Question of Preservation against New Build

[S.A.C Martin]

I'd just like to put this post up for debate. I feel a right of reply on behalf of the trust is required, so I've underlined the section I feel is a misrepresentation of the A1 Trust - but equally applicable to all of the new build locomotives we have been built in this country.

 

Peter Thompson Says:

April 15th, 2010 at 3:58 pm

 

I think we’ve got too tied up in the politics of the moment, If I’ve read Pete’s original posting correctly It’s a warning that if we continue with these new builds then there is a grave danger that we will end up loosing our heritage.

 

Look at the high profile that Tornado has received in the short time since it has been completed, as far as the local press has been concerned you’d think it was the only steam locomotive around. I don’t think even Flying Scotsman has had a look in, and this is Yorkshire – home of the NRM. As Pete pointed out at the end of the day Tornado is a modern version of a steam loco dressed up to look like an A1, it’s not a Peppercorn design.

 

Now look at what Tornado has done for the railway preservation movement, massive publicity bringing steam to the attention of people who would not have thought about it before, £3 million pounds collected in 19 years to build the locomotive, first steamed in August 2008 – so its already half way through it’s ticket! Another £600 K still required. Steam tour most weekends – say 40 per year, average 10 coach each with 60 seats @ £75 per ticket – Approx £2.7 m that’s a massive £6.3 m in total not including appearance fee’s from the preserved lines it’s visited. But this figures has not been put into the movement it’s been EXTRACTED from it, admittedly not all that money would have gone into the preserved lines had Tornado not happened but whichever way you look it is a huge sum that could have been spent on our true heritage which is standing mothballed. And once the trust which owns Tornado have bled the UK preservation scene they’ve threatened to move to the continent where they hope it will go on to wrest various significant steam records –just think if Mallard was no longer the fastest would the NRM have reason to hold onto it?

 

This is only one high profile new build at the moment, more would only squeeze the coffers further and it wouldn’t matter if they’d been built in the UK, Germany or China they would still extract funds needed to preserve our history.

 

The preservation movement was grateful for Dai Woodham but he’s not around to save our heritage for a second time. The high cost of money – the loss of our heritage.

 

Firstly, I'd like to address the suggestion that the building of Tornado has taken money out of that available for preservation. There are thousands of covenators to Tornado's building who are also members of other preservation societies, putting time and effort in elsewhere as well as donating to Tornado's cause. That is their choice - it is their money, it is their time and effort, and it is their right to choose who and what they donate or dedicate time to.

 

You only have to look at the list of the A1 Trust members to realise that most of them are heavily involved in other projects which benefit railway preservation as a whole in any event. The one stands out for me is Graeme Bunker - head of steam dreams and overseeing many of the railtours which use heritage traction in the first place. David Eliott is also helping with the G5 project, a locomotive which fulfills a gap in preservation.

 

The idea that Tornado is, and I quote "[bleeding] the UK preservation scene" is an absolute nonsense. Everywhere that engine has gone, visitor numbers at preserved railways have increased dramatically. As noted, we are getting more of the everyday people who've never taken an interest in steam engines or preservation before getting a look in and enjoying what they see. Surely that is a big, big triumph for the profile of preservation in general? If it takes a large, brand new apple green pacific locomotive to show the best of the country's preserved railways in the general press (not the railway press), then surely that is a big positive for the movement as a whole?

 

Now, you all know my stance on Tornado. I won't repeat myself, you've all heard my rants before

 

I think what perhaps startles me is the level of accusation against a locomotive which has been built with private funds - by people who freely gave their money to a project they wanted to support. My late grandfather sadly never saw the engine he put money into steam, but it was his choice to donate, and his choice alone.

 

My question then is thus - is the above quotation a fair summation of the Tornado project, and perhaps an indication of feelings towards new build locomotives in general? I don't believe Tornado has taken any money away from preservation, certainly not from anyone in my influence - we all seem to give money to other projects as well - my friend Doug has given money to the Dolgoch appeal, is a member of the Talyllyn Railway and this month sent off for a covenators pack for Tornado too. It's his money - why shouldn't he put it where he wants it?

