LSWR T3 563

Well; they're not going to cut it up!

 

sounds like good business to me, on the owner's side, give notice after 14 years (or any date thereafter)and there's a good chance you'd get three locos back in better condition than now. they won't be wanting to spend money on them after about 7 or 8 years for it to make economic sense.

 

The maths was raised at an AGM and it was noted and changed.

31806, 31874 and 31625 all became part of the main motive power plan which also included 6695, 80104, 34070,34072 and 30053. At no point were any of the moguls considered as replacements for 6695, very much the opposite, the 3 moguls are there to supplement the fleet. Therefore the disappointing news (from our side at least) that 6695 is leaving, means we have a gap in the motive power. 563 could fill that gap but ultimately 31625 should be shouldering most of the weight of work.

 

and if all three get taken away 15 years into the agreement? Must be a few years gone of that already.

 

The Moguls transferred to Swanage Railway in 2014, so we are 3 years into a 25 year agreement .
The relationship between the owner and the railway is going just fine and it is not anticipated that the agreement will be terminated. Also, it isn't a simple process to terminate the agreement even with the 12 month notice.
The agreement states that the one locomotive is returned at the end in steam and 2 out of traffic. There is no obligation to overhaul any of the locos, so you have misread that. The railway has total control of 31806,31874 and 31625 during the agreement period.

For more information see
http://swanagemoguls.com/faq/

Back to 563, it certainly be good if it could fit into the power plan at some stage. We would like to have a few locomotives come to railway to become home based locos as well!

 

Surely the condition they are returned in is a minimum requirement and if the Owner chose to terminate the contract after 12 months notice, at 15 years,he'd get them back in whatever condition they were in on the due date, which could well be with all three in working order and one of them fairly newly overhauled.

 

I don't know what you are getting at other than just stirring stuff? What has this got to do with 563?

 

Here's a pair of T3's doing quite nicely, thank you; albeit Prussian ones!









Gelsenkirchen, 23 May 1977









Leipzig, 17 October 1990





Forum totally degenerated into farce!



​

 

They look nice! Look a bit like Bello!

 

I'm making the case for steaming 563 earlier rather than later. Time will tell if I'm just stirring stuff.

 

nice , but our T3 is nicer, As regards the mogols, the problem was that the owner had total power over the loco dept,on the MHR, thats the issue Reading general has, its not the same with the Swanage Railway, as far as i know The owner has no active involvement. but some people cant accept the past is the pass and move on,
As regards the T3, And funding, my point is that if the railway so wished, if it decided to overhaul 563 next, the public funding should be more forth coming, than that of 31625, as to how much it costs to overhaul each engine, it has to be said that of the three, 31874 was probably the most expensive, as it had a boiler with known issues, 31625 is as far as i know in fair mechanical condition but the boiler again needs looking at to diagnose the twist at the front tube plate but the firebox is i believe good, so may not need so much work, my point is this, with the N done, a mid life retube, and possible new ten year ticket, the railway could have 31874, and 31806 in traffic , 563 in the works, whilst the problem and solution of the tubeplate on the U is looked into.

 

That is part of my worry, I agree. Based on the info given in this post, it does seem that , in 14+ years time one or other locos could be outshopped at huge cost and notice given immediately for termination of the loan. This could come at a time of the owners choosing and might come at a time when two or three locos are in working order. There must come a time when it would be imprudent to invest in more than one of the three kept in working order.

My thought is that it would be safer to invest in a Trust owned loco.

 

I actually think that taking locos on 25 year agreements is quite shrewd. By the time the agreements are up there's a good chance that the present owners will no longer be around and their families could well be looking to sell. The operators at that time will be in pole position then to acquire them. Owning rather than hiring locos has to be the way ahead in terms of securing a railway's needs. The NYMR and Mid Hants have acted to secure their positions, as has the North Norfolk (albeit with an odd pair of choices imho). As time goes by more will follow, I'm sure, and the Swanage have made their first move with the T3. What they now need to do is to try to secure at least first option on other key members of their fleet.

 

I think you worry too much. I'm quite sure all parties are aware of such obvious pitfalls, and when the time comes will be looking at options like 'We'll overhaul xxxx if we can agree a ten year extension of the agreement'. You don't have to wait for the end of an agreement before negotiating what happens next, and it probably helps planning for all parties if they work several years ahead.

 

80078 and 6695 have left within the last 5 years, and despite the gaining of 3x moguls work could still have been found for the 66'. 71B needs 5x serviceable locos per every high season, with 2017 planned to be 30053, 31806, 34070, 34072 and 80104. 2x of these come out of ticket end of this year so there is always a rotation with 34010 and '028 also in the mix as well as the 2x other moguls. Not all 9x locos are going to be in steam at once, so it's sensible to ensure there is cover long term. Apart from Paignton, there's not any other lines I can think of that haven't got more locos than they need to allow for the rotation of overhauls.

 

I dont know how old Mr Bunch is now, but i would say its highly likely that by the time the agreement comes up for renewal, it will be his son James who will have control over these 3 engines, and its highly likely that by then they will be held by some trust to avoid the question of tax liabilities i would expect that in 25 years time, the engines may even be owned ,or gifted to the Swanage railway trust

 

Maybe the fact I don't know you as I've only seen one of your posts on an internet forum?

I'd have just replied with "Yes don't worry! " or something. You went for a needlessly confrontational reply instead. Guess that's your personality.

 

Only one! Many on here may well think I've posted far too many.
IMO my reply was not confrontational, I simply asked you a question to which you seem to have overreacted, Guess that's your personality.

 

Maybe if you tried this smiley filled nice guy approach in your initial reply we wouldn't be having this exchange.

 

You get into trouble if you use too many smileys on this forum