A 'Land Cruise' Train to replace main line MK1's

[adb968008]

I’m just as fixated as not using a mk1, as much as you arent open to other possibilities.

 

A coach is a box, think outside it.

 

😀

 

A mk1 is nice, its had its day.

if your spending £3mn a coach, may as well get the latest.

A mark 1 isnt going to be moving at 125mph, on non-heritage legs and using fixed bar couplings, without buffers, commonwealth bogies  within the rake etc.

its going to need to be able to, to get more paths in an ects world. Even freight is looking at 100mph vehicles.

 

It may be a nod to history (both ideas are), but this isnt about recreating the ER in the 1961, its about a tourist day out to an ABC12 customer and giving a modern feel to it.

 

If they want real history, then its preserved railways all the way as its about much more than the coaches and the loco. Its been that way since c1980 when the network really started changing.

 

Personally the whole idea is a pipe dream.. i’d settle for 2x 8x mark2a/b rakes in NSE and Regional Railways myself… you could even paint blue/grey on one side too. Just add a 37 and a 50.

 

The future is really only the coaches we have, tweaked until they can be tweaked no more. if that means I sign an indemnity waiver with more pages than those guys going down to the Titanic, so be it.
 

Fyi I did have to sign such a waiver of indemity on a train once.. 3 pages of how I might die and waiving rights, the result was a footplate ride on this..

And this only has 1 set of everything !   - injectors, water gauges even no loco brake, just the train brake or the hand brake. If theres a problem with the airpump, grab a spanner and go out this door..

 

 

Its also quite risky for passengers too..

look no windows and warning signs!

 

The problem imo isnt the mk1, its about being too safe.

We have the safest and most gold plated railway in the world, but its stifling potential.

 

It puts us at disadvantage to other parts of the world, and risks making life too safe, in such as when a dangerous event occurs people dont know how to react, and walk into dangerous situations that they arent aware of because they are so far removed from them they lack the situational awareness. ( such as the door incident at GCR, passengers self egressing onto third rail.. and every now and again someone has a domestic with their partner and gets out on a motorway).

You cannot protect against everything, but you can raise awareness. Influence is always more impactful than control, but our civil service still thinks its the 15th century and we all exist but for the grace of them. They supply the admirals, we provide the ships.

 

The Jacobite is no more dangerous today than it was in 1985. Nothing changed before or since, except the passengers situational awareness. This change has only come about because of control enforced on the industry to eliminate one risk, has created another.

if the future of this operation is mk2d’s and window bars, it will probably end.

There needs to be a sensible medium, perhaps stopping the train on the viaduct for a few minutes to allow photos, because your not going to stop the passenger trying to get a photo. If the passenger knows that, youve successfully influenced them, and reduced their likelihood of taking risks (“going to take a quick look if were there yet” or grabbing window inadvance) as now they know they dont need to. The risk is managed and the pressure on stewards reduced.

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Not so - Network Rail are funding ECTS fitment to Tornado and a Black Five (one of Rilleys ones IIRC) as we speak and they wouldn't be spending all that cash if they didn't think they couldn't make it work.

 

What is however true is the 'pool' of mainline registered locos gets smaller as its expensive to fit ECTS on top of the overhaul costs to mainline standards

I'd love to know how such fitment will be fully compliant and close the regulator while maybe turning on the blower and doing any necessary adjustment to the setting of the injectors?   Answers on a postcard please.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Would new build mk1’s really be accepted with grandfather rights ?

 

They would need to be to todays standards.. by the time youve done all that, youve a mk6.

 

 

If they're a new build then that is what they are - not older vehicles carrying Grandfather Rights.  For the simple reason that to build them exactly as original Mk1 vehicles would not be compliant with current regulations etcso various critical design ans construction detail would be new..

[woodenhead]

8 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I'd love to know how such fitment will be fully compliant and close the regulator while maybe turning on the blower and doing any necessary adjustment to the setting of the injectors?   Answers on a postcard please.

Whilst it doesn't answer your specific questions, this does show the engineering being applied to add ECTS to three locos (2 steam, 1 Deltic) for East Coast running.  I think having companies like the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust assures us of future steam running on mainlines unlike another company who seem to try and do the opposite.  I've set it to start at 33 minutes..