 

Thank you for your time in reading this. I'm well aware I'm extremely biased when it comes to Tornado, but the ramifications of the above paragraph do not bode well for the general feeling towards any new build projects in general - including, and not limited to, the Patriot, Grange, Saint, County, Brighton Atlantic, Worsdell G5, Clan, Standard 3MT and any others I've sadly forgot at time of writing.

[coachmann]

It is the kind of thing we expect on forums, which have proved to be fertile ground for armchair pundits and low achievers, while the real world just carries on creating and building.

 

'Tornado' is a splendid piece of engineering and has turned on people who previously never looked at railways. It can only benefit the preservation movement.

[S.A.C Martin]

Just to add, with my apologies, you can find the post in question, in its full context, on Pete Waterman's blog found here.

 

Thank you for your post, Coach. My sentiments exactly.

[Allegheny1600]

How many of the previously preserved steam locomotives in this country have generated sufficient interest outside of the railway community, to warrant a TV programme like "Top Gear" to mount one of their famous "challenges" against it?

The publicity generated from that one programme would probably have cost the millions of pounds this chap is raving on about.

We are very, very lucky to have Tornado as the press and the public appear to have taken her to their heart - this can only be a great thing for the rest of the preservation movement and roll on the next new build locos!

Cheers,

John E.

PS When is the P2 due?

[Trevellan]

There can be no doubt that Tornado has done wonders for the profile of the heritage railway movement. It has brought steam traction to the attention of a much wider audience and, ignoring the obvious silly bits, the Top Gear special was a great advert. Even Clarkson was gushing! I know several people in the rail industry who normally have no interest in “kettlesâ€, but laud the completion of Tornado as a fine logistical and engineering achievement.

[S.A.C Martin]

PS When is the P2 due?

 

Shush you!

 

(Can't and won't say anything at present)

[Chameleon]

I'd put my 2p into a P2

[10800]

Personally I have no problem with new-builds, or partial new-builds depending on how much original material is incorporated. How much of many of our 'restored' locomotives is actually original? How much of it was original when it was withdrawn in the first place? Does it matter? Eventually all our restored locomotives, if they are to remain in running condition, will go the way of Trigger's broom from Only Fools and Horses - "Just like new, I've only had to replace the handle three times and the head four times since my Dad gave it to me".

 

The thing to avoid is not new-build, facsimile, full-scale model, call it what you will. It's pastiche. When they put diesel engines and traction motors in a steam locomotive and a sound generator to make "choo-choo" noises, that will be a good reason to complain. But knowing railway enthusiasts that's not going to happen. So Tornado, Brighton Atlantic etc etc - bring 'em on. There will still be investors in ongoing restoration and maintenance projects, they can choose where to spend their money.

[PhilH]

PS When is the P2 due?Posted Image

 

When they can find a piece of track it won't wreck.......?

[S.A.C Martin]

When they can find a piece of track it won't wreck.......?

 

Now now...I do know this much, that I can say (as the A1 Trust were quite open about this a few years ago). The P2 design was put through the same simulation software as the updated design for Tornado a few years ago, and several areas of modification for working on the mainline were identified. The "spreading of the track" it seems, is not as much down to the total wheelbase length, but how the driving wheels were guided through points at the fore and aft ends of the engine.

 

Basic gist, the A1 Trust were pretty confident at the time that they could fix the flaws through simple accuracy of components fitted - and no "ample tolerances" as Gresley was so fond of!

 

Returning to the topic at hand - what's your take on the above Phil? I'd be most interested to hear your thoughts, as probably the only active driver among us in the thread at present (my apologies if that assumption is incorrect).

[Pixie]

first steamed in August 2008 – so its already half way through it’s ticket!

A bit of a tangent, but I thought that boiler certificates were 10 years long (making the half way point around 2013) or was Tornado's boiler certified in 2005?

 

Pix

[S.A.C Martin]

A bit of a tangent, but I thought that boiler certificates were 10 years long (making the half way point around 2013) or was Tornado's boiler certified in 2005?

 

Pix

 

That's pretty much a misinformed view about boilers Mr Thompson has, Pixie. Tornado's boiler has indeed been made to RU regs, but since it's been made for use in this country, it's only had two and a bit years of its allocated ten year ticket (first being steamed in early 2008).

