92219

There's a hint in the latest SR that 92219, the last but one new steam loco to be built for BR (prior to Evening Star), might be broken up for spares if a buyer can't be found for it as it is. States that the loco only did 5 years work in service & the boiler/firebox are in sound condition. There is a set of coupling rods in store for it & a tender is required.
Would be a shame if it was scrapped, probably being the only other new steam loco built for service in the 60's.

 

Much like you, it would be easy for me to allow my heart to rule my head. However it's necessary to ask oneself the question "Is there any work out there for such a big engine?". If it wasn't for the flange-less drivers it might have some sort of business case working main line etc.; but then it would probably be competing against another umpteen 9Fs for work.
A shame; but I'm not sure there is a way round it.

 

It would be a great shame to see her go for spares, but it's happened before and it'll happen again. As long as the parts aren't lost for scrap, is there anything actually intrinsically wrong with breaking a loco for spares? With others in preservation, and one 'formally' preserved for the nation?

If I had the money, I'd buy her, restore her and enjoy her as 92219. But I don't, and it would appear that no-one else does either. The arguments is not dissimilar to that which may be found on the 'engines being broken for scrap?' thread.

 

I suppose the "thing" with this loco is that it is the last but one new steam loco to be built for BR, that's why it would be a shame to break it. Even for spares .

 

I suspect a buyer could easily be found for the right price. So often in these situtations, the seller is simply asking too much and then moans about it not selling and threatens to scrap it.

 

If a buyer can't be found then with any luck some of the parts can be used on other 9Fs. I take that 92219 doesn't have a tender. I hear to build a new tender will cost around 70k. So this maybe another reason why a buyer hasn't come to the rescue to this loco.

 

I've gotta say that if that's the case, someone has got a nice little earner going in the preservation scene. Some people go around talking telephone numbers and most of the rest believe it.

AND - with this engine about to be cut up at Ongar - allegedly - there's some tender wheelsets about to go into the melting pot complete with roller bearings, and springing, etc, etc. Those people who urge 'cut it up' are really clever aren't they. Maybe some of them are the sales people offering to build new ones.

Get a grip people. This is supposed to be preservation. Note the title of the site.

 

Not wishing to cross swords with you again TenWheeler, but I'd suggest that if it was truly preservation we were into then we wouldn't be in the operating game that we're in - we'd be preserving everything.

There are times when we can let our hearts rule our heads - but there are times when we must let our heads rule our hearts. Tough decisions need to be made - sometimes.

Out of interest, what cost would you put a brand new tender at?

 

Could you give an accurate cost for a tender then please?
I think it is very difficult to have any true idea how much these things cost and would welcome someone who could give a decent figure.

 

Who's in the operating game? This isn't called National Operating. Why do artifacts have to be put to the sword? With that kind of thinking eventually there will be nothing left.

Obviously if your preserve something in working order then it has to be operated. This is where the waters get muddied, and what I find objectionable is the interests of preservation being casually put aside for the sake of expediency, usually by an operating organisation.

This is one reason why clear agreements have to be in place between loco owners and operators, and all too often they are not. From what I've seen over the years, in general, people operating trains have little or no interest in the welfare of the stock they are using. If you think I'm talking rubbish, ask yourself why there are so many locomotives lying around having worked their ticket and no resources apparently available to overhaul them. I know of more than one siding that's full of them.

I'm not about to quote a finished price, but the last tender tank I have information on that was fabricated cost £16,000, and that was done by a contractor. An associate of mine did a costing on it and he reckoned there was about 5,000 profit in that, and material prices (plate) have fallen since, though consumables have risen. The frames are mainly more plate, and the most expensive items left are the wheelsets and running gear. I'd be disappointed if a new tender cost anything like half what has been mentioned.

 

This isn't a commercial site. If you need a price for a tender, you have to do a bit of graft and work it out for yourself. It's not so difficult. You get prices for the raw materials and work out the cost of putting it together. Shop around, especially if someone quotes you a high price.

All I'm saying is that people get used to these big numbers and think it's normal. It's shocking. Hundreds of thousands of pounds to repair a boiler. Almost every time.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on the connotations and denotations of 'operating' and 'preserving'.

Regarding your other point - perhaps sometimes expediency is in the long run better for the preservation movement or organisation as a whole - there is only a finite amount of money, goodwill and manhours out there in this game. If they are spread too thinly would that not be to the detriment of the movement? Would it not be better, for example, for 92219 to be broken when, say, 92203's frames are beyond economic repair and 92214's boiler is shot than to have all three sat idle awaiting money that will never come?

I should emphasise I have no reason to believe there is anything wrong with either 92203 or 92214, it is just an example!

Thanks for your info on costs.

 

So to put a double chimney and smoke deflectors on Scotsman is total taboo but to break up engines is OK??????
Some of you guys want to step back and learn what some of those early preservationists did to ensure some of these engines survived and how they sacrificed their own bank accounts and family lives etc to do so. If they could see some peoples attitudes now they would be mortified.

If you want to engines being scrapped and broken up go abroad...

Stan

 

I don't think they would Stan. In the 1970s the SVR broke up 3612 to provide spares for 7714 and 5764. In the 50s the fledgling Festiniog scrapped the remaining chunks of Moel Tryfan. Tough decisions, but look where the SVR and FR are now.

Tough decisions are nothing new. Yes great efforts were made to save locomotives and other artefacts from the scrapmen, and thank heaven they did, but the early preservationists were pragmatic too.

 

I hope that Mr Hosking's representative has been contacted about this engine. Mr H. shows excellent foresight in acquiring strategic spares for his locomotives, and he does own an active 9F. True 9F's are no longer "mainline" engines due to the centre flangeless coupled wheels, but the SVR was happy to hire in last year, and the Bluebell this year. No doubt if available and needed in 2013 the NYMR might consider another 9F, given how well the one based there has fitted in on heavy trains and demanding gradients. A "nearly new" boiler/firebox for a 9F must be attractive. Just think what it would cost to build new today. Indeed assuming the flanging blocks no longer exist, a very difficult task at all.

 

Why not look to the A1 Trust for the amount that Tornado's tender cost? I'm pretty sure that the pricing, including a detailed breakdown, was mentioned quite openly on more than one occasion.

 

If 9F parts were required by one of the other 9Fs, I would break up 92245 rather than 92219.
With regards to a tender, 46118 needs to re read the first post.

 

Yes, sorry std tank. The old eyes dont work too well first thing. Post amanded.

Given that new tenders for various class have been built, notably for MN and WC classes, the costs should be quite well known, but as ever the rising cost of steel continues.

 

As I recall quite a number of the survivors that didn't go through Woodhams were bought solely as spares ships with the intention of reducing to produce as required. Because of the expansion of the preservation movement beyond anyone's wildest dreams relatively few were actually broken beyond salvation, but that was the original plan.