 

[woodenhead]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

The Jacobite is no more dangerous today than it was in 1985. Nothing changed before or since, except the passengers situational awareness. This change has only come about because of control enforced on the industry to eliminate one risk, has created another.

if the future of this operation is mk2d’s and window bars, it will probably end.

There needs to be a sensible medium, perhaps stopping the train on the viaduct for a few minutes to allow photos, because your not going to stop the passenger trying to get a photo. If the passenger knows that, youve successfully influenced them, and reduced their likelihood of taking risks (“going to take a quick look if were there yet” or grabbing window inadvance) as now they know they dont need to. The risk is managed and the pressure on stewards reduced.

 

Lets not forget before 1985 people were falling from doors and bashing their heads on lineside aparatus or other trains (last time was 2016 iirc).  The efforts to reduce fatalities led to the aim to do away with unlocked hinged doors with opening windows.

 

The Jacobite is probably unlike the other Mk1 railtour sets because of where it runs and who it attracts, whilst a trip along the ECML, WCML or Settle and Carlisle will be a nice meal and some drink, the Jacobite is going to attract Harry Potter enthusiasts, travel influencers and suchlike who want photos placing pressure on the stewards to manage expectations and keep passengers from pressing against a hinged door of an ageing coach or hanging out a toplight.  Other services are going to get some individuals who want to do this, but I would imagine that the numbers and risk is greatly increased with the Jacobite.

 

It's not going to be a speed thing, it's going to be someone falling, someone not being aware of lineside aparatus or something similar that will cause an accident and the ORR see the additional risk of an enthusiast type trip over your day out and a meal trippers.

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

I’m just as fixated as not using a mk1, as much as you arent open to other possibilities.

 

A coach is a box, think outside it.

 

😀

 

A mk1 is nice, its had its day.

if your spending £3mn a coach, may as well get the latest.

A mark 1 isnt going to be moving at 125mph, on non-heritage legs and using fixed bar couplings, without buffers, commonwealth bogies  within the rake etc.

its going to need to be able to, to get more paths in an ects world. Even freight is looking at 100mph vehicles.

 

It may be a nod to history (both ideas are), but this isnt about recreating the ER in the 1961, its about a tourist day out to an ABC12 customer and giving a modern feel to it.

 

If they want real history, then its preserved railways all the way as its about much more than the coaches and the loco. Its been that way since c1980 when the network really started changing.

 

Personally the whole idea is a pipe dream.. i’d settle for 2x 8x mark2a/b rakes in NSE and Regional Railways myself… you could even paint blue/grey on one side too. Just add a 37 and a 50.

 

The future is really only the coaches we have, tweaked until they can be tweaked no more. if that means I sign an indemnity waiver with more pages than those guys going down to the Titanic, so be it.
 

Fyi I did have to sign such a waiver of indemity on a train once.. 3 pages of how I might die and waiving rights, the result was a footplate ride on this..

And this only has 1 set of everything !   - injectors, water gauges even no loco brake, just the train brake or the hand brake. If theres a problem with the airpump, grab a spanner and go out this door..

 

 

Its also quite risky for passengers too..

look no windows and warning signs!

 

The problem imo isnt the mk1, its about being too safe.

We have the safest and most gold plated railway in the world, but its stifling potential.

 

It puts us at disadvantage to other parts of the world, and risks making life too safe, in such as when a dangerous event occurs people dont know how to react, and walk into dangerous situations that they arent aware of because they are so far removed from them they lack the situational awareness. ( such as the door incident at GCR, passengers self egressing onto third rail.. and every now and again someone has a domestic with their partner and gets out on a motorway).

You cannot protect against everything, but you can raise awareness. Influence is always more impactful than control, but our civil service still thinks its the 15th century and we all exist but for the grace of them. They supply the admirals, we provide the ships.

 

The Jacobite is no more dangerous today than it was in 1985. Nothing changed before or since, except the passengers situational awareness. This change has only come about because of control enforced on the industry to eliminate one risk, has created another.

if the future of this operation is mk2d’s and window bars, it will probably end.

