West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Agreed. Which is why I never say 'no' unless I really have to.

Robin

 

WSR 200

A few thoughts following the NYMR's lottery success....

Robin

 

Some good news !

D6575 was 1105 BL-MD this morning, but has been replaced by 53809 for 1530 MD-BL.

 

It is a concern , let us hope right wins through .
Paul . K

 

First Carriage, 'landward' side of the front section balding grey haired man with two small boys in tow, youngest blonde & lean. All at various times with safety goggles.................

 

I was in the accessible coach next to the guards van. I was heavily disguised though.

 

Afraid that I might leave my children with you?

 

You would not have recognised me. I did not have my flat cap on and Knasher my giant whippet is not allowed on trains any more due to an unfortunate incident that I will not disclose the details of.

 

Robin,

Your memory has slightly misled you over the arrangements with the regard to the acquisition of 7821 by the WSRA.

Ken Ryder made an offer to the WSR plc that 7821 was for sale and the price being asked for it, the offer was made to the WSR plc only. The management of the plc decided that it was not the right time to purchase an additional locomotive, at this point the WSRA expressed their wish to make the purchase. In the outcome the WSR plc did purchase the 7821 from Ken Ryder making 2 payments over 2 years, and immediately sold it on to the WSRA who made 3 payments over 3 years to the plc.

Therefore it is correct that 7821 was purchased by the WSR plc.

I have not bothered to read the sites quoted so cannot comment on any other details contained therein.

Andy.

 

As I lie here in bed I don't have immediate access to the paperwork, but that isn't my memory of the deal.

The WSR plc paid for the transport of 7821 on the basis that it thereby purchased a first option to price match any other offer the WSRA are made for 7821 should they ever decide to sell.

And as the splitting of the purchase price for 7821 into 3 payments was agreed in a telephone conversation between myself for the WSRA and Ken Ryder, then I would be surprised to discover that matters were as you suggest.

Don't spurn '4160 ltd' and 'wsra hysteria'. There are always good for a chuckle in an idle moment. However, what they do for the chances of 4160 being seen again in Somerset is another question..

Robin

 

West Somerset Railway - Then and Now

The third of the 1874 shots and 2017 comparisons. The hardest to place in the context of the modern Minehead but the Goods shed comes to our aid as usual.

It is only right that I include a plug for Ian Coleby's excellent WSR line history -available at all good WSR bookshops -and ideal to browse while eating a cream tea at Stogumber (shameless plug). Many of the 'then' photos featured in this series of posts come from this volume.

1874


2017



The Book...

 

I believe there are good reasons to suggest that 4160 has been seen to be the most appropriate (power, history, reliability etc) loco that has worked on the WSR. Two succesive successful full periods with a commendably short (timewise) general overhaul inbetween. Rather than setting out to belittle 4160's owners (any idiosyncrasies wrt postings on web sites and other at times childish outpourings have little to do with operational niceties) I would hope that provided an acceptable commercial agreement could be entered into the WSR would welcome 4160 back with open arms.

I cannot help but reflect on the other hand that whatever happened wrt the acquisition of 7821 and the disposal of 6412 as of now any overall benefit to the WSR is yet to be seen.

Michael Rowe

 

If the Directors of 4160 cannot step away from public childishness, their chances of forging a relationship with ANY Railway must be markedly reduced.

As to the 6412 / 7821 debate, I am tempted to yawn loudly. But in case anyone is not bored with this revisionism (given that 6412 isn't coming back from the SDR):

1. There was a full an open debate on the disposal of 6412, including an extended opportunity for WSRA members to contribute.

2. 6412 was, frankly, an enormous black hole for WSRA finances, largely being used to subsidise other Railways' operations for most of any running season. Two group of members tried (with full co-operation of the then Trustees) to come up with sensible numbers for 6412 on the WSR and could not.

3. 7821 is the ideal class of loco for the present WSR as amply demobstrated by Dinmore Manor (and Odney), which the crews have described as 'boringly competent'.

A MUCH more interesting debate will be between 4561 and 7821. I have yet to see anything like a proper assessment of the likely use for 4561 in a future running season as against 7821 and rumours abound about the work still to be done on 4661 to get it back in traffic.

Before I will be lending my personal support to any such appeal, that is what I expect to see.

I look forward to an open, full assessment of the pros and cons of that choice for WSRA members.