[PhilH]

Returning to the topic at hand - what's your take on the above Phil? I'd be most interested to hear your thoughts, as probably the only active driver among us in the thread at present (my apologies if that assumption is incorrect).

 

My thoughts - well I'd pretty much agree with the quoted statement to be honest. Forget the driving bit, I've put 21 years into restoring some of the junk that we've got on the MHR. I've worked nights up there, I've bought lumps of loco home to machine on my lathe and mill till the wee small hours and I'm not alone in this, so have many others. That's what the preservation movement is about to me, not the high profile stuff. The A1 trust is big business with a publicity machine to match. People will get tired of seeing it, demand for it's presence on railtours will drop and it will become 'just' another loco when it's novelty factor wanes.

And by the way coachmann, I'm neither an armchair pundit or a low achiever. I just don't worship at the altar of 60163. If any organisation has the money they can achieve anything, perhaps this, the money raising exercise, was the A1 trust's real achievement, together with their sub-contracting efforts.

[S.A.C Martin]

My thoughts - well I'd pretty much agree with the quoted statement to be honest. Forget the driving bit, I've put 21 years into restoring some of the junk that we've got on the MHR. I've worked nights up there, I've bought lumps of loco home to machine on my lathe and mill till the wee small hours and I'm not alone in this, so have many others. That's what the preservation movement is about to me, not the high profile stuff. The A1 trust is big business with a publicity machine to match. People will get tired of seeing it, demand for it's presence on railtours will drop and it will become 'just' another loco when it's novelty factor wanes.

 

We'll agree to disagree on the underlined, but I do take your point about what preservation IS (bolded).

 

 

And by the way coachmann, I'm neither an armchair pundit or a low achiever. I just don't worship at the altar of 60163. If any organisation has the money they can achieve anything, perhaps this, the money raising exercise, was the A1 trust's real achievement, together with their sub-contracting efforts.

 

I don't think Coach was aiming at you Phil - but Mr Thompson and his views. Certainly the money-raising exercise is one that many projects could look at, as a template for how to run their organisations.

 

Speaking as one who does "worship at the altar of 60163", it was refreshing to me, to see people with real business acumen and a passion to fund it, build it, and then make it work for a living. It was as much a passion for the people behind the A1 Trust as it was with your own experiences Phil, I've seen it first hand time and again with them. Tornado is a new build, yes - but the passion for the original machines is what gave them a desire to make it work. Not so different in the outcome or in the premise, just different in the execution.

 

For my part, I feel that the accusation thrown at Tornado that she's taken money out of preservation is wholly and woefully misinformed. People didn't have to donate if they didn't want to, and as I said - from what I've seen, everyone contributes to preservation schemes as well as to Tornado.

[The Stationmaster]

 

 

The thing to avoid is not new-build, facsimile, full-scale model, call it what you will. It's pastiche. When they put diesel engines and traction motors in a steam locomotive and a sound generator to make "choo-choo" noises, that will be a good reason to complain. But knowing railway enthusiasts that's not going to happen.

 

Except in Japan - although it does run on a street tramway and it has its very own built-in turntable so it can turn itself at both ends of the route.

 

Fiendish clever......

 

Returning to the original question I think it is to some extent curate's egg. Constructing a loco - even if many bits of it are imported - does help to preserve skills and they are just as critical to preserve as hardware but then what often passes for 'preservation' has sometime amounted to a major rebuild job involving most of the same skills.

 

But critically what 'Tornado' has done more than any other loco I can remember is raise the profile of the steam railway/loco to the widest possible audience and no doubt some of that new audience will be attracted to existing preserved lines as a result. And 'Tornado' has also played a role in attracting more visitors to such sites and railways. So in that respect all to the good.

 

But I share Phil's view that one day it will be 'just another steam engine' and it will face exactly the same problem as its brethren - hunting out enough work and funds to pay for its upkeep. Some of its cachet will never go, but equally it can't be 'new' forever.

 

The big question - has it been good or bad for preservation is a difficult one to answer as it depends entirely on the way in which you look at the question. Overall I think the answer is positive but you might have a different view if your railway's gala had lost out to another if they had a visit from 60163, or if your 'restoration' kitty had taken a knock from the efforts of 60163's money-raisers.

[Michael Delamar]

its just like why we build models, to show people what the real thing was like.

