LMS Hughes Crab 42859

I'd quite a few PM's with him, as well and some of the things he mentioned about both locos and people were quite incredible. Many have turned out to be true but, even those that have yet to come to light will, I suspect be true. Some would be quite libelous, if not. However, they were confidential and will remain so. Like you, I was truly saddened when he gave up posting. Sadly, even now he seems to be being hounded over 42859.

 

Maybe there are exceptions to the rule however there are plenty of horror stories out there. There was a thread on this subject a while back and a well known Engineer from Tysley catalogued a list of engine hire disasters where machines had been used, abused and plain robbed.

Just because its polished doesn't mean its been looked after or is in better nick than when it went. The NRM got their fingers burnt when GNR 1247 was returned to them in woebegone condition a decade or two back.

Run it and repair it means exactly that. For most that is do the minimum to get the most miles out of it. That isn't long tem conservation, that is using the residual life up of major components before handing it back for somebody else to replace the throatplate / firebox / cylinder block / tyres etc.

I for one am glad that Bluebell doesn't loan out its out of traffic engines. Most sit in a shed, drained down and effectively mothballed and act as museum pieces which is effectively what they are. So what if they don't run for 25 years? It isn't a race and we are only custodians of these machines and have a duty to hand them down to the next generation

 

Probably why he took his toys away in the first place. I suspect (and hope TBH) that one day a large kit of parts will be found in a private location that will have 42859 stamped on them. Bit like SECR 65 which was thought if as lost or that saddle tank that popped up as a barn find a year or two back.

As a seriously useful bit of kit with only one other that is likely to run I suspect that there will be lots of interested parties who will want it. Not having a boiler with it isn't likely to be a major issue now as many engines now are having their boilers almost completely reconstructed. Taw Valley on the SVR for instance was reported as having an almost new boiler. Sir Archie and Blackmoor Vale are having new fireboxes, Camelot had new boiler barrel sections.

 

Just like he hounded others over the problems with 4472 and 6100. I always felt that he was good at finding fault with other peoples management of their assets while seemingly being incapable of managing his own.

Peter

 

I'm not sure what Mr Riley will think of that potentially libelous statement

 

Really? He didn't actually take 1247 on loan and the issues regarding its return were well documented a the time. As I said there maybe exceptions but loaning out historic machines is generally not a sound idea.

Bit of barrack room lawyering here me thinks...

 

Ah Royal Scott. A triumph of engineering when it first emerged into its pink livery.

Flying Scotsman overhaul - say no more...

 

Think most of his comments were directed at another big LNER engine...

 

As far as I can see, the railway presentation movement is currently more or less flat out to keep the current level of locos out across the industry that are out.

Working for a commercial boiler-smiths I know a little about the amount of work out there, and whatever I worry about it's not a general shortage of work across the industry. Put bluntly, I put people off because of the lead times I can offer them are so long - and that's basically because there aren't enough good people around to work in the industry.

The same is true for most voluntary efforts - indeed I would have said that there is currently a period of extensive consolidation occurring, in which lines which can effectively overhaul their own stock are growing that capacity and then heading into the hire business with the surplus locos, while lines without that capability are essentially giving up and regarding hired in locos as the new norm,without any serious aspersions to alter that.

 

Clearly you are not a fan of these agreements. I am working on the premise that the owning railway or society wish to see their loco operational & generating income rather than being stuffed & mounted for the foreseeable future.

I am also referring to long term lease agreements possibly up to 10 years not shorter term hire agreements. So by default it would be in the leasing railways interest to do more than the basic minimum to gain the maximum running out of a leased engine. Yes the engine would have had another 10 years wear & tear but that's inevitable at some point if it is ever going to run again.

My initial suggestion was made as a possible solution to some lines having very few available engines to run & some of the 'bigger' railways having locos quite a way down the restoration queue. It could be win win all round & has proven to be doable when both parties subscribe to an agreement & see a deal as mutually beneficial.

I'm not debating if it is the right or the wrong thing to do or that their wouldn't be a negative aspect to such an arrangement, that's up to the respective owning society or railway to consider bearing in mind their own aims & objectives.

As estwdjhn as suggested above this might be a 'new' way of thinking about future loco requirements & how railways will manage their motive power requirements.

 

No I'm not a fan to be honest though I see the advantage of it. Unfortunately there will be winners and losers and mainly the losers will be the original owners. All components that make up a loco have a finite service life either through wear, fatigue or corrosion. An engine that is stored as a museum exhibit if stored correctly isn't suffering any of those things. One that is being used is. Many of the locos in the Bluebell collection have got to the point where they need reconstructed boilers and fireboxes (e.g Stowe & Sir Archie), many older ones need completely new cylinder blocks (e.g 27, 592, 1178), Wheels have been replaced on Fenchurch and will need to be on the Adams. The H had major frame renewal a while back. Poor old Stepney needs everything!

No outside group is going to stump up for that sort of work so therefore by default will only want to take one of the easier options. Trouble is when it comes back from another 10 years of grinding up and down someone else's trainset the former easy option then goes either into or closer to to the line of 'needs major work / reconstruction'.

 

How will the owners be losers if they wish to see their engine operational?

It doesn't matter whose railway it is running on, home or away, if operational it will have 10 more years wear & tear.

 

If you were a loco owner and you lent out your 'out of traffic but not needing major work engine' and it came back requiring new tyres, throat plate and cylinder block I suspect you would not consider yourself the winner out of the transaction...

 

45212 left the KWVR for the first time with x years worth of life in its ex-BR firebox, and I don't recall it having major firebox renewal since then, so the KWVR has kindly donated all those years of wear and tear to the lessees and I don't see how they can be repaid for that unless the firebox is renewed before the loco is finally returned.

 

In what way are they either stuffed or mounted?

 

Or the loan agreement for any loco includes a sufficient provision to cater for the type of wear and tear described. There might be a short term benefit in terms of loan fee or usage but I do not see any long term benefit of loaning a loco out without renewal commensurate with the wear.

 

Depends on the terms of the loan agreement.

 

I've no idea on the deal in question, but a deal where say a loco with a decent box but needing tyres and a general 10 year overhaul got re-tyred, and was then returned at the end of it's ticket with a set of 90% good tyres and a chunk of cash towards it's next overhaul could easily be one which worked for all parties...

 

and the enforceability of said terms should there be a dispute at the conclusion.

 

Boiler condition is probably the most significant element in any equation, a new copper box for a large loco is the largest single component cost of any renewal?