LMS Hughes Crab 42859

Ultimately there is no right or wrong answer here and trying to talk in generalities is going to achieve absolutely nothing. There is no reason why a well informed owner cannot loan a locomotive to a well informed third party and reach an agreement which is beneficial to all, it will depend on each case in its own merits, the only area where things could go wrong s if a one size fits all approach is used.

 

That’s a mater that could also plague a loco owner who never lets his loco run on anything but his home railway. I do know of situations where a loco has suffered damage and there as been an argument between owner and railway as to who then foots the bill.

 

Very true, there have been disputes on both sides down the years and the longer term the agreement the more complicated the matters of interpretation become. What was intended at the outset can look very different 10 years on when changes in personnel and attitudes occur.

 

People question the actions of the Crabs owner, but I wonder even if he put the remains up for sale whether anybody would actually want to buy them. Yes I like everyone would like to see it restored and run but that is just passive armchair enthusiasm, it isn't the same as actually doing a deal and handing over cash to buy it. Would I want to buy it ? No, because I haven't got the huge funds needed to do it plus a base for it etc and that is the case for most people.

People imagine there a buyers out there fighting to get these projects but there aren't especially today. I think back in the 1970s/80s there would probably have been more.

Many loco and other projects (even complete locos) have been put up for sale and seem to struggle often for years to find a serious buyer. I was quite surprised for example with the two Stanier 8Fs brought back recently from Turkey. You would think people would love to have got their hands on one especially as they were basically complete, yet only one found a buyer and the other despite all the effort to bring it back to Britain then got sold to a group in Israel and got re exported. It could be that they wanted too much, not sure.

Other stuff like coaches and wagons often get scrapped. ( A Siphon G at my own railway has had the body scrapped just this last week) and often it is because there are no buyers who want them or people to work on them. Other stuff you can tell is 'vunerable' to being scrapped, but again no buyers or people to work on them.

 

The times are changing, the availability of skilled volunteers is dwindling. A prominent carriage restorer whose locomotive returned to steam last year after a protracted overhaul said to me the problem going forward will not be the funding of these projects but finding the people to do them....

 

I give up.

A lease can work, its proven if both parties want it to despite the issues raised.

 

Sorry, but I think you are generally wrong. Many parts of a steam loco don't last just the famous (and mythical!) '10 year ticket'. Any 'restore and run' agreement will either see the restorer putting right previous wear and tear and not 'inflicting' as much themselves or use up further life before the longer life items need replacing. The deal is essentially the same as where one railway takes a loco 'in working order' from the owner and the only payment is 'returning it in working order at the end of the agreement'. In a vast majority of cases, this involves a greater amount of work than the owner had done before the agreement started. The sort of thing you are suggesting is just the reverse - overhaul first, then run rather than the other way round. The owner still starts and finishes with a non-working loco.

There also seems to be some idea that a railway will restore the loco, run it and pay hire fees to the owner! Very unlikely - the payment was the initial restoration in that sort of arrangement - and yes - that may well mean that 'what is there in it for the owner'!

Steven

 

The people interested in restoring locos and rolling stock are if you pardon the expression a dying breed usually in their 60s 70s and 80s. I don't think there is the enthusiasm in many people under that age who are interested in restoring old Barry wrecks, steam railways in general in the next 25 to 30 years are going to be hard pushed for volunteers in general, once the old guard so to speak have departed, sad but true I believe.

 

That's if you don't count Stamford and the NLR tank.

 

I think there's a few, I'm a 'mere' 47, but went to Barry scrapyard as a kid. I think passing down the baton will become the future success of lines. There are just a few projects left that could be and should be done, not just the Crab but the 4F at the AVR, the demic Jinty, the Black 5 without a boiler. Look what Pontypool are doing with the Pannier. And the Bluebell's 4MT could be in here.So like the Bluebell, with its ageing population, needs to attract younger, either by Apprenticeships and pay, or younger volunteers. My age is more diesel cranks(I like both, but many don't) and where they are accommodated the line is ran by these guys a lot too. So they are gravitating to other lines near London. There are young folk firing locos and seeing specials now, its a case of promoting it. If paid skilled work longer term in a smaller pond is part of a sustainable answer, so be it. So Bluebell, 4MT HLF Apprentice project, mayhap?

 

For your info, the Bluebell has apprentices working in both the loco and C&W workshops; and there are quite a number of people on both the ops and restoration side of the department considerably younger than me. So I’m not sure on quite what grounds you are basing your info.

One of the constraints on a very long term job like 80100 is workshop space. The main workshop only has two covered bays, so really there is a maximum capacity of one large loco stripped down under cover at any one time (leaving the other bay free for running maintenance). At the moment that means 80151 nearing completion in the workshop, but 928 is being worked on outside. A long term project like 80100 would therefore disrupt the flow of overhauls if done under cover. There are however steps gradually to improve that situation. It’s likely that 80100 will be tackled in earnest once 84030 is complete.