There needs to be a sensible medium, perhaps stopping the train on the viaduct for a few minutes to allow photos, because your not going to stop the passenger trying to get a photo. If the passenger knows that, youve successfully influenced them, and reduced their likelihood of taking risks (“going to take a quick look if were there yet” or grabbing window inadvance) as now they know they dont need to. The risk is managed and the pressure on stewards reduced.

 

It’s not so much closed to other possibilities - it’s called being a realist in cash terms.

 

The charter market only exists because NR are generous enough to indemnify (or to be more precise absorb all the delay minutes and pay compensation out of their own pockets rather than pass the bill on) and the costs of maintaining the kit necessarily to run then can be covered by the ticket price.

 

If new build chapter train coaching stock is ever required then it’s going to need to be as cheap as possible to procure simply because the industry cannot afford anything else  - and commercial rolling stock supplier is in the business of producing loco hauled coaching stock on a commercial basis let alone stuff suitable for steam loco haulage.

 

Equally there is fact chance of the regulatory regime changing - The ORR will NEVER permit open sided carriages on the U.K. mainline so let’s stop wasting time fantasying about things that are simply not within the realms of possibility and concentrate on the core issues.

 

So where does that leave the Charter train industry - well as it happens there is a president for a vehicle being produced by the Heritage movement from scratch with all new parts which does not comply with whole swathes of design regulations but has nevertheless been accepted as perfectly fine to run on the mainline….. It’s called Tornado!

 

Tornado is built to a design from the 1950s - yes it has had a lot of tweaks but it’s still fundamental a 1950s design. It doesn’t comply with lots of current regulations (driver visibility for starters due to a stinking big boiler being in front of the cab for example but that was no bar to it getting approval for mainline use).

 

So to return to coaching stock - I could easily see a similar approach working with a Mk1 coach.  It’s a design that is well within the capabilities of the Heritage railway industry to produce in-house at a relatively low cost and in small numbers - largely because of its use of a traditional underframe rather than monocoque construction which means it can draw on the skills the industry already has from steam / Mk1 / grouping rolling stock etc.

 

Furthermore you can do an awful lot to customise the basic Mk1 design -  including altering door positions etc precisely because of that seperate inderframe (where as in a monocoque design every tiny change has huge implications when it comes to structural strength

 

In safety terms it would not be hard to reinforce the end structure so it has better crashworthynes , central door locking and retention tank toilets can easily  be added to the design.

 

Thats why I see the Mk1 as a sound foundation for new coach construction- it’s not because of emotion, it’s due to a sound appraisal of economics and engineering!

 

 

 

 

 

[adb968008]

I’m not sure I see a use case for preserved railways for new coaches.

Sidings are full of rotting ones awaiting restoration.

If a 100 year old wooden body can be recovered, anything can for a while yet… there is still a lot to feast on.

 

I just dont see a “new build” mk1 being accepted on the mainline without considerable cost and safety enhancements.

 

Your analogy of Tornado doesnt apply… its a locomotive, not a coach, it doesn't carry passengers.

 

I do think air brakes is an easy target for preserved railways into the future, and given more air braked stuff is likely to be preserved in the future may make more sense.

 

But I dont see an affordable cost for new build coaches for heritage mainline use.

The future is mk3’s, after that tpe mk5’s using the dvt end to couple.. theres enough of both to last 50 more years.

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by adb968008

[adb968008]

23 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

It's actually the other way round - the bodies suffer from tin worn far more than the underframes. But I agree with the principle of what you're saying - the Mk1 is actually very repairable. I've seen some of the LSL ones stripped down (maybe you have yourself?) - they're effectively being given the C1 classified repair BR never gave them (the latter built ones at any rate). With decent ongoing maintenance and covered accommodation they'll certainly see us out.

The mark 1 was designed to have a mid life body replacement, BR even did this with the Leyland coach.

 

but a new build and a rebuild are two different things.

 

A new build will need to be certified as a new vehicle, meeting current standards. Or put another way… why would you want to try to purposely circumvent current safety standards by building an old design, solely based on cost ?

Edited July 22, 2023 by adb968008

[Hesperus]

There's probably enough early Mk2 coach's in preservation to eliminate mk1s on the mainline.  A lot of lines that own them would prefer mk1s to go with their steam engines and might swap for well maintained mk1s*.  That's not going to stop people putting their heads out the window though.

