92219

Indeed, any potential purchaser of 92219 could find out the fairly accurate cost of a new tender quite easily. All they would have to do is contact the group restoring 73156. The new tender for that loco is nearing completion.

 

And no-one complained then...

 

Last year I did an internship at a (non-railway) local authoirty museum. I was asked to help catalogue and re-box various items from the toy collections. To take just one example, there were three Victorian dolls' prams in the collection. Two were in good condition, the third in a very poor state. If the museum ever requires a Victorian dolls' pram for an exhibition, I'm sure they'll pick one of the good pair rather than go to the expense of restoring the third. The third has little hope of restoration and is taking up space in a warehouse being paid for by the taxpayer. Doubtless, there are many other exhibits in that collection which fall into the same category.
Now perhaps devotees of Victorian childrens' prams might tell me that that third pram has some special significance. But as a disinterested observer, I would argue: we have two good representatives of a Victorian pram, why keep the third? Get rid of the duplicate items that have little hope of being restored, move into a smaller warehouse, and spend the money saved on restoring more significant items, or improving museum displays, or outreach programmes to get more people into the museum - or whatever. Indeed, in this age of austerity publicly-run museums will have to save money to survive at all.
Now applying this logic to a railway context, the NRM has a duty to keep a representative collection of railway items of genuine national significance. "Private sector" preservation doesn't have a duty to do anything. Our heritage railways are run as much for the enjoyment of volunteers and the benefit of the local economy as for any concept of "preservation".
Yes, I'd be very sad to see 92219 scrapped - but we'll always have 92220 in the National Collection. Any other preserved 9Fs on top of that must be considered a bonus - and, in a sector that can never completely escape the influence of market forces, they have to earn their keep.

 

92219 plus expanding Somerset & Dorset Railway at Midsomer Norton and also at Shillingstone equals much nostalgic pleasure (albeit at a price!). Hold on to that 9F. Things are going to get better for 92219 someday, who knows; much stranger things have happened.

 

Is there a real threat of the loco being sent for scrap, or is this just Steam Railway sensationalising again? I seem to recall a story in SR a couple of years ago, that one of the Bulleid pacifics was about to be chopped within a few months as no buyer had come forward – hasn’t happened yet!. If it is truly going to be scrapped, with none of the bits being used by other groups / railways, then that’s a real shame and waste. If however, its going to be dismantled for spares to keep other 9F’s running, then how is it different from any of the Barry 10 that have been dismantled for new builds, or the 3 S15's at the NYMR 825 / 830 / 841 or 3612 that the SVR dismantled years ago, none of which seems to have forum members kicking off about (the 8F excepted!!) In fact, I seem to recall a post on another forum (think it was the ELR) from someone involved with 92214 + 92219 (before 92214 was sold), that there no plans what so ever to restore 92219, and that it was only bought for spares in the first place!

 

I didn't think any of 830 has been used to keep 825 running? I thought it was to eventually be restored in its own right. Plus isn't it slightly different with the S15's as the frames of 825 were only used as 841's were out of true? Had they not been surely we would still have 841 running in that identity?

 

Scrapping is one thing; being a parts donor is something else altogether.

Anyway, historic coaches are being broken up as parts donors quite frequently; very often a Victorian body gets rescued that is really beyond economic repair (especially with rotten bottom rails, floor and corner posts) but many parts (such as guards' duckets, door fittings, roof boards etc) can be salvaged. So sometimes a railway will rescue perhaps two identical vehicles and construct one good one from the best bits of both. Not to mention the PMV that has probably been sacrificed for its underframe (and also probably provided roof boards and other components) to complete the vehicle. More modern carriages get broken as well, perhaps providing seats, window frames, doors etc to vehicles in better structural condition. Sad as it may be to scrap a vehicle, in a rational analysis, that may represent the greatest good to the greatest number of vehicles. Certainly better than spreading resources too thinly and seeing nothing restored. Hertetical as it may seem, perhaps the same logic applies to locomotives as well.

Tom

 

It doesn't necessarily need to stay like that. Remember that 4612, 5043, 5080, 6430 and 7802 (to name but five) were all bought originally as sources of spare parts, and all have subsequently been restored in their own right.

 

And as a fan of the 9F's i'd be delighted if 92219 was to join that list of restored engines originally bought for spares. On the other hand, it isn't a unique loco, or one that has already been restored and then left to rot after it's boiler cert has expired, and there are several others already in / on their way to running condition. If by breaking it for spares it keeps the others working, that is surely a better option, than just scrapping it?

Don't know wether 830 is being restored in its own right? I maybe wrong but I thought the plan was for the boiler from 830, currently having work done on it, would be used on 825 / 841 at the next overhaul? Perhaps someone form the Moors could clarify? 825 itself has already acted as a spres engine - its boiler was taken for one of the S15's at the MHR.

 

P class 178 on the Bluebell is another probably in that list - when bought (in 1969, after industrial service) she had a hole in her cylinder block that probably would have made restoration untenable at that time; with two other P classes already on the railway, it is likely 178 was bought as a spares donor. Only much later was her repair countenanced.

Tom

 

I don't think that's true.

I may be wrong (or have a short memory) but the only engine I know of that was originally bought from BR for spares was 62005.

Anyone know of any others?

 

Quoted from the Maunsell society website:

'830 is to be found on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, being now owned by the Essex Locomotive Group. She is to be restored as 830 (a condition of sale). It would seem that 841, the groups other S15, has frames that are beyond repair. 841 will therefore act as donor to 825 (yet another S15 they have) which is effectively just a rolling chasis. 841 will also donate to 830's restoration. The restoration process has not yet begun'

 

I don't think so. It wasn't bought out of service from BR. It had already been contracted out to a recycling company, therefore it doesn't count.

 

To be fair, Jimc said 'didn't go through Woodhams' - you added the 'bought from BR' requirement.

 

In most cases, market forces played a role in their change of fortunes. 4612, 6430 and 7802 have all been restored primarily for preserved line work. They are a suitable size for heritage railways and perform useful work on their home lines, and hence are able to earn their keep. 5043 and 5080 are more marginal cases; yes, 5043 is now running but 5080 is on static display and has little short-term prospect of steaming again. Still, at least the latter is on display undercover, so is faring better than many out-of-ticket engines.

Only the largest preserved railways can sensibly make use of a 9F. Even allowing that 92220 has a secure future as a static exhibit, will there really be enough preserved line work to allow all of the other eight to earn their keep?

 

It was logical to conclude that is what was meant. The number of locos that escaped via other scrap dealers you could more or less count on the figures of one hand. I can think of only three offhand.

Also the phase:-

quite a number of the survivors

Would seem to imply a lot more than one or two.

My point was that that was not the case. I can only think of 62005 that was specifically bought direct from BR for spares. Three others that were bought from other scrap dealers than Woodhams come to mind. 6430, and two others that went via the coal board and then to a scrap dealer. But they were post 1968 anyway.

If you want to indulge in an endless argument about what was meant, that is up to you. I'm not going to join in. Where I used to work we used to call that sort of pointless hair splitting, a pi55ing contest. And about as dumb or dumber.

 

It wouldn't exist now if they had.

The way the sales to the scrap dealers were conducted, the dealers didn't ever own the locomotive anyway. Only those that came to an agreement to keep the engine intact ever paid for the engine per se, before the material was sold on.

 

45305 - ex Drapers, Hull