 

education.

 

although the replica Rocket is probably a better example.

 

its nicer to have a 3d version, be it model or full size replica, than a drawing.

 

 

 

does it take money away from other projects and restorations? I dont think so really.

 

whilst lots are owned by societies, some preserved locos are wealthy mens toys, just like theyre classic cars and aeroplanes etc.

 

 

Mike

[Hammer]

Wait and see gentlemen. We have no real idea about how Tornado might affect the preservation movement in the long term, especially if it goes abroad (would the public clamour to see other locos?). There is no precedent for this situation.

[mikemeg]

Surely the building of new steam locomotives is an inevitable step in the incredible journey which has been the creation of the preserved railways and the restoration of the steam locomotive.

 

When steam was finally phased out from BR in 1968, how many of us could possibly have imagined that not a few dozen would be brought back from the dead but several hundred. We were resigned to the odd visit to the National Railway Museum to see a few pristine but lifeless examples of our railway heritage or perhaps the very occasional steam hauled special.

 

How many of us could have imagined that all over the country whole lines, whole routes would be restored to the glory that was their halcyon days. And how many of us could have imagined that literally millions of journeys per year would be made on these lines.

 

Much less could we imagine that classes which had disappeared long before the preservation movement began would be recreated, from new. Of course we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to that band of enthusastic volunteers who made this possible and who continue to be the backbone of so many heritage railway organisations. But the heritage railway movement is now an industry and a growing industry. As such these organisations are now proving themselves capable of organising and funding very large projects - evidence the North Yorkshire Moors Railway completely replacing one of their bridges, on time and on budget.

 

I guess one could equally ask why the Bluebell is spending so much money shifting thousands of tons of rubbish to reopen further route mileage and I guess the answer is because they can and because they feel they need to.

 

So all power to the A1 Locomotive Trust; you were the first but you won't be the last to build a new example of one of these filthy, hopelessly inefficient, noisy and simply wonderful machines.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[Jenny Emily]

Sometimes I feel that there is a misconception that one project 'pinches' money from others, just by its happening. I think that that is too simplistic an argument, and isn't really true.

 

Locomotives like 'Tornado', and other new builds may well be bringing in extra money to railway preservation that would not have otherwise gone to some other railway preservation cause. I've seen time and time again the suggestion when one person moots the idea of buying X class 37 from the latest tender list that they should instead plough their money into some-one else's restoration project. But that just isn't how the real world works. I don't give my funds to my neighbour restoring a MkI Ford Cortina instead of buying my own rusting hulk and rebuilding it. Why should a person effectively do the same for a railway locomotive? The money being spent wouldn't necessarily have gone into preservation funding if X locomotive hadn't have been there to use the money.

 

EDITED TO ADD: New builds are a logical progression to railway preservation. Quite apart from plugging gaps in our history that weren't originally preserved, it has to be remembered that pretty much all original steam locomotives are now life-expired. Sure, they can be rebuilt and rebuilt, but a new build may arguably offer a better value for money resulting in a locomotive that is cheaper to run, more reliable and can be better able to run on the mainline without issues.

[S.A.C Martin]

Sometimes I feel that there is a misconception that one project 'pinches' money from others, just by its happening. I think that that is too simplistic an argument, and isn't really true.

 

Locomotives like 'Tornado', and other new builds may well be bringing in extra money to railway preservation that would not have otherwise gone to some other railway preservation cause. I've seen time and time again the suggestion when one person moots the idea of buying X class 37 from the latest tender list that they should instead plough their money into some-one else's restoration project. But that just isn't how the real world works. I don't give my funds to my neighbour restoring a MkI Ford Cortina instead of buying my own rusting hulk and rebuilding it. Why should a person effectively do the same for a railway locomotive? The money being spent wouldn't necessarily have gone into preservation funding if X locomotive hadn't have been there to use the money.

 

EDITED TO ADD: New builds are a logical progression to railway preservation. Quite apart from plugging gaps in our history that weren't originally preserved, it has to be remembered that pretty much all original steam locomotives are now life-expired. Sure, they can be rebuilt and rebuilt, but a new build may arguably offer a better value for money resulting in a locomotive that is cheaper to run, more reliable and can be better able to run on the mainline without issues.

