92219

I was only clarifying what he said, not trying to get into an argument. I wasn't questioning your point.

 

Still owned by Drapers too. IIRC they were quite shocked at the premium they had to pay BR for keeping it. About five times the price they'd tendered.

That's one of the three I was thinking of.

 

Okay.

Apologies if I was a bit strong with the response. I'm still smarting at the treatment I received (from the site) during a stupid argument that erupted on another thread.

 

Out of interest, what was 62005 going to provide spares for?

 

Boiler for 61994.

 

Thanks. I did wonder about 61994 but wasn't aware who's actually purchased 62005 back then.

 

71000 went to Woodhams not Cashmores.

 

Didn't it go to Cashmores by mistake? Someone then noticed it had a Woodhams label on it & drew attention to the fact, so it then went to the correct yard.

 

No idea. All I know is that I photted it at Barry in the early 1970s. 75014 was also a Barry resident but no idea if that went elsewhere first by mistake.

 

Yes, you are correct.

 

The first post said "broken for spares", but the thread has drifted somewhat to use the term "scrapped". Have the current owners of 92219 actually advertised the engine for sale as yet? I dont buy the mags so cannot comment on that.

Bear in mind the owner is a Charitable Trust, and there might be an element of restriction in their Trust Deed as to what can happen to the engine. Dismantling for spares to support other 9F's is one thing, cutting for scrap is quite another.

Maybe the people involved are at a time in life when having restored 92214, now sold on, that they just dont fancy tackling another big engine in ex-Barry condition. However unless another Mr Hosking appears, at least preserving a set of wheels, frames, cylinders and boiler/firebox for use in the future would ensure the "active" 9Fs have a long life ahead of them. This would still require purchase funds at this stage, but not of the magnitude of a full restoration job.

 

6430 was, I believe, the only steam loco to be saved from Cashmore's - although I don't know if she actually entered either of their yards.

 

I understand it is for sale, but they haven't made a big deal about advertising it. Your second comment is spot on, from speaking to the guy who wrote the article.

 

It is certainly not up to me to suggest whether this engine might be a useful addition to Mr Hosking's fleet, but as he has one 9F, perhaps having an overhauled boiler and set of wheels makes sense. I think he has some duplication with parts for Southern Pacifics in his care (but I dont follow that subject closely, so do correct me if I am wrong) and as far as I recall he has purchased the "A4" boiler of 60103, presumably as a long term rebuild for "Bittern".

On the face of it a 9F is not a a suitable Heritage line loco, but the NYMR appear happy-enough to have one there, 92212 settled down well on the heavier weekend traffic on the SVR last year, and is now away at the Bluebell, presumably for the Summer. Whilst the large firebox means somewhat more coal consumption, in the main the 9F does not have to be worked hard, so is going to last longer than a small loco having its "gutts flogged".

Before anyone jumps in, I'm sure Grosmont to Goathland blows the cobwebs of 92214....!

 

That's the problem with the larger locomotive classes which arrived in Barry in any sort of quantity - there are too many of them for all but the largest and steepest heritage lines. 92214 must sound great on the NYMR, and 92212 certainly makes some noise on the Mid Hants' 1 in 60s, but you have to sctatch your head pretty hard to think of many lines without a 9F where one would be useful - the West Somerset springs to mind, and perhaps the Great Central (where 92212 was based for a while, and a line with historical associations with the class in BR days,) but that's about it. Same with the Merchant Navys (Although things are looking up for some members of this class) and to a degree, the 28xx/2884s. By contrast, if another four standard tanks, small prairies or 57xx panniers had been sent to Barry and not cut up, they would probably have found good homes and be on the way to restoration.

 

That would seem to make sense, but there are examples of Std. Tanks still awaiting restorationwork at the MHR and Bluebell, although in fairness the MHR one is 'on the list' for restoration in the medium term.

Similarly, if you stretch the point, there are large prairies and 56XXs, almost ideal for the middling range of heritage railway, sat awaiting restoration, to the point that at least one large prairie - 4115 - has recently been broken up for 4709, which if ever there was an inappropriate loco for 99% of heritage railways is it.