Otherwise, expressions of views at AGMs and the like are meaningless.

Looking forward to seeing and judging the evidence.

Robin

 

It would be even better if the WSRA could agree terms with the WSRplc for the long term loan of 7821 (with a funding package to help) similer to the S and D 7F loan agreement which seems to work to the benefit of both the WSRplc and the S and D Trust (a charity)

7821 may be a better option than the PLC spending money on 4110 and the WSRA spending money on 4561 with the result that the WSR ends up with effectively 3 GWR 2 6 2 (for 9351 is of course a 51XX but less a coach in lie of the tender behind.)

We seem rather stuck in the grove that the most useful engine for the WSR, 7821 being forever the last loco in the queue.

A creative joint, informed approach by WSRA and WSRplc with the joint funding that is currently being promoted would be so beneficial for the WSR.

Regarding 4160, it is a very fine engine but please explain the benefits of

a, Yet a 4th GWR 2-6-2 T

b, Hire fees that could be staying within the WSR being paid out to others.

Much has been made of the need to hire locomotives in and the hire fees that are paid but it seems that this detail is forgotten where 4160 is concerned.

Jeff

 

Good point, Jeff.

Given that 4160 is now, in effect, a personal possession of Messrs Johnson and Crees, the 'keep it in the family' argument certainly doesn't apply to her,

Robin

 

This how it was told to me at the time of the purchase.£180K if i remember rightly. Paid back in £60k chunks

 

Oh no it isn't....!!! Would you, by the same logic, claim the Mid Hants' 'U Boat' 31806 is still "of course" K class A806 "River Torridge"?

Sorry, but I don't buy into the idea that any item's history somehow became fossilised at some arbitrary date, or that any one ownership, commercial or preserved, is more or less valid than any other. There, I said it. Now I'm off for a calming lie down in a darkened room... where's my Enya album....

Edit: As Martin will point out (post#5982), 31806 isn't at the MHR any more. It was... but moved to Swanage some while ago. My bad.

 

Given my associations with the ambiguities of Northern Ireland, can I put in a request for a snatch of the theme to 'Harry's Game'?

Have you noticed just how many trips to 'darkened rooms' can be involved in railway heritage......

Robin

 

Jeff, If we have sufficient in house motive power then we do not need to hire in but...

There is an argument that says if there are net revenues available from Plc train operations they should be spent on the infrastructure and motive power hired from others ? Also a group, organisation etc structured around a loco (or locos) will expend all its efforts on it (them). It will not be diverted by other issues. (Look around the Heritage Motive Power owners)

In house or external loco ownership is not a clear decision one way or other. Personally I have always favoured organisations that do a percentage in house and sub contract a percentage out. (whether it be locos, carriage repairs on Railways or filters, clarifiers, chlorination equipment etc when I worked in water and waste water process engineering) It keeps in house costs 'honest' and encourages potential sub contractors to prove their efficiency. I have never favoured total vertical integration.

We have much self promotion on this site so I hesitate to note that I was the early proponent of the concept that 4561, 4110 & 7821 be grouped in a single fund raising campaign, not least because it represented a joined up WSRA/Plc loco owning policy.

Why 4 2-6-2s ? (albeit one is a 2-6-0 and one is smaller); commonality of spares, servicing profiles, overhaul, footplate crew familiarity etc.. which hopefully leads to more economic driving, shorter outage times, ie overall economically attractive.

One could envisage owned WSR motive power might consist of (bearing in mind the 'God's Wonderful Railway Heritage) 3 off 2-6-2(2-6-0)s 2 'Manors' and a couple of S&D (origin or associated with) locos of simple unexciting but reliable construction with variety provided by hired in locos for Galas, summer stints etc. Oh gosh, that's what we have !

So why are we short of motive power, because we were confronted with having unexpectedly to spend scarce money on 7828 and 9351's boiler became delayed in a queue. (No Jeff that is not a reason to set up a boiler shop ! It may be a reason for n + 2 or even 3 operable locos where n is the maximum number required on any normal day ie peak timetable plus dining train.)

The majority of our pax do not differentiate a GWR outline tank loco from a BR tank, similarly a 'Manor' from a 'Schools' etc.

In summary a base motive power fleet, easy to service, suitable for our haulage needs (200-280 tons Tare) with as much commonality as possible must be the ideal.

Michael Rowe