 

Realistically the future is Mk3s or mk4s, probably some of the recently (and expensively) DDA equipped HST trailers.  As mentioned above there should be the possibility of fitting opening windows to some of the Mk3s from withdrawn MU stock.  The different electrical system is a nuisance but not the end of the world with a generator car.

 

I can't see preserved lines building new coach's for safety reasons.  We might see some utterly rotten or NPCCS mk1s getting new bodies when there's nothing left to weld to.   They might look like mk1s or recreate some big 4 stock but it'll be done as an investment in stock that will last a few years with less maintenance.

 

*I know there have been complaints about the standard of maintenance but surely they have to be reasonable to stay on the mainline.

[Colin_McLeod]

If considering new build heritage coaches, why anything as recent as a Mk1 lookalike?   How about a brand new coach that meets modern standards, but looks like say, a big four coach, or even a pre group coach? 

 

Just thinking outside the  box. 

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

I just dont see a “new build” mk1 being accepted on the mainline without considerable cost and safety enhancements.

 

Your analogy of Tornado doesnt apply… its a locomotive, not a coach, it doesn't carry passengers.

 

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

A new build will need to be certified as a new vehicle, meeting current standards. Or put another way… why would you want to try to purposely circumvent current safety standards by building an old design, solely based on cost ?

I probably shouldn't spend time posting any more but, for what it's worth:

 

The Tornado analogy is in fact the correct one, at least from a standards compliance and certification point of view.

 

Heritage vehicles that run on the GB mainline railway are excluded from mainline railway requirements (subject to certain conditions). This is stated here:

https://www.orr.gov.uk/guidance-compliance/rail/health-safety/laws/rogs/exclusions-mainline-railway-requirements

(item 4 in their list)

 

If you click on 'approved list' that'll take you to here:

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/rogs-exclusion-approved-list.pdf

 

You then need to scroll WAY down (past the list of every single heritage railway etc) to page 13 of 14, where you'll find the conditions for mainline heritage. For avoidance of doubt, 'National Safety Rules' refers to things like the Rule Book.

 

Meanwhile(!), DfT also publishes a similar (complementary) list:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exclusions-from-the-railways-interoperability-regulations-2011/approved-list-of-exclusions-from-the-scope-of-the-railways-interoperability-regulations-2011

 

If you scroll down a bit to Infrastructure and vehicles reserved for a historical (heritage) or touristic use and read Note 3, there you will find the standards and certification requirements for heritage vehicles. And, although it doesn't say it there as such, when you delve into the standards quoted (available via RSSB but not directly publicly viewable) you will find that 'new build heritage' is catered for in there. Steam Locomotives, Diesel / Electric Locomotives and passenger coaches are all in there.

 

In a nutshell, a mainline heritage vehicle (existing or new) does NOT have to comply with current mainline standards; there are a different set of standards determined for such vehicles. However (here comes the bit about not eating your cake), they are limited to use for heritage services only and that, inter alia, places specific restrictions such a limited mileage per year, periodic re-certification (annual in the case of a steam loco etc).

 

Also in the detail of the standards is that a heritage vehicle is, by definition, based on a design with a known previous good safety record (ie it can be shown that it once ran successfully so it has the potential to run successfully on the modern railway). Via that 'rule', a new-build Mk1 vehicle would qualify; however, your Mk6 'heritage' coach would NOT qualify, as it would be a new, untried and untested design.

 

I actually 'get' a lot of what you're saying about the future of mainline heritage and what the majority client base really wants. But it's market forces that will shape that, not compliance with standards.

[LNER4479]

5 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

If considering new build heritage coaches, why anything as recent as a Mk1 lookalike?   How about a brand new coach that meets modern standards, but looks like say, a big four coach, or even a pre group coach? 

In principle - yes. But the big stumbling block there is wooden-body vehicle bodies. The traditional Belmond Pullman vehicles are a sort of a special case but a new build to such a design is likely to be regarded as 'beyond the pale'. The good previous safety record is probably what gets called into question there.

