Class 210 Driving Motor

[43096]

That's the trouble with everything effectively on hold due to covid or stuck under an embargo waiting for the word to go. No need to promote Paul's blog anymore as his twitter account has finally been sorted so he can get back to posting them himself.

I'm not sure that explains it. And I'm very sceptical of anyone who feels the need to promote Bigland.

 

[BRCWCo]

I'm not sure that explains it. And I'm very sceptical of anyone who feels the need to promote Bigland.

I've known Paul for a considerable length of time, when he had a problem with his twitter account he asked me to post his blogs until he got it sorted. I don't have a problem with that and now his account is active again he can post them himself. Is that good enough?

 

[Journeyman]

I'm not sure that explains it. And I'm very sceptical of anyone who feels the need to promote Bigland.

Who is he? The name rings a bell, but I can't think why.

 

[JonathanH]

Who is he? The name rings a bell, but I can't think why.

Appears to post here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/paul-biglands-blog-page.159701/ and writes in Rail.

Back to the subject of Class 210s, it is unfortunate that a whole class 317 is out of reach given the fact that superficially, the 317 appears to have the closest resemblance to a 210. I note that the rolling stock companies were very keen to 'give away' pacers but I guess the scrap value of one of those is less than a 317.

On the other hand, if a 210 project is the only way of preserving parts of both a 317 and a 455, I guess it is better to go for a mix.

 

[BRCWCo]

Appears to post here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/paul-biglands-blog-page.159701/ and writes in Rail.

Back to the subject of Class 210s, it is unfortunate that a whole class 317 is out of reach given the fact that superficially, the 317 appears to have the closest resemblance to a 210. I note that the rolling stock companies were very keen to 'give away' pacers but I guess the scrap value of one of those is less than a 317.

On the other hand, if a 210 project is the only way of preserving parts of both a 317 and a 455, I guess it is better to go for a mix.

It's a question of what is being made available and at what cost. Most units are going for scrap at present complete with destruction orders so getting parts is quite difficult, never mind complete vehicles. I'm happy to go with what's likely to be available and try to make sure that we secure them and if we get the chance to secure more 317 vehicles that will be a bonus.

 

[D365]

How's the project to create a super-train out of 442s, Pacers, HSTs and 483s coming along?

Not enough 365 in there!

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Not enough 365 in there!

no one mentioned 45015 was providing traction either! XD

 

[O L Leigh]

Not enough 365 in there!

Yeah, but that would just make it too easy.

As to the plans to replicate the Cl210...? Hmm. Well, I admire the desire but I'm not really onboard with the idea. There's something about it that just doesn't sit quite right with me. My own feeling is that if you're going to reproduce lost classes it really should be authentic, which means that you either build it up from scratch using the original drawings, as Tornado was, or you use the original equipment. Otherwise what you end up with is a "Toyarri".

As such, I'm glad that the project is intending to secure surviving Cl210 vehicles. I presume that this means that the project team has reached agreement with the existing custodians of these survivors. For example, the surviving driving trailers were converted to Cl457 DMSOs and, as such, have historic value in their own right which may hamper your attempts at reusing them. Also, do you have the correct prime mover? All of these sorts of factors will determine the authenticity of the final product. But if the idea is to turn a collection of Cl317/Cl455 vehicles into a "Cl210-alike" then I don't think you can really call it a Cl210.

I am also unsure whether or not you yet have a premises to base this project at. I may have misinterpreted something I'd read, but it looked as though a premises had yet to be secured.

My own feelings are that if you're going to preserve Cl317 or Cl455 vehicles then they should be preserved "as is". I would love to think it possible that you could still run one of these units in preservation off the wires using some sort of genset. If that what this project is going to give us then I think that's great and it does make sense to secure the most historically interesting vehicles, but I think you should be careful about how you describe it.

 

[pdeaves]

you either build it up from scratch using the original drawings, as Tornado was, or you use the original equipment

Philosophically, what's the difference between using drawings to make something, and potentially using the same drawings and 'something someone made earlier' from them? I see reusing a 317/455 as just as authentic as extruding (or even machining) a huge lump of aluminium. But that's probably a debate for some other thread!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There's enough 317s and 455s around, although the 317s are dwindling, to be able to secure "as such" vehicles separately. I see nothing wrong with making a replica 210 from what are essentially identical 317 vehicles - the 210 was certainly an important, albeit unsuccessful, part of the development of modern unit traction and so this gap in what we have should be plugged.

Yes, 60163 was built from scratch - but a lot of the other new build steam locomotives have been created by rebuilding other existing classes of which there were surplus examples. As long as it looks right and is technically right, that should be all that matters.

