If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Oldest Working Loco

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by JFlambo, Aug 22, 2013.

  1. JFlambo

    JFlambo New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Brilliant!
     
  2. meeee

    meeee Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    You could say the same of River Irt on R&ER which at 122 years old would fit in the same category.
     
  3. 30567

    30567 Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    5,610
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Sorry I've come late to this thread. What about the longest serving tender loco on BR and its forerunners? 65033 which started the thread off did 73 years. 30567 managed 76 years, 1883-1959. Did any others exceed that?

    I've always thought that to get 60 years out of the T9s on the sort of work they did was pretty good going.
     
  4. pmh_74

    pmh_74 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Deleted.

    Memo to self. Before trying to be a smart-arse, read the thing properly!
     
    CH 19 likes this.
  5. Spinner

    Spinner Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    237
    Occupation:
    Public Servant
    Location:
    Australia
    Is not the intention of the original poster to only count revenue service life, not that in preservation? While many here have talked up the preservation life of various locomotives, it shouldn't count because their purpose is somewhat different. Life in preservation is life in the entertainment industry, every locomotive in preservation is essentially a toy which we play with.

    Have a serious think about it before you apply your respective blowtorches at me. 8^)
     
  6. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    But you then have to
    But you then have to define 'preservation'. For argument, you could say that the locos on the Torbay & Dartmouth are not preserved but are earning their daily keep. The fact that the Railway operates its services with steam locomotives is irrelevant; that is their choice of motive power. It is a commercial company operating for profit and (hopefully) paying a dividend. Then you also have the likes of the Snowdon Mountain Railway, Brecon Mountain Railway, Vale of Rheidol Railway.......Even WCRC.
     
    Jamessquared likes this.
  7. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,105
    Likes Received:
    57,436
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Right, apply blow torch :)

    It's an interesting point, but you get into certain logical inconsistencies trying to make a distinction between preserved and "not preserved" usage.

    For example, I can think of one currently extant locomotive whose ownership history went:

    Pre grouping company
    Government (in the form of the Royal Naval Ordnance Department)
    A private railway
    One of the Big 4 companies
    Government again (in the form of British Railways)
    A private railway (as a preservation company)

    So that begs the question, why the first private railway (which owned the loco for about a quarter of a century, but for some of that time laid up out of service) counts as part of the "original service life of the loco", but the second private railway (which owned the locomotive for more than half a century, and has seen the loco put in more years in service traffic than any of the previous owners except the first) is not part of the "original service life of the loco"? The only really significant difference I'd suggest is that the current owner (a "preserved railway") would recognise the historical significance and therefore not take steps to realise the asset value in scrap once the loco was no longer able to be put n remunerative service, whereas the first private owner sold the loco on when they had the chance. But fundamentally, in either company the purpose of having the loco includes making money for the owner.

    You also get into difficulties counting time with locos that have been retained by the original owners, but run for "heritage" rather than "traffic" purposes: there were numerous such locos on BR in the 1950s / 1960s (T9, Caley Single, City of Truro, Jones Goods etc). How long would you say the active service life of City of Truro is / was? Built by the GWR in 1903; in service until 1931 (so 28 years) when it was donated to the LNER for their museum; then restored for service in 1957 by BR and ran unil 1961; then periodic steamings since. So on the one hand she ran 28 years in revenue service, but on the other, she was still in steam for the successor company to her original owner 58 years after construction!

    Tom
     
  8. GWR Man.

    GWR Man. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,197
    Likes Received:
    2,413
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Taunton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Tom the engine you are on about the Adams Radial Tank I don't consider the first use as private as private, as the EKR was on a railway working on a public railway which didn't form part or the big four railways. You could say the same about the A1X engines which worked the KESR as well then. Private railways to me should be where they are for the fun of the owners only.
     
  9. Miff

    Miff Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,857
    Likes Received:
    2,793
    This might be a useful distinction which probably works for all locos except for those few built specifically for tourist attractions or museums.
    Is the locomotive primarily used for its original purpose (as a machine for pulling trains)? Or is it now primarily a public attraction/exhibit (either in its own right or as part of a heritage railway/museum/tour operation)? Both roles may involve pulling trains but there is a fairly obvious difference.
     
  10. pmh_74

    pmh_74 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    So where does that leave something like 'Dunrobin'? Did it ever run in service at all, using that definition?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Jamessquared likes this.
  11. Rosedale

    Rosedale Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    435
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Shipbourne
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    She was loaned to the HR during WW1 and to the Navy during WW2, and saw service as a shunter at Invergordon, Rosyth, and Dalmuir.

    There's a pdf of a Heritage Railway article about the loco on the Beamish website: http://beamishtransportonline.co.uk/downloads/articles/
     
  12. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,105
    Likes Received:
    57,436
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I'm not sure I really see the difference. With the exception of a very small number of lines (such as the Fawley Hill Railway), all railways are run to make money for their owners: that applies just as much to a preserved railway now as to the EKR or KESR between the wars. The fact that the owners of a preserved railway may choose to reinvest any surplus money back in the railway rather than take it out as a dividend doesn't alter the fact that such railways have to make money: fun alone doesn't pay the bills.

    Tom
     
    Rosedale and Steve like this.
  13. Miff

    Miff Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,857
    Likes Received:
    2,793
    Ah but, unlike a commercial operation, most preserved railways do not exist primarily to make money. Their primary purpose is to Preserve. Money is just one of the things they need to make that possible (volunteer labour is usually another).
     
  14. Rosedale

    Rosedale Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    435
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Shipbourne
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Playing devil's advocate for a moment, you could say the same about the Talyllyn under Sir Henry Haydn Jones, or about many of Colonel Stevens' lines. I'd be surprised if the KESR ever made Stevens a penny. And then there were the various estate and hospital railways, which while serving a purpose were never intended to earn money.
     
    Miff likes this.
  15. Miff

    Miff Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,857
    Likes Received:
    2,793
    Yes I agree. There have always been motivations other than money in this world. And KESR carried on after Stephens' death though with WH Austen acting as Receiver. It would be interesting to know why the creditors (including the SR) didn't pull the plug as no doubt they would today.

    Hospital railways were simply things considered necessary (like beds or straitjackets) at the time for the efficient running of the hospitals concerned, and they disappeared when that was no longer true.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2016
    Rosedale likes this.
  16. andrewshimmin

    andrewshimmin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,761
    Likes Received:
    2,160
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Contrary to the what is often parroted by apologists for quick buck free market thinking, corporations often do not, in fact, operate for the purpose of making money, but to fulfil the purpose for which they were incorporated: making bread or providing a transport service or professional expertise.
    Of course they would much prefer to make a good return on their outlay, but that is not why most are founded nor the only motivation for their directors and executives.
    In any case, many railway companies spent most of their loves to making money! So were they commercial or not?
     

Share This Page