 

Totally agree with all of that.

 

The last point RE reliability - I think it's telling that Tornado's only "failure" in the last year was on the NYMR with a malfunctioning fusible plug - withdrawn from service as a precaution. On the mainline she's been exceptional in the last year. Is this simply down to being new? Partly I feel, although arguably if a locomotive is put together using the most modern technology available (let's use an example - the tolerances in the roller bearings fitted to Tornado being better fitted and more accurately fitted than that 50 years ago), then it stands to reason it will run better when you ask more of it.

 

Looking at just failures on the mainline this last year, it's been quite rare and I feel it's unfair to single out Scots Guardsmen for criticism when it has been running otherwise perfectly since its return. That said - looking at the case of the other scot, Royal Scot, which is as yet to turn a wheel on the mainline at time of writing, there have been problems aired in the press regarding the accuracy of certain components fitted - again, without the full picture I would not like to single out Royal Scot but it is clear that the A1 Trust did something right in their take on building a locomotive that has proved itself a reliable performer and a good return on its outlay.

 

That said there are many original steam locomotives on the mainline today which are excellent, reliable machines (Bittern, Sir Nigel Gresley, Tangmere, Oliver Cromwell, any one of about five black fives and an 8F...even a Pannier tank!), and the obvious connection between all of these projects and any new builds is the passion and desire to see their engines out and about, and earning their keep.

[Bomag]

My thoughts - well I'd pretty much agree with the quoted statement to be honest. The A1 trust is big business with a publicity machine to match. People will get tired of seeing it, demand for it's presence on railtours will drop and it will become 'just' another loco when it's novelty factor wanes.

I just don't worship at the altar of 60163. If any organisation has the money they can achieve anything, perhaps this, the money raising exercise, was the A1 trust's real achievement, together with their sub-contracting efforts.

 

A man after my own heart. While a proportion of the funding for the A1 will have been generated from sources which would not have otherwise been given to the movement I would estimate that the majority of the funds provided would have ended up sooner or later been put into other heritage projects. It could be argued that we don't need yet another GWR tank engine or Bullied light pacific restored (the former perhaps) there are plenty of sole survives left, particularly from the LNER, which could have really used the cash.

 

The publicity machine is as big as the loco and definitely has raised public awareness (but being constantly asked if you have seen Tornado is annoying); however, I would expect a similar or greater public reaction once Flying Scotsman is finished. She will probably have been out of service for the best part of 10 years by then so the over exposure some thought she had will have faded; coupled with her history the potential for generating extra revenue to the movement will be greater.

 

While the A1 is a great achievement in itself, if given the choice between paying for a trip behind Tornado or for a chance to support a project which is lower profile but of equal merit - such as the quad art - the latter will normally gets my money.

[S.A.C Martin]

I've gone away and done some thinking on the last post, and would like to address a few points:

 

A man after my own heart. While a proportion of the funding for the A1 will have been generated from sources which would not have otherwise been given to the movement I would estimate that the majority of the funds provided would have ended up sooner or later been put into other heritage projects.

 

How do you know that? Is there any evidence to support this? What is that estimation based on? And when you say majority of funds, can we have a rough figure as to how much?

 

I keep hearing that money would or should have gone into a preservation project. Would it, really?

 

There's not many preservation projects that would get my money - and I highly doubt someone interested in, say, narrow gauge steam in wales would actively seek out donating to restoring a random class 37 over his or her chosen allegiances. Donating is a very personal choice, and that is down to the individual, not a group.

 

It could be argued that we don't need yet another GWR tank engine or Bullied light pacific restored (the former perhaps) there are plenty of sole survives left, particularly from the LNER, which could have really used the cash.

 

Yes, they could have used the best part of £3million for all those projects - but would the money - and I mean each individual donation - given to Tornado have gone on to any of those schemes? You cannot feasibly say either way. I said above that most people I know in the trust also give to other preservation projects, but that cannot and will not be true of every single case.

 

The publicity machine is as big as the loco and definitely has raised public awareness (but being constantly asked if you have seen Tornado is annoying); however, I would expect a similar or greater public reaction once Flying Scotsman is finished. She will probably have been out of service for the best part of 10 years by then so the over exposure some thought she had will have faded; coupled with her history the potential for generating extra revenue to the movement will be greater.