We should not be distracting from the project by arguing about authenticity in this manner; the most important thing is to plug the gap while the opportunity is there.

 

[O L Leigh]

Philosophically, what's the difference between using drawings to make something, and potentially using the same drawings and 'something someone made earlier' from them? I see reusing a 317/455 as just as authentic as extruding (or even machining) a huge lump of aluminium. But that's probably a debate for some other thread!

...or use the original equipment.

As I mentioned, a number of original Cl210 vehicles still exist and it would be good to reunite them. I'm not even especially concerned about the reuse and/or conversion of Cl317/Cl455 vehicles given their similarity. I'm certainly not expecting this project to include the construction of a completely new train.

We should not be distracting from the project by arguing about authenticity in this manner; the most important thing is to plug the gap while the opportunity is there.

I disagree, and I think it's important to be clear exactly what this project is going to produce at the end of it if any of us are going to pledge money. I've no doubt that we all have an idea what a Cl210 replica should be, and if this project is to succeed in it's aims then we should be confident that this is what will be realised. As it stands, there is precious little information about this except for the desire to recreate a Cl210 and the wish to raise the funds to buy a single Cl317 vehicle; something that I'd like to know is a realistic possibility given that these units are going to scrap with destruction orders on them.

To me this is a long way short of knowing where this project is going. I'd like to know that the project team have a realistic chance of securing the vehicles in spite of the current scrapping policy. I'd also like to know what they propose for the traction package, whether they have any leads on examples of the correct original equipment or will use a modern alternative. In short, I'd like to know how much of a real Cl210 this is likely to be or whether we're going to get something different out of this.

As I hinted above I'd not be terribly disappointed if at the end of the process we end up with a diesel-electric unit formed out of withdrawn Mk3 outer-suburban EMU vehicles in order to preserve vehicles of the type in operational condition, something along the lines of the Cl769. But I would be incredibly disappointed if I'd thought my money was going towards a Cl210 reconstruction.

As time is of the essence it is up to the project team to come up with a cogent plan and to communicate it clearly to those of us with an interest to be involved rather than for us to empty our spare change into a Just Giving fundraising page merely because we agree with the sentiment of the person setting it up in the hope that it will bring something to pass. We could also do with having some confidence in who BRCW Co actually are, what their track record in rail preservation is and what facilities they have available to them so that we can judge how likely they are to deliver what they promise, otherwise it's caveat emptor.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Looking at the steamy side of things there are enough replicas around/planned using parts scavenged from the Barry 10. To me using seemingly identical coaches in the 210 project is no different.

 

[O L Leigh]

Looking at the steamy side of things there are enough replicas around/planned using parts scavenged from the Barry 10. To me using seemingly identical coaches in the 210 project is no different.

No doubt. And just to be entirely clear, the origin of the vehicles is not my primary concern.

 

[BRCWCo]

...or use the original equipment.

As I mentioned, a number of original Cl210 vehicles still exist and it would be good to reunite them. I'm not even especially concerned about the reuse and/or conversion of Cl317/Cl455 vehicles given their similarity. I'm certainly not expecting this project to include the construction of a completely new train.



I disagree, and I think it's important to be clear exactly what this project is going to produce at the end of it if any of us are going to pledge money. I've no doubt that we all have an idea what a Cl210 replica should be, and if this project is to succeed in it's aims then we should be confident that this is what will be realised. As it stands, there is precious little information about this except for the desire to recreate a Cl210 and the wish to raise the funds to buy a single Cl317 vehicle; something that I'd like to know is a realistic possibility given that these units are going to scrap with destruction orders on them.

To me this is a long way short of knowing where this project is going. I'd like to know that the project team have a realistic chance of securing the vehicles in spite of the current scrapping policy. I'd also like to know what they propose for the traction package, whether they have any leads on examples of the correct original equipment or will use a modern alternative. In short, I'd like to know how much of a real Cl210 this is likely to be or whether we're going to get something different out of this.

As I hinted above I'd not be terribly disappointed if at the end of the process we end up with a diesel-electric unit formed out of withdrawn Mk3 outer-suburban EMU vehicles in order to preserve vehicles of the type in operational condition, something along the lines of the Cl769. But I would be incredibly disappointed if I'd thought my money was going towards a Cl210 reconstruction.

As time is of the essence it is up to the project team to come up with a cogent plan and to communicate it clearly to those of us with an interest to be involved rather than for us to empty our spare change into a Just Giving fundraising page merely because we agree with the sentiment of the person setting it up in the hope that it will bring something to pass. We could also do with having some confidence in who BRCW Co actually are, what their track record in rail preservation is and what facilities they have available to them so that we can judge how likely they are to deliver what they promise, otherwise it's caveat emptor.