Seems to me to be much more related to how the dice rolls, and who turns up with the hard cash. What does strike me as a shame is those people that buy a loco, and then do nothing with it. I'm sure that their intentions are good, but if you can't afford the time or money to restore it, be big enough to put it on the market for someone who can - as the owners of 92219 have, even if so far there have been no takers.

 

I just remembered not one, but two locomotives bought for spares and then scrap from somewhere other than Woodhams - 1502 and 1509. Bought along with 1501 by a consortium on the SVR, the best parts were combined to create the 1501 we know and love today - and the remnants sold to Cashmore's in 1970.

 

The big question is how big the market for steam, both main line and heritage lines, is capable of growing. Lines like the Bluebell and the Severn Valley have ample locomotives (OK - both lines don't exactly have ample numbers of WORKING locomotives at the moment, but that's another matter). Other lines have hopes of expansion, and if they do, they may be able to take on the restoration of some of these unloved engines in the future. For example, a Glos-Warks running from Honeybourne to Cheltenham Racecourse will need a few more engines. Peak Rail has huge potential if it can head towards Bakewell and Buxton (and was 92219's first home in preservation, I believe). One line that is growing and will need more engines is the Churnet Valley/Moorlands and City line, although they already have 92134 under repair. Of course, any line that is currently using industrial engines but has ambitions to expand beyond 10 miles also may have to re-think its motive power requirements, although one such line I know well (the Kent & East Sussex) even if extended to Robertsbridge, is hardly a line for a 9F!

I hope the 92219 owning group hang on in there until the economy picks up and some line with aspirations to expand stumps up the cash. It seems that it's easier to sell an unrestored engine than one which is out of ticket but otherwise complete. There have been no takers for 4588 or7760, which is a shame. This may contradict my earlier comment about the popularity of 57xxs and small prairies, , but I'm sure that if the price was right and the economic climate a bit better, they would have found new homes by now.

 

I don't mean this to sound in any way offensive, but I have the impression that you have very little concept of the magnitude of the struggle that occurred to preserve what was available, in the 70's and early 80's. The preservation movement generally should be thankful that there were people willing to sacrifice an awful lot in order that as much as possible could be saved.

There were those who once they'd saved their engine then campaigned to have the rest scrapped, so that theirs would have more rarity value. A very selfish view, and the problem with it is that you can never tell which engines will prove popular and/or useful in the long run. Everyone has their own ideas, but they are rarely correct. Inevitably some engines remain stored, but on the basis that once it's gone it's gone, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Because it can still be resurrected. Resources are not so great that everything can be restored simultaneously. If so many locomotives hadn't been saved, there wouldn't be as many preservation sites as there are now.

I can remember particularly that there was once a widespread consensus that the number of GW 2-8-0's and 2-8-0T's was too large, but one by one something is happening with them. Likewise the unrebuilt Bulleids, and I can only think of one that has not yet entered a full restoration phase. And that has probably more to do with the price on its head, because it was not the one in the poorest condition.

Reflecting on the current position of 92219, I can't help feeling we have really entered a silly phase. Clearly it's a quite notable engine in its class. Surpassed only by Evening Star. Yet a lot of people would seriously just throw it away. Obviously it would not be suited to every line, but all this talk of the bigger engines automatically burning much more coal doesn't wash. Clearly a 9F will use a lot more than a pannier tank, but it is also capable of a lot more work. I'd say there's more wastage down to the handling techniques of the crews, and the difference with the larger engines is that there is more opportunity for wastage. For example, every time I look at a steam engine on a preserved railway after it's finished for the day, there's nearly always far too much fire left in it. 9F's when they were in service were known as quite economical engines. For one thing crews were obliged to work with a relatively thin fire. For sure they are a specialised engine, but they do have their place and 92219 was only withdrawn because its boiler was due for repair. There is a good chance it still has its original flue tubes.