 

Or they would only run under very strict limitations (ref the Didcot Railmotor running under 'one train in steam' possession arrangements)

 

Of course, someone with money to burn could always propose a metal body in the style of a wooden-bodied vehicle design? It would then qualify as a 'Mk1' in terms of current ORR reasoning.

[adb968008]

Thanks, 

 

ive read those links and downloaded a copy of RIS-2003-RST.

A high level review, I see why the mk1 approach makes sense.

However it still fails.

 

Going such a route will require considerable certifications of major changes.

The end result is a vehicle with considerable restrictions on use.

Neither are compatible with a commercial offering.

Not making improvements to suit the current market is illogical, unless its a heritage / cultural restoration or new build.

 

I fail to see why “new building” coaches enmasse would not be non-commercial in nature.

 

Indeed this very approach may require considerably more coaches than needed to work around mileage constraints of such a fleet, and indeed would the regulatory bodies not recognise an abuse of process ?

if this was to build a new rake of Coronation coaches for use a dozen times a year it makes sense.

but if this was a new set of “mk1 replacements” in any previous heritage profile, built to run excessively year round to earn an roi, then it would not.

 

The process is designed for what it is intended… heritage vehicles, of limited use… not new build vehicles via the back door.

 

thanks for the insight there though its a lot of reading, but I get the gist of it, yes a mk1 makes sense, but in the theory proposed by the OP, unless it was a new Belmond at higher prices it has no chance commercially. And Technically whilst it offers a route, it still makes no sense, unless it was as intended… heritage / cultural nature (ie not for profit/charitable or limited commercial use).

 

If its that high a bar (and rightly so), then the logical is to restore what already exists, or new build based on charitable / cultural aims.

 

I stand by what Ive said all along.. its mk3’s if its to have a commercial chance.

A mk6 is the only commercial route to new build, but wont wash its face, going the mk1 technical route maybe good if you want a ton of restrictions on when/where and how much it can be used… and those restrict revenue £££.

A new land train, probably best buying mk5’s by the looks of it, it gives flex to the max potential and thus revenue earning. But beyond paint and minor mods, theres little heritage about it, and no pretence either… its a new train for commercial gain.

 

just a thought though on limited use….

 

given this years new regulations on door locks, toilet tanks etc.. a lot of coaches in use last year are now out of use this year. Given mileage restrictions on what is compliant… I guess thats putting quite a constraint on operations this year ?

who monitors how much mileage a vehicle can be used annually ?

How much can a mk1 be used ? Is this a blanket number, or per vehicle ? (I assume theres a baseline figure ?)

Finally would there be a difference between ecs running and loaded running, if its about safety, structural integrity etc…a vehicle rolling around has little difference empty or loaded when it comes to fatigue for example… its still a risk on rails.. to other trains as well as itself.

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by adb968008

[Colin_McLeod]

12 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

But the big stumbling block there is wooden-body vehicle bodies. The traditional Belmond Pullman vehicles are a sort of a special case but a new build to such a design is likely to be regarded as 'beyond the pale'. The good previous safety record is probably what gets called into question there.

 

 

My suggestion states "coach that meets modern standards, but looks like....." So if coach meets modern  standards then safety is fine. Nothing to prevent a modern build coach from "looking like" it is made of wood even if it isn't.  

 

 

 

[APOLLO]

If we are to build new coaches lets build them for the fantastic views outside the UK offers !!!

 

 

 

 

 

From an earlier age

 

 

Brit15

[Colin_McLeod]

31 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

If we are to build new coaches lets build them for the fantastic views outside the UK offers !!!

 

Good idea.  That's  what the Swiss have done on some routes.

[Legend]

4 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

Good idea.  That's  what the Swiss have done on some routes.

It’s  also being contemplated for some Scottish Scenic routes as a 156 replacement . The lines to Oban, Mallaig , Kyle and the far north would certainly benefit from such scenic coaches .  While what is being considered as a multiple unit , bi mode , perhaps the basic coach design could be used as basis for heritage lines .  However I do question the viability of new stock for heritage railways . The reality is that many are living hand to mouth recovering from effects of Covid and lower visitor numbers because of Cost of Living crisis , so I really can’t see new stock being affordable . It might be different for the Belmond Pullman , Royal Scotsman  etc . 