 

I've always felt Flying Scotsman's importance to preservation to be greater than the exposure or perhaps credit she is given for her part, and in Tornado I wonder if a similar thing is happening on a smaller scale here. Whether we like that it's taken an apple green, ex-LNER design pacific locomotive to capture the hearts of non-enthusiasts or not, it is exactly this public awareness and firm killing off of the trainspotter anorak type that will help the movement develop ten fold in the coming decades to come.

 

People such as Pete Waterman are saying that if we don't preserve certain skills, the movement will die. I feel that is true but we are also in danger of pushing people away or underselling ourselves if we don't raise public awareness in the way Tornado has done recently, and Flying Scotsman before her.

 

The difference in the way the A1 Trust has gone about raising awareness of their cause, and the way in which donating to the trust works, is not seen in the same form elsewhere in preservation, and its only with Tornado's completion that we are seeing other new build groups and preservation groups adapt to some of these techniques employed by the trust. It took 18 years to build Tornado, but some Barry wrecks have taken forty years to be returned to steam. Is this due to a lack of funds, which could be down to a lack of raising awareness of the restoration group and thereby giving a restoration the best chance to succeed?

 

While the A1 is a great achievement in itself, if given the choice between paying for a trip behind Tornado or for a chance to support a project which is lower profile but of equal merit - such as the quad art - the latter will normally gets my money.

 

That pretty much proves my point about personal choice. Tornado doesn't float your boat but the quad arts do. Fair enough - it's a personal choice and neither outcome is a "wrong choice" - but I simply don't buy that any money would have gone to preservation that went into Tornado. People donate to causes they connect with on a personal level - they either donate, or they don't, based on whether they connect with the idea or ideals or not. If your money had not gone to the quad arts, would they have gone to, say, the Dolgoch appeal?

 

Either way, your first statement simply can't be quantified or proved without polling every single person who donated to Tornado in the first place - and to then phrase it somewhat as fact based on your feelings towards Tornado seems to be moving the goalposts a little bit.

[Pinkmouse]

I was down at the Bluebell a couple of weeks ago doing the volunteer induction tour, and Tornado came up quite frequently in conversations with the staff. It seems that everyone there had much the same opinion, it may be the wrong company and the wrong colour, but it was a great advert for the preservation movement, and there was wholehearted support. I didn't hear one word said seriously against it, nor anyone worried about diversion of funds from anything else.

 

Now if those on the front line aren't worried, who are these people that are getting upset?

[James]

Tornado has done so much for the hobby of railways in general - friends of mine have talked about it, especially after th episode of Top Gear. Not sure if it's made them think they must visit a preserved railway though...

 

I think Tornado has overtaken Scotsman in popularity amoung the gneral public - the latter's tag of the 'People's Engine' annoys me an awful lot, just marketing ######! I think it would be best to stuff and mount Scotsman in the NRM, in an accurate external condition and release funds for other projects. However I think the whole 'SOS' campaign has brought in money that otherwise would never have been donated to preservation, much like Tornado's funds.

 

Another way to look at things is while so much time and money has been spent on-going loco restorations, how many historic coaches and wagons have deteriorated (sp?) beyond economic restoration?

[Guest Max Stafford]

For my tuppenceworth, I consider Tornado to be a real triumph on many fronts. She's the first of a new generation of power. It has been previously noted that the original-build locos are only getting older. They can only be re-built so many times before the metalwork becomes too old to function safely and therefore the new-build locos will ultimately have to shoulder the burden of main line work. New-builds are also vital for maintaining a nucleus of the industrial skills base required for the construction and maintenance of motive power. Tornado is, after all, the newest main line locomotive built in the UK.

 

But for me personally, she represents a triumph over all those negative attitudes to new projects and enterprises that have plagued the British Psyche since the 1950s. She has ably demonstrated that where there is determination, intelligent planning and sheer goodwill, the traditional confidence and 'can do' that once made Britain the world's premier power can still flourish.

 

For me, Tornado and those who will follow represent something very powerful - a symbolic manifestation of the spirit of Britain.

 

I look forward to the advent of "Unknown Warrior", which will add an additional dimension to this symbolism.

 

Dave.