76079

I challenged, because I think the argument about emphasising the heritage side of NYMR deserves better than "let's rebuild it so it looks a bit more like what used to run".

As it happens, I also think that the arguments about the 4MT being underpowered are, well, underpowered - as would any argument about authenticity be from NYMRHT.

On the other hand, and I refer back to the maths that @Jamessquared has repeatedly done on the true cost of locomotives, the marginal savings of a small loco for short trains are far outweighed by the capital costs of overhaul.

 

How many years have the NYMR been overhauling 34101 Hartland?

 

Perhaps you would like to explain what is your point, and what is your thinking here? Mine is that there are a couple of locos that are taking a long time to overhaul - 34101 is one, 75029 another and so is 80135 - that have been undergoing protracted overhauls, both of seemingly due to a lot of complications and mistakes made on the boiler work along the way, some going back a long time. I think there's much less doubt about the ability of the staff at Grosmont to carry out mechanical work, and the overhaul of 76079 will be primarily mechanical as far as they are involved. I think 75029 and 80135 will now be completed by contractors and that of 76079 when it comes, whether a repair of the existing one or an all-new one, will be the same, so there's a clear trend there, started in recent times with 44806. The NYMR needs to keep a fleet going, and contractor repair of boilers seems to be the way forward. I'm not sure about the comment

That might be the case, but 76079 is not a small engine in the same way that a P or A1X class is. Even as a class 4 loco it is well matched to 4-6 coach trains on the NYMR.

 

I can’t see any real logic in rebuilding 76079 as a class 3 sort of lookalike. It’s a good loco and should be kept, as is. The price difference between a new cl.3 and a new cl.4 boiler would probably be less than any modifications needed for the conversion.

 

The loco is not underpowered for anything the NYMR is likely to hang on the tender. Believe me, I’ve driven it enough. IMHO it’s been used as an excuse for selling it because they need the money.

 

And probably go straight up the chimney when the regulator is opened.

 

Sorry @Steve, I missed out the word "management" from the first sentence. I agree, it's a cracking loco. It would be a shame to see it stripped down for overhaul and still be nowhere near completion well over a decade later like several other locos on the line. But then what railway is going to want to spend a probably a million quid buying and overhauling it?

 

The comparisons have been made at all points between P and MN; the fundamental cost of a locomotive is in the overhaul and annual costs; coal costs are marginal at most.

 

[QUOTE="60044, post: 2933186, member: 27002”]
That might be the case, but 76079 is not a small engine in the same way that a P or A1X class is. Even as a class 4 loco it is well matched to 4-6 coach trains on the NYMR.[/QUOTE]
76079 is well matched for the NYMR standard 7 coach trains, never mind 4-6 coach ones.

 

76079 is well matched for the NYMR standard 7 coach trains, never mind 4-6 coach ones.[/QUOTE]

I understand all of that and quite agree. What I was trying to point out, not very clearly it would appear, that an oil burning class 4 would probably be more economical in both day to day running costs, and longer overhaul costs, that an S160 or WD 2-10-0, particularly on the lighter trains.

 

There are reasons why the overhaul has been so protracted, some of which are well known and in the public domain; for example, the firebox saga. There are others which it is not for me to say on a public forum, though. It is good that these are now behind us and real progress is being made.

 

I see that a short film has appeared on You Tube today describing the work that has gone into the firebox staying, which looks like it is getting close to being finished I think the same work on Boscastle at the GCR has similarly taken quite a while, in both cases because, as the film explains, it involves an awful lot of work!

 

It’s a little sad, I remember ‘79 as the ‘pocket rocket’ seen on the mainline

 

And I remember it as the first loco to work over the then recently reinstated link between Furzebrook and Norden to star at the Swanage Railway's 2007 End of Southern Steam commemoration

 

I was at Barry the day before it left for Steamport.

 

Although the DB Control Log didn't refer to it by number I think it was the loco hired by DB to haul dead 37670 from Machynlleth station into the depot after it failed (having boiled away all its cooling water - ironic!). August 2009.
Pat