[brushman47544]

13 minutes ago, Legend said:

It’s  also being contemplated for some Scottish Scenic routes as a 156 replacement . The lines to Oban, Mallaig , Kyle and the far north would certainly benefit from such scenic coaches .  While what is being considered as a multiple unit , bi mode , perhaps the basic coach design could be used as basis for heritage lines .  However I do question the viability of new stock for heritage railways . The reality is that many are living hand to mouth recovering from effects of Covid and lower visitor numbers because of Cost of Living crisis , so I really can’t see new stock being affordable . It might be different for the Belmond Pullman , Royal Scotsman  etc . 

One of the objectives of heritage railways is to preserve, and allow people to ride, in old rolling stock. Doing so is part of the experience of travelling behind steam, by recreating something you knew when much younger or have been told about by friends and family. Also, heritage railways are still a commercial business that needs to make money to continue so could they afford to maintain rolling stock just to sit around for show, as well as paying to maintain new coaches? So no I cannot see modern new build rolling stock catching on at preserved railways.

 

As regards the main line, that Swiss type rolling stock is either an EMU or hauled by electric locos. So whilst it might be a good idea for most main line charters, I can’t see it being acceptable for steam haulage which really needs openable windows so the punters can hear the loco. If the future is air-conditioning with no opening windows, will main line steam continue to be viable with all the others costs it faces? I can’t see it, leaving preserved railways as the only source, but if that went the same way…

[Colin_McLeod]

35 minutes ago, brushman47544 said:

steam haulage which really needs openable windows so the punters can hear the loco.

 

So what about a microphone up front and speakers in the coaches.😁

 

Hat, coat, running out of the room fast...... lol

 

 

 

PS, or a sound chip.... don't need the steam loco.  Steam, Deltics etc on request to the conductor. 

[adb968008]

There has been suggestions that CDL and sealed windows should apply to preserved railways too.

 

is the ORR over reahcing itself, or is its ultra-safety remit the route to go ?

[woodenhead]

57 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

There has been suggestions that CDL and sealed windows should apply to preserved railways too.

 

is the ORR over reahcing itself, or is its ultra-safety remit the route to go ?

Well someone recently had a serious injury falling out of a train on the GCR, and then there were the Mk1s without floors in the toilets down in Devon.

 

I think the ORR does indeed need to look at the preserved lines, even more so if money is tight and things begin to give.

[LNER4479]

8 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

My suggestion states "coach that meets modern standards, but looks like....." So if coach meets modern  standards then safety is fine. Nothing to prevent a modern build coach from "looking like" it is made of wood even if it isn't.  

 

Indeed. And the last paragraph of my response alluded to that; apologies if I otherwise misinterpreted the intent of your post.

 

The only vehicle I can think of that represents this approach is the Pullman car 'Pegasus' which had a new-build or heavily rebuilt metal body. That was probably over 20 yrs hence; I'm not aware of any since?

[Colin_McLeod]

My bad.  I don't know why your last paragraph didn't register when I read your post. We are both saying the same thing.

[phil-b259]

22 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

Indeed this very approach may require considerably more coaches than needed to work around mileage constraints of such a fleet, and indeed would the regulatory bodies not recognise an abuse of process ?

if this was to build a new rake of Coronation coaches for use a dozen times a year it makes sense.

but if this was a new set of “mk1 replacements” in any previous heritage profile, built to run excessively year round to earn an roi, then it would not.

 

The process is designed for what it is intended… heritage vehicles, of limited use… not new build vehicles via the back door.

 

 

All things are relative

 

Compared to the mileages and daily usage totals  achieved by Voyagers, Pendalions, Azumas, Electrostars, etc the Mk1 charter feet IS a sparsely used by ORR standards.

 

Moreover as long as Mk1s are not used on scheduled passenger services they can quite legitimate qualify as Heritage vehicles regardless of build date - even a new build 1980s Mk3 would be 'Heritage' to the ORR because it would not comply with current rail vehicle construction regulations.

[Steven B]

How much of the ETCS hardware needs to be on the footplate? Could much of it be fitted to a second tender that could be shared between locos?

 

Steven B.