My track record in preservation begins with persuading BR to sell me D8233 instead of it going out to tender, which would have meant no Class 15's survived due to the value of the engine.

 

[randyrippley]

I get that, but I was trying to picture the railtour potential, what sort of people would they appeal to...

They wouldn't

 

[JonathanH]

They wouldn't

Doesn't that depend on how rateable the engine noise is?

 

[185]

Have to admit I'm surprised that some mad-man (or woman) hasn't come up with a crackpot scheme to recreate the 210 using a soon-to-be scrapped Cl 317 or 455 as the base.......

Frankenstein's Sprinter

 

[hexagon789]

They wouldn't

Well, they said people wouldn't rate HSTs one day back when they were replacing loco-hauled services...

 

[Cowley]

My track record in preservation begins with persuading BR to sell me D8233 instead of it going out to tender, which would have meant no Class 15's survived due to the value of the engine.

May I just say well done for that.

 

[Sprinter107]

Id be interested if this 210 project used early 317 vehicles, as they are almost identical to the class 210 vehicles, but if it involved a mash up with class 455 vehicles, who's hopper windows are nothing like the 210, so would be noticeable as a mash up, then I wouldnt be interested in that.

 

[43096]

Id be interested if this 210 project used early 317 vehicles, as they are almost identical to the class 210 vehicles, but if it involved a mash up with class 455 vehicles, who's hopper windows are nothing like the 210, so would be noticeable as a mash up, then I wouldnt be interested in that.

Window vent froth, whatever next?!

 

[JonathanH]

Id be interested if this 210 project used early 317 vehicles, as they are almost identical to the class 210 vehicles, but if it involved a mash up with class 455 vehicles, who's hopper windows are nothing like the 210, so would be noticeable as a mash up, then I wouldnt be interested in that.

Given they managed to change the windows on the Stansted 317s to the later style, I'd imagine it is possible to retro fit the earlier windows to a 455 vehicle.

 

[O L Leigh]

Given they managed to change the windows on the Stansted 317s to the later style, I'd imagine it is possible to retro fit the earlier windows to a 455 vehicle.

...assuming that the frames and matching interior panels can be had.

Window vent froth, whatever next?!

If you want window vent froth, check this out. Even the early Cl317 vents would not be correct because those fitted to the Cl210s were glazed where the Cl317 ones are not. [/anorak]

 

[Sprinter107]

...assuming that the frames and matching interior panels can be had.



If you want window vent froth, check this out. Even the early Cl317 vents would not be correct because those fitted to the Cl210s were glazed where the Cl317 ones are not. [/anorak]

Every day is a schoolday. Never realised the 210 had glazed hoppers. I thought they were the same as the 317 hoppers.

 

[Helvellyn]

I assume any recreation would be of the DMSO rather than the DMBSO given the latter would involve cutting the body to add the extra set of sliding doors for the luggage van space. Might not be ideal given the extra weight going in for the engines.

More trivia - the 210s were built at Derby as opposed to York for the 317s/455s.

 

[BRCWCo]

I assume any recreation would be of the DMSO rather than the DMBSO given the latter would involve cutting the body to add the extra set of sliding doors for the luggage van space. Might not be ideal given the extra weight going in for the engines.

More trivia - the 210s were built at Derby as opposed to York for the 317s/455s.

There's going to be a lot of cutting and alterations to one DTSO to make it a DMSO anyway, so any changes to make it a DMBSO will be based on what is feasable and what isn't on the vehicle chosen.

 

[43096]

There's going to be a lot of cutting and alterations to one DTSO to make it a DMSO anyway, so any changes to make it a DMBSO will be based on what is feasable and what isn't on the vehicle chosen.

Are the DTSOs capable of taking the extra weight of the engine, alternator and cooler?

 

[randyrippley]

This thread does really pose a question:
Why is it that steam preservation concentrates on the designs which were successful, or significant, or technological milestones - while diesel preservation seems to prioritise the technical failures and rejects?

 

[Richard Scott]

This thread does really pose a question:
Why is it that steam preservation concentrates on the designs which were successful, or significant, or technological milestones - while diesel preservation seems to prioritise the technical failures and rejects?

Probably because the successful diesels lasted long enough to get preserved. The 210 was a prototype but not heard that they were mechanically problematic. Think the issue was cost, may have been ok to have half a coach taken up with a power unit if all units were four coaches but was never going to work with two.

 

[Ashley Hill]

I think both camps try to fill the missing preservation gaps with replicas. With diesel it's the 22s,23s and the LMS 10000 (not numbered 10003 sadly even though a new build). On the steamy side there's the Grange and 47xx reproduction's. If there were rebuilds based on technical failure then we'd have had a Bullied Leader project by now.