project were ever to come off, it would be 100% replica - locos and carriages. At today's prices, that might be £1.5 million or so for an engine and 4 - 5 coaches.

Would that be heritage - and would it be suitable for heritage lottery funding? (those two questions might not be quite the same)! Clearly, there would be significant academic interest in the field of industrial archaeology in studying our existing carriage bodies to understand how they were built as a prelude to making replicas. It would advance knowledge of mid 19th century rolling stock construction. But could that knowledge be gained just by doing the archaeology, and not going on to build the replica? Maybe building the replica might help understand operational issues not apparent just from plans: if we built a really truthful replica of the loco, complete with feed pumps, feedwater heaters, coke firing and the full range of mid-19th century gadgets and gizmos (of which many designers of that period were rather partial), the operational and construction issues would be sufficiently removed from a modern engine that some real insights might develop. I believe that has been the rationale for some of the very early locomotive replicas.

So maybe the question is not as clear cut as I first thought. My natural inclination is that, given the choice, we should preserve what we have first before building new, for the simple reason that a new build project can be launched at any time, whereas once we lose what we have from the past, it is definitively gone. But equally, from an academic point of view, there may actually be significant justification in using new builds - as a kind of experimental archaeology - to answer questions that would not otherwise be answerable simply from drawings and contemporary photographs and written information.

Interested to hear other views.

Tom

 

Sorry to say this but the Isle of Wight have got there already and with genuine equipment, if from a slightly later era. They can already turn out three Brighton bogies behind an A1x as they did when I visited last November. I don't think the Lottery will be rushing to fork out many millions towards replicating the pre-Stroudley era nor, frankly, would I want them to. Apologies Tom.

Paul H.

 

Paul

I think you misunderstood my question a bit - and I'm certainly not angling for money, from the Lottery or elsewhere!

I guess the question is: how much is "heritage" concerned with preservation of existing material (albeit with the inevitable replacements / changes etc needed to keep it running in the 21st century), as occurs at the IoWSR, Bluebell, KESR etc; and how much could a project to create an experience or "learning opportunity" (dread phrase, but I can't think of another) that would be unique, but would also be 100% new construction? Could the latter be classified as "heritage" (especially if done for e.g. experimental archaeology reasons), or is "heritage" exclusively the preserve of renovating and preserving old material?

There are already steam locomotives that have been built, I'd suggest, for those reasons (notably FireFly and the various other "early" replicas) and, in the aeroplane field, there are numerous "new builds" of old aircraft; many of the WW I replicas have been built at least partly to explore and understand the flying characteristics of aeroplanes now long disappeared in original form. (The fact that they have a commercial viability as attractive to visitors of museums in their own right is a useful, and probably necessary, feature of course!) I suppose I'm trying to tease out whether such replicas count as "heritage" - and, indeed, whether, as was pointed out above, producing such replicas even of existing locomotives and carriages might increasingly be seen as the responsible thing to do from a stewardship point of view. Afterall, no-one now would consider trying to "restore" Stephenson's Rocket - you build a replica instead. At what point does that become the sensible thing for other historic items?

Tom

 

I guess a different take on it is archaeology itself.
often there are (worthy) projects to recreate the past and life, such as rebuilt roman forts, villa's weaponry etc. and ships... The Golden Hinde for example.
no one would argue they are not educationally worthwhile but are none the less historic replicas.
Again having them placed onsite at a castle or alongside the remains of the original artefact is very appropriate and they coexist and compliment each other.

 

Thanks for clearing this up. You know by now my position on these things ie that there is absolutely no point in a restoration to full working order or a new build unless the object concerned wholly or largely earns its keep in terms of revenue. Otherwise, in due course, it will lapse into disuse or even decay.