The other point you are missing is that any railway - and the Bluebell is no exception - has a requirement for motive power, and having more in traffic than needed is expensive. Earlier you were bemoaning that 75027 wasn’t running; now it is 80100. But realistically, we need about four engines that size or bigger running at any one time, so they will rotate - we will never have, and have never had, everything running all at the same time.

Tom

 

The attitude of the "senior pros" within the loco department towards mentoring, training and development is crucial. I well remember being told when joining my local steam loco department with a non engineering background, that the days of 'weekend engineers' were over and there was no chance for "pencil wrestlers" to learn the ropes.
Anyone volunteering who already had some aptitude and competence were quickly snaffled by engineering firms too, particularly if they were young and looking to start a career. Fair play to them of course but it does hinder the growth of in-house self-sufficiency.

 

Sadly those attitudes seem all too common. I recall someone once telling me how he prided himself on the number of people he had 'run off the railway'. My silent response was 'wtf' on the one hand we have constant complaints about lack of volunteers and yet there is a section of the community that relishes playing the 'hardman' and wants to drive people off.

Volunteering should be fun and relaxing, but some people just seem to use it as an excuse to make the experience miserable for others. If I want stress and difficult people I'll go to work, at least I get paid for the hassle.

 

Any 'restore and run' agreement will either see the restorer putting right previous wear and tear and not 'inflicting' as much themselves or use up further life before the longer life items need replacing.

Yes they would. If a loco is to be restored to run for 10 years it is irrelevant where or who runs it, it will have 10 more years worth of wear & tear.

'..........inflicting.................'

Not sure what you are suggesting here.........?

The owner still starts and finishes with a non-working loco.

Yes they do but they've had the 'pleasure' of operating it for 10 years potentially much sooner on a railway that wants/needs a loco. What's the alternative wait 20 years before a loco's turn comes round in a current overhaul queue to then run it for 10 years & end up in the same position?

The specific details of a lease agreement would have to cover responsibility for maintenance & associated running repairs amongst many other things!!

 

Stamford was never wanted at SP, was never considered core collection, was an eyesore that never ever ran or was ever going to at Bluebell. Funny enough I don't believe it is any closer to running now than the time it left SP in pieces. I don't even know who actually owns it.

The North London Tank was loaned for display purposes to Barrow Hill and hasn't been steamed. Guaranteed under cover secure storage whilst there so no issues with use and abuse. Definitely core collection as part of Bluebell history and I have many fond memories of it running.

Stretching the point there?

 

In some groups if they wait another 20 years the owners will all be dead.

Ok I'll take 4920 at the south Devon railway. My dad along with another group of people bought that loco out of Barry (my dad had about 1/10th of the loco) and they restored it. But at the same time the south Devon was taken over by the DHPS from the Paignton lot. So suddenly 4920 became a railway and not just a loco owning group. Then due to the size of the loco, the other priorities the railway then had it's been put to the back of the list constantly. The steaming fees from its last service were given back to the railway to spend instead of into the locos own bank. And it's now sat in its isolated siding for longer than it sat in Barry. All my dad wanted to do was to see it working, but nothing happens. He would prefer to see it given away to a loco owning society or someone willing to get it restored. It's not about how long xx components life is, it's about seeing it work. No one owns a loco, it owns you and the point is surely to create a great group to fundraise for it and keep money coming in to see it in steam. There are some fantastic groups out there that have that ability and after each overhaul skip straight back to the front of the queue.

 

Generalising, railways do have the propensity to attract people unable to function in "real world" work environments but manage to establish powerful niche roles in a loco department. Often this starts simply because they have more time available to commit and become ever present / indispensable.
Then as soon as anyone turns up who might be handy, they are seen as a threat and "tested". The number of times I heard folk dismissed as having no commitment because they had the temerity once in a blue moon to be elsewhere than on the railway, until they had reached gold clock time served.
Quirks of volunteer based organisations, amplified by senior volunteers becoming paid staff to based on availability as much as all round ability.

 

The NLR tank also spent a couple of years not under cover at Wirksworth, and regardless of what you think of its looks Stamford remains a Bluebell engine and, at least according to the online stock book, is owned by the railway.

In any event even if for some reason you don't count Stamford, the Bluebell has entered into a restore and run agreement, albeit for a carriage.

http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/1456.html

 

Yep 1456 with the Mid-Hants. Realistically it was never going to be touched at HK. Interesting story with that one. Bluebell wanted it but the NRM claimed it from under their noses. NRM didn't have anywhere for it to go so it went on loan to the Bluebell. Bluebell would not touch it (it needed a lot of work including a re-sheet) as there was no long tem agreement available so it just sat there and deteriorated. It was used as the varnish shop for a long time complete with felt roof. Eventually the NRM gifted it to the Bluebell by which time there was no impetus to repair it and as somebody opened the door to a mass invasion of MK1 dustbins it disappeared down the endless queue of overhauls. Therefore it went to the Mid-Hants on I believe a 25 year agreement. Better suited to them as it has the Bournemouth stock side-skirts covering the solebars.