61264

I see what you mean now! I feel similar about 9017 on the Bluebell, don't get me wrong love the engine and had the most enjoyable days on the footplate by far of any other loco's, but there isn't any appropriate stock for it!! I also agree with you about Malachite green although it seems to suit Bullieds well.

Back to the main point of conversation. It's great to hear 61264 shall be based at the NYMR, visited there many times but not yet seen a B1 so very much looking forward to seeing her there on a future visit.

 

5820 has run under her own steam on the main line a couple of times, visting whatever was the nearest BR turntable at the time for turning before and after the filming of 'Yanks'. Not sure if a couple of light engine workings thirty years ago would count as a precedent, mind.

 

It could have been turned on Shipley triangle.

 

Thirty years ago local management would have been in charge and with a lot more discretion and authority than they have now. Almost anything could happen, and did. And probably no paperwork, either.

 

Didn't we lose a lot of our shipyard contracts to Poland in the good old days of Lek W?
What happened to their ships, is that why they were cheaper?

 

The suggestions that it would be cheap to overhaul are ill-informed. True costings are only fully available when a loco is totally dismantled, but the estimate a few years back was about the same as 34101 and won't have reduced since - indeed, just yesterday, the cost was described as considerable by one of the MPD senior team. Such matters as the order of loco overhauls are based on the expected level of work, costings and the capabilities of the loco, not the personal lieks of an undefined "influentail" few.

A major factor against the loco is the difficulty of mainline registration - does the NYMR really need another non-Whitby loco when the likes of 3672, 60007 and 63395 would be unwise to operate down there?

Steven

 

Err, following that logic, as it hasn't been dismantled yet it is presumably not posssible to say either way, and it could prove to be relatively cheap. In practice, with it being a wide firebox engine I'd have expected most of the boiler to be accessible for inspection without extensive dismantling.

 

Overhaul costs - all steel welded boiler, simple platework shapes, extensive use of welding in construction of the locomotive - all make for a cheaper rebuild than a conventional locomotive in similar condition. Ask the same shed staff about 34101 vice 45428.

Whitby - having a mainline certificated loco is an extra cost. There has to be a happy medium between too few at present, and having almost everything passed.

The fact that management have advanced a loan to the B1 group, has attracted comment from "interested bystanders" on this site. It's only right to look at other options too. Long term agreements were mentioned above. There's already one in place for the S15. How about investigating a deal to get a second of this superb design into traffic in a few years time? If you were going to purpose build a loco for the Moors, you'd be hard pushed to find a better one.

 

Can this statement be substantiated or is it a case of bull**** baffles brains? No expensive copper to repair and plenty of steel to cut and carve relatively cheaply. New tyres, yes but I seem to remember it not being too bad, mechanically. Has the use of the S160 to Whitby definitely been ruled out by Network Rail? Even if it has, the NYMR presently tends to have only one EVL certified loco out and to have three others confined to the Grosmont-Pickering section. Whilst accepting the argument that the Whitby approved loco is a better asset, there will remain a need for non-Whitby locos.

 

Did WCRC's 8F run to Whitby during the year in which Esk Valley operations were contracted out to them? If so then I can't see how 2253 would be less capable of working beyond Ruswarp than 8151. I can understand how Network Rail might see things differently of course, but then if the issue is solely one of type certification then I'm not sure how the Embsay and Bolton Abbey can be planning to operate over NR metals when almost all of their locomotives with the exception of the Austerities do not have 'grandfather rights'.

 

That's quite an accusation that a claim can't be substantiated. Try asking anyone on Trust Board when our Traction Consultant submitted a report several years ago and you will find that the figure quoted for 2253 was broadly similar to 34101 or many overhauls - the claim was 2253 would be "comparatively cheap". You might also like to ask the boilersmith or mechanical foreman. Estimates of work required can be prepared based on what is known to be needed doing and what can be expected to be needed to be done, but I have yet to find a major that hasn't also included "nasty surprises" when a lcoo is dismantled, so the final costs can only be confirmed then.

The 2011 Timetable needs two Whitby locos for off peak to enable 3 locos to work the service (plus a diesel for 1st and last) and the other two timetables are easier to work (i.e. less loco changes at Grosmont) with 2 Whitby locos. At present, none of the non-NYMR owned fleet are Esk Valley equipped and registered. This will improve with 44767 joining the fleet over the next few weeks and hopefully 61264 by mid summer with a couple of Riley viists as well, but that still will leave the Whitby fleet as less than half when ideally we need sufficient to enable at least 50% of turns to be covered. Certain locos definately can't go to Whitby, so it is wisest to consider the widest possible usage for Trust owned locos. The 8F visited Whitby once, an NYMR loco may be doing it 3 times a day! Whether NwR would permit it is the 1st question (and registering as "1st of type" is quite a task - again, not my view but that of the person who does the registrations), but also the question arises as to whether sending a 4 coupled loco down there regularly would be a good idea arises.

Steven

 

I the concern that, like the A4, a 2-8-0 would not be able to cope with the curves beyond Ruswarp, or that it would knock up the track, or both?

 

Sorry for not wanting to appear to be a moderator when Im not one but I've found the discussion on the Whitby service and the NYMR generally particularly interesting. As a result I have started a general discussion thread on the NYMR on the lines section which can roll as conversations continue. Its found here;

http://railways.national-preservati...ailway-General-Discussion?p=396052#post396052

Rather than take this off topic from the B1... which I look forward to seeing back on the Moors soon.

 

The posts relating to the Whitby operation, following the post (#54) above have been moved to the NYMR general discussion thread here..

http://railways.national-preservati...ailway-General-Discussion?p=396052#post396052

 

I've got to disagree with that. The Urie designs (and Maunsell derivatives) were in the front line of modern loco development, along with some of Gresley's contemporary locos on the GNR. They certainly were way ahead of what anyone else (except of course the GWR) were building.

Any 'crudeness' is more likely due to LSWR traditions of building things big and solid, something that persisted at Eastleigh for 20 years or more after the grouping. Bullied must have been a real shock to the system!

 

Who was a shock to the system?

 

...as the well known saying goes, "i before e, except after c and when talking about the former CME of the Southern Railway between 1937 and 1948"

 

I was tought 'i before e except after c when it rhymes with bee' That fits in with Bulleid and, I think, every other word incorporating ie/ei.
End of spelling lesson.