 

An interesting discussion, so thanks, guys. I've always felt, given that Lottery funding is always going to be limited, that it is much better that such funding is used to protect what exists, like the new carriage shed at Sheffield Park, or the proposed work at the Isle of Wight Railway. I think we have all seen the results of leaving locos and stock exposed to the elements for years; even where they are maintained in service there is much more wear and tear than if things were stored under cover. As an example, take the Tal-y-llyn, where they can keep their entire carriage fleet, and locos, under cover, with the result that they have often had 100% availability. (And yes, I know that many of the carriages have been "new build" in preservation, but most are older than many of the gently rotting mark 1s that are in service on some standard gauge lines).

We need to be putting resources into protecting what we already have, and are in danger of losing or at least have to re-restore at great expense at regular intervals. Too many railways lack such facilities (not deliberately I hope), but without them even carrying out new restorations (or new builds) become fraught with difficulties.

To come back to the topic of new builds - whilst much has been said of the costs of development, planning , building, etc., I would suggest that thought should also be given to building accommodation, as at Sheffield Park for the Atlantic, or as at Boston Lodge for the C2. This way, not only does the project itself benefit, but the host railway may benefit in the long term from the facilities. It doesn't have to be expensive, but it certainly beats working in the open air in February!

Steve B

 

Quoted by ADB968008 " No need for a witch hunt on the lad. We were all new to the reality of the hobby at some point."

Well said .

Keith

 

Tom,

You've raised quite a bit to discuss. I will endeavour, though I cant promise (work commitments at the minute), to reply later on in detail on this subject.

As I have mentioned earlier the Newcomen Societies article Learning Through Replication: The Planet Replica Project is a must read as it tackles these issues in far better prose that I could pose.

The issue of build time was raised. Despite its size Planet was a 6 year project starting in 1986 and completed in 1992. It went for trials both where it was based and at both the Great Central Railway in 1993, one video of pictures from said event produced below, and the East Lancashire Railway a couple of years after.

Planet Loco at the GCR - YouTube

It should be added that I wasnt born when this project began and the information learnt was out of own interest being involved in the operation and maintenance of it!

I will update further, if it is of interest, when I have a bit more free time.

Kind Regards

Duncan

 

Duncan - definitely interesting if you can provide more about this project, particularly (for me in any case) with regards what the project taught us about the construction and operation of early locomotives.

thanks

Tom

 

Tom,

I will reply properly in due course but not tonight.

On the discussion of prices the following may be food for thought since it has come up in the thread. A quote from near the end of the paper discusses the cost and states

'If the drawings had been passed to a manufacturer the figure would of been at least £1/4 million to build.'

Kind Regards

Duncan

 

Tom
I happen to know somebody who drives the Planet.
I am told there are differences determined by current railway rules and health and safety.
1) The boiler is all steel welded with two safety valves 9the original had one only).
2) It runs at 100psi. The original ran at 50psi. This is due to the requirement of having to have two ways of putting water into the boiler. There is now a live steam injector, necessitating the higher pressure, in addition to the original pump.
3) Cylinder dimensions have correspondingly been reduced to give the same performance as the original.
4) Air brakes are used -the original had no brakes, just go into reverse!
There is no cut off but a system of gears, so the driving technique is different.
I suggest you ask the Railway Officer at Manchester MOSI for a more complete answer.
Having said all that I still think it's a great recreation of the past, bringing alive again the early days of the express passenger locomotive in a very valid way.

 

I read that and suddenly thought what high ranking people you know... :ranger:

then I realised you meant the loco..

 

I understand that he who drives the planet takes a close interest in these things... as it says in the Psalms 'He knoweth the number of the Stars and calleth them all by their names'.... perhaps in His infinite wisdom he will guide our deliberations

 

He likes Saints too.

 

And according to some translations of John's gospel 'In my House there are many Halls'...

 

Next time you see him, ask him why he didn't build a GW4-6-2 Cathedral class then,

Shhhh.. maybe someone else will announce that as a new build next week !!

 

Is there anyone else round here we know of?