35009, Shaw Savill

Sounds like all that Australian sun has fried your brain with a comment like that

 

I'm betraying my political views here but I'm afraid it always niggles me that we live in a society where people expect to have everything done for them. Instead of saying 'why doesn't somebody/the government/the European Union do something?', it is far better to say: 'why don't I do something?'

Chances are that if something is stopping you, other people are being held back for similar reasons.

In any case, the sad truth is that MNs are over-represented in preservation. It is always going to be difficult to raise funds to restore another 35009 when there are already several other examples seeking money and volunteer labour to return them to, or keep them in operational condition. Demographic trends suggest that the pool of money and volunteers available to the preservation movement will shrink rather than grow in the coming years, so the more new schemes are set up, the harder they will find it to achieve success.

If you've actually got some time or money to offer I suggest you offer it to an established group, e.g. the MHR for their overhaul of 35005, the MNLPS for the continued operation of 35028, or the GSNLRS for the restoration and conversion of 35011.

 

it would probably be best if one or two MNs were cosmetically restored and put on long term display somewhere (Margate for instance or in Eastleigh Works or a shopping centre perhaps) There are too many to realistically steam them all and this would safeguard them.

 

The "over representation" assertion depends on what context you are looking at. I'd agree that there would be little viability for another one being restored solely for heritage line use. However, anyone with a longer term strategic plan to operate steam hauled main line trains would be most usefully served having multiple MNs in a fleet, backed up by spare major components. Obviously that eschews any sentimentality or affinity for other locos of lesser wider utility, perhaps, that might vie for attention.
The two biggest players both own MNs already and a compelling business case could probably be made for acquisitions in one case and restorations in the other. Finite resources and personal preferences may obviously dictate differently of course.
Turning to MN9 specifically, it is in the the hands of a self sufficient and resourceful owner who is also heavily engaged with mainline operations. Why on earth would the business wish to dispose of a potentially vital asset?

 

your quote doesn't come from my post, I was talking about safeguarding them, you appear to be advocating using one or more for spares.

 

Glitch in the quote facility, meant to quote both, as a counter argument for how the comparative abundance could be used positively. Apologies for any offence.

 

Lolz.

The assertion by @Moylesy98 that someone should blah blah <disrespect> Riley blah blah, (that should be Mr Riley BTW unless you know him ) belongs in the dustbin of Facebook wannabe loco groups. What a joke.

 

There's wibble on Facebook about this locomotive today too - always nice when folk start trying to tell others what to do with their own property, eh?

 

This is absolute speculation (which obviously is frowned upon in these parts) but it would make sense for Mr R to start work on 35009 about now. His 5s and 60103 are a few years off needing major work, 45212 is finished, so there isn't a major project in the works right now. There's the Jinty, but in that interview he did last year, that sounded more like an As and When job. Plus, with 60009 going off the books next year, that's a bit of capacity freed up. Maybe that's all created a gap and 35009's turn has finally come.

 

The engines get major work every year, then they are all out running. What gap!

 

Difference between yearly maintainence and a full overhaul, though. That's what I meant by major work.

 

The only comment that can be made with any confidence is that there is definitely seems to be scope for another MN or two in the mainline registered pool so, relatively speaking, "the world is their lobster" for anyone able to get one out there.

 

Says who? Apart from you, obviously. Because - and feel free to correct me here - I haven't seen anyone from WCRC, LSL or DB write "we really need another MN ASAP".

 

"Really need" possibly not, but several Class 8s that have operated on the main line in recent years are currently out of action for one reason or another. Having one or two more available wouldn't hurt.

 

Your stock response to my posts is becoming very tedious Mr Puddicombe. If you have a valid point to make, may I respectfully suggest you do so, rather than merely letting us know you disagree with anything I write? It is, after all, a discussion forum for the airing of opinions. Mine, for what is worth, is that the mainline scene would be strengthened by additional class 8P locos of which MNs are already in the hands of able bodies. If you have a different opinion, care to share it and your counter argument?
Breath not being held.

 

Your instict, then, two operational Class 8Ps is saturation point? You must love JAM.

 

In terms of there being two ML MNs already available may be important factor for enthusiasts who may not want a 3rd or 4th at similar time, but for the wider public I am not sure they really care what classification the big green engine on the front of their train has?
In terms of the work that Clan Line does with the VSOE workings, I would have thought that a back-up locomotive or one that means that when Clan Line needs an overhaul, that there is another locomotive waiting in the wings, would be a positive thing. Having said that, I appreciate the investment that it might take for MNLPS to get to this position and whether there is a market to sustain high-end luxury trains of this type, I'm not sure.

 

I agree it is a discussion forum is for the airing of opinions, but the way in which you articulate yours makes it seem as though someone/a company has to do what you say, or is going to do as you suggest. Writing "I think a couple more MNs would be good on the mainline" wouldn't make me bat an eyelid or question your posting, however, I'm going to always want to seek more proof - which surprise, surprise, you're unable to deliver - when you write something like "there definitely seems to be scope" for more mainline MNs without backing up your viewpoint.

 

Well one could argue that getting more Merchant Navy’s on the mainline would be good future planning. If the requirements on the mainline require a loco that could haul a 12 coach train at 75/90mph in order to fit in the timetable a Merchant Navy would be able to do that unlike some of the other locos currently on the scene. But that would take the debate off topic a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk