New Build G5

[lar1976]

Wonder if there's any chance of a back and forth from Monkseaton to Tynemouth... nahh didn't think so. It's wonderful to see the project going so well and surely a run on the Tanfield with some of the old NER stock or Directors saloon should be on the cards?

[2002EarlMarischal]

Can't search for L1 using this Forum's search facility, so it may have been covered elsewhere, but were people aware that there is also a new build L1 project?

[majormagna]

Yes, the thread for the L1 can be found HERE.

However the website seems to have gone.

[S.A.C. Martin]

I wouldn't put much stock in the L1 project to be frank. The only one which seems to have the momentum is the Claud Hamilton group, of the ones created on Facebook.

Seeing that the F5's frames have also been cut, and that the G5 is getting closer - it's going to be an exciting decade for us all, with the new builds coming into service for the first time.

[majormagna]

Seeing that the F5's frames have also been cut, and that the G5 is getting closer - it's going to be an exciting decade for us all, with the new builds coming into service for the first time.

I agree, and what with a few heritage lines under threat of steam loco shortage, I think it'll cause a welcome stopgap for some.

Regarding you comment regarding the other newbuild projects, I'm sorry to say I completely agree. The big issue is the ones that are more economical to build will be lower earners, as they'll be very limited, if not unable to run on the National Network.

[Rlangham]

I personally find the smaller projects, and also the pre-grouping ones, the most interesting - the F5 and G5, as well as very interesting locomotives (are there any 2-4-2T's preserved at all, other than Lancashire and Yorkshire 1008?) they will prove very useful. In the case of pre-grouping projects it will also cover a gap in preserved locomotives - no one can complain that 1948-1968 is poorly represented on preserved railways, but there's not many places that accurately portray Victorian or Edwardian railways with the stock and motive power to match.

What I'd really love to see is the LNWR Bloomer at Tyseley completed, and more locomotives from the 19th century, the earlier the better

[Autocar Publicity]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, you could say that steam locos evolved through their history and therefore a standard 4 tank is more efficient than a G5 or F8 (for instance) even if these are new builds. As a photographer and enthusiast, I'd prefer to see one of the latter hauling trains on preserved lines. But if I was a General Manager of a line, my preference would be for the standard.

Personally, I think pre Grouping locos appeal mainly due to their scarcity. If they were more common, would they be as popular? The other issue is of course is how much of them is original? I know this has been discussed in other threads but most seem to be like Grandad's axe or Trigger's broom...

Having said that, I do look forward to seeing the G5 running too.

[lar1976]

Surely the original outlay is spent on patterns and research to build a G5, surely if at least 3 or 4 were built it would bring cost down? Have to be honest and say I'm bemused by the P2 new build idea as how many preserved railways could accomodate a P2 in between railtours?

[S.A.C. Martin]

Surely the original outlay is spent on patterns and research to build a G5, surely if at least 3 or 4 were built it would bring cost down? Have to be honest and say I'm bemused by the P2 new build idea as how many preserved railways could accomodate a P2 in between railtours?

The ultimate decision to build one is based on a pragmatic desire for a locomotive which can accomodate better overall point to point timings, adhesion and steaming capability than a Pacific - which a P2 can in theory do in spades.

Preserved railway visits, although absolutely a great thing to do between railtours, isn't the ultimate aim of the Trust's desire for a P2 (and it wasn't for Tornado, either, to be frank. I'm not saying they wouldn't go to preserved railways; far from it. But they wanted to build a working mainline steam locomotive. Going up and down private lines at 25-35 mph is secondary to the Railtours).

Having read the A1 Trust's update in their Communication Chord booklet this month, I'm further intrigued by the engineering thinking behind the possible new stablemate for Tornado. A P2 seems a very logical choice for the next build - will use components standard between Tornado and it, will use the same boiler type (albeit the modified boiler as Tornado now carries and not the original re-design of the 118), so in theory the boilers can be swapped around and overhauled for use on either engine.

Of all of the new builds started up within the last two or three years, the A1 Trust P2 is the one I would put my money on, because a) the group wanting to build it are a known commodity with Tornado, and b) because they are going the right way about it in terms of finding out if it will be able to go mainline before committing to a build. If they decide it's not a viable design, they'll look at something else.

[Autocar Publicity]

It's the same with anything, a one-off has to pay for all the fixed costs and design work is going to be a big part of this. Therefore if you build one (of any class) you'd better target a high revenue stream - i.e. railtours - to pay for all of these. If you build (say 6 or 10) then there would be considerable savings. But six P2s for railtours? Hmmm....

10 new build standard tanks/panniers/J72s, with a much lower unit cost, built for preserved lines and a lower income flow, might work - if everyone could agree on what class.

I find it difficult to argue with SAC Martin's logic, it does sound like they have thought everything through, both on the supply side (it's technically feasible) and (likely) demand side (there's enough work for it and more money's going to come in the Trust's bank balance than go out).

[52D]

Im sort of halfway to agreeing with Autocar, what id like to see is maybe a few extinct classes that share major components being recreated.

[Rlangham]

A batch of J72's, panniers etc would be nice - perhaps a batch of Tanks for each region where required, ie J72's for north eastern area preserved lines, Panniers for ex-GWR lines, Jinty's for ex-LMS lines etc etc, and perhaps not necessarily the type we see in preservation already - J71's, older type Panniers, older Midland Tanks etc.

It will be interesting to see what the future holds - whereas twenty years ago there were very very few replica steam locomotives, we now have the superb set of early locomotives at Beamish (although Locomotion is quite an old replica), Tornado, the G5 on the verge of completion, the Beachy Head project on the Bluebell and many more well into development.

I agree with Autocar that one of the attractions of pre-grouping types is their rarity (although for me personally it's also due to my interest in the Victorian and Edwardian eras), and also perhaps the wider variety of liveries ie (if passenger) brightly coloured pre-grouping liveries. Playing Devil's Advocate further on the GM of a line theme I'd probably prefer no steam and using DMU's!

[manna]

G'Day Gents

Being silly for a moment, but in a serious way, would it be possible to have a 'standard' chassis (0-6-0 only) ie. set wheelbase and a same sized boiler, then the owners could then add there own types of tanks, cabs coal bunkers, bit like Hornby did with the 'Jinty' one chassis then made different bodies, I know they wouldn't be absolutely correct............just thinking out loud

might solve a few problems !!

manna

[Solario]

If a batch of new build tanks were to be considered then G5 would be the "no brainer" (rather than J72s etc). They would not only fit in on many NE heritage lines but I don't see why they should not be used elsewhere, after all most ex-LNER heritage lines use locos from the other companies.

If any group was determined to have something different, then the existing plans for the key component i.e. the boiler, could be used to build an F8 or a J73 for example as they (and a number of other NER classes) had very similar boilers.

A thought occurred to me - I wonder if the F5 people have studied the dimensions of the G5 boiler? It is probably fairly similar and maybe the F5 chassis could be tweaked to accept it; it could save them considerable expense. After all the F5 & G5 came from the same roots.

[52D]

Off the top of my head im sure the LNER used the same boiler as a replacement for the original in both F5 & F8 classes.
Wordsells two locos were that similar they could have been classed F5/1 & F5/2.