Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by BillR, May 2, 2009.
thats 4027 i imagine...
To me it is a bit unfortunate that the Butterley folk have been unable to complete this overhaul, because the 4F is an ideal engine in the context of the Midland Railway Centre.
Exiled now to GW territory, but, if it steams again under the GWSR care then fair enough.
The main reason Butterley didn't overhaul it again was because NRM said they wanted us to pay for the overhaul but they still wanted to have full control over the loco, only letting it be steamed on a few dates of the year and still having the power to take it away from us whenever they wanted. You can see why we said no as shelling out the thousands for a loco that could just be taken from us at the drop of a hat is stupid. Work was actually being done on the loco up until late 2007 when a rather harsh written letter appeared in Steam Railway stating that "The Nrm wanted serious offers to restore their 4f" This was published without us knowing and the only way we did find out was by one of our volunteers buying the mag and pointing it out to management! They also published something similar about Kirtley 158A I think it may have slipped the NRM's mind that we have kept their 4f under over, free of charge since around 1976 ish. Infact 44027 and Kirtley No. 158A have never actually been to either the NRM York or Shildon!!
Kirtley 158 A is having various bits bolted back on this month so we don't have to mess around in the next few months when NRM find the money for the lowloader.
Its understandable that NRM want their loco's back but the way they have gone about it is so wrong!
Whilst its always good to see another locomotive at Toddington, I can agree with the sentiments in the last 2 posts to some extent. However, I have no knowledge of the NRM versus MRC issues so will not comment. Whilst LMS locos were "exiles" to some extent on the GWR Honeybourne Line, the route had its fair share of LMS locos during post-nationalisation years, especially when the ex-Midland Birmingham to Bristol via Cheltenham line was closed for maintenance. There is plenty of photographic evidence of ex-LMS types steaming through Toddington in BR days, mainly 8Fs but also 4Fs too. A 4F visited last year and looked very good.
A slight side issue, I know, but can I congratulate the GWSR? I went to their website on the link, and the second article was the temporary "homecoming" of Cadbury no.1 for the anniversary of the re-opening. So many lines are keen to quietly forget their industrial steam beginnings, that it is heartwarming to see an organisation openly embracing them. Well done you lot. I haven't been over for a few years now, but I think another visit is well in order this summer.
Possibly the 4F class loco no. 44123 that 'rests peacefully' at the Avon Valley Railway, Bitton. <BJ>
I think we'll have to agree to disagree over this one - but this is not the place to go into it all - we do not go into press first and MRC were given full notice - the NRM do NOT operate that way. I have been ready for 158A at Shildon for nearly 2 years - it certainly hasn't been a case of trying to find the money for the lowloader.
I'm sorry, I'm going to be simplistic about this.
It. Is. Their. Engine.
If the NRM want to ask for particular things, then in the absence of any prior binding agreement to the contrary then they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
But who OWNS to NRM & hence the national collection? - and are they best representing the owners of the collection (ie all of us) by the conditions they impose & by this particular transfer??
Its a debatable situation, and one that no doubt will raise questions no matter what they do.
However the NRM, as custodians of the 'National Collection', have a responsibility to do whatever they deem reasonable and appropriate to safeguard the collection for future generations. If this involves having a condition that the loco can be recalled if (for example) it is being neglected/mistreated, then surely this is discharging their obligations far more effectively than abandoning a loco for 10 years and finding that it is suddenly dumped back at York totally shagged out and of no use to man nor beast.
If I may provide a slightly different analogy, you own an operational loco. You are approached by a railway who want it to be based at their line. Do you allow them unlimited use of it at any time, with no rights to yourself as owner until such time as its no longer in service, or do you insert clauses such as a maximum agreed number of steamings, or a break clause at which point the contract can be terminated if terms of the contract are not being met?
Please note I am not having a go at the MRC, just providing an alternative viewpoint.
Separate names with a comma.