Heritage Line Loco Power Requirements

Basically it is a question of who moderates the moderator.

PH

 

That is interesting Paul, because some of the engines 'resting up' at Didcot, Highley, Sheffield Park and others are 8Fs, WDs, 9Fs, Castles and more. Who exactly should they be transferred to?

 

Now that is a good point. I fear it going to be difficult to find gainful work for these.

I had in mind machinery who owners groups were getting on a bit or who had lost interest/found the job was beyond their abilities/finances. There are,I gather, quite a few G.W. large 2-6-2Ts unserviceable which, along with 4MT 2-6-4Ts would be most useful.

Paul H

 

I'm not following the argument here. The original contention was that "maybe some of those unused assets might be sold off to finance the overhaul of others or other capital devlopments. Some railways have millions in underused assets whilst others are short of power." So millions of pounds is apparently on offer, to the benefit railways owning numerous out of traffic assets, from railways that have such money to spare and latent overhaul resources ready to spring into action if only they had something to overhaul. Over a couple of pages, that has morphed into saying that such locos should be "transferred", without it being especially clear how that benefits the original owner.

So which is it? And which railways are simultaneously short of motive power but flush with cash and unused overhaul capacity? Can anyone name one?

I can think of one modestly-sized out-of-traffic tank engine that has been loaned to another, more historically appropriate, heritage site for more than a decade. It is seemingly no closer to running now than it was when first acquired for preservation 40-odd years ago. Another in-steam loco is on loan to a different heritage attraction and earning daily steaming fees for the owning railway. Go figure.

Tom

 

Not with me (whom you can disagree with as much as you like) but with @Reading General whose suggestion produced such OTT ire.

Now to the actual issues. Are there useful sized machines "stuck" either in covered storage or in linear scrapyard? A low percentage of G.W. large 2-6-2ts has been quoted as being serviceable. These would be very "useful", no not just "nice" to have. Is it due to problems with owning groups which prevent more from being made usable?

The various negotiations between the Ivatt Trust, IOWSR and the ESR have led directly to the return to service of three most useful units. I rode behind one today. The negotiations for the renovation of 46447 were quite complicated and included the sale of the Stroudley E1 to the IOWSR. The restoration of 41313 is a paid for contract. Would similar arrangements, where possible, free an evident log jam? It might, of course, leave oversized machinery looking for work.

PH

 

It seems to me that there are a number of railways that would like to have more motive power. There a number of places that have locomotives that are not in use. The "market" for "in-service" locomotives is healthy (if you have one you can almost certainly find it work regardless of what it is except for the very small and quirky and the very large which only some lines can or will use.

The "market" for out of service locomotives is not as fluid as you might expect. Relatively few get exchanged between lines for all sorts of complicated reasons associated with the affiliation of the owners. In truth very often the reasons are quite emotional. Locomotives that form part of a collection (Didcot, Bluebell for example) are never likely to be moved too freely either. There is certainly room for more deals like the IOWSR / ESR / Ivatt trust one, but these are not easy to bring off.

It might also be observed that the real reason for the lack of fluidity is that those "requiring" the locos do not have the money. Where the money is available, the locomotives can be acquired. The MHR for example has acquired a Black 5, MN, WC, Std4 (x2) over the last 15 years as a strategic plan to have ownership of more of the fleet. The challenge is to also have the resources to return the loco to service, but if you have the money I guarantee that you can find a loco to buy.

 

When I, somewhat unwittingly, started this thread in May 2008 (!) One of my 6 points was, Of all the proposed new builds, I would argue that it is this one which stands the best chance of being mass produced - potentially dozens will/may need to be built as we have probably reached the late stages of our dependence on oil and we may have to turn back to coal (as an interim perhaps as it is a very dirty fuel) if we are going to run anything at all on railways that have not been electrified. I am not an eco-freak; the evidence shows that its already started.
I must state that I do not know any of the members of the 82045 Group and I'm not being put up to say this! However, I believe that this project is the one for me to support (albeit in a small way at the moment) and I would recommend that more people do the same. I'm a seriously sceptical so-and-so but I have no doubt that the price of oil and therefore so many other commodities is not going to come down and its time to think about how we keep our railway heritage alive and provide transport for people and goods in 20, 30 and 50 years time. This new build project just might help. Apart from all that, it's actually a nice looking locomotive too!

My comments on oil have proved to be somewhat premature, although government and vehicle manufacturers are upping their game regarding weaning us onto, or into, electric cars, and I'm old enough and ugly enough to admit that the crystal ball was too cloudy, but I still believe that this particular locomotive could form the basis of a batch build. (Finance would, of course, be the biggest issue - it always is). As 82045 approaches completion, I look forward at least to seeing this really useful loco return from the dead and also to be proved correct in my prediction that perhaps more than one might be built. (Stranger things have happened.)

As for all the arguments on this, and other threads regarding big, powerful, too big, too powerful, inauthentic for the line locomotives, well, the answer is clear; because largely due to the contents of Barry scrapyard we are where we are. Let us just rejoice that we can at least see such locomotives, even though some of them may not be in steam all the time!

 

There is nothing wrong with large numbers of steam locomotives being stuffed and mounted for people to look at, if that is what the owners want to do then it is nobody else's business.

Many of these machines are nearly antiques (some already are) and should be treated accordingly.

Why not in the fullness of time retire some of them to museums, whilst using new builds to haul trains?

Sawdust.

 

I think the problem coming at us is the Barry Scrapyard "let's save them all" mania is waning fast and has been replaced with lines of locos stored away again, albeit more complete and looking better, but still not in use. I looked at all the pretty, fantastic locos at Sheffield Park and wonderful they all are and in the midst of them sat a 9F. Can an overhaul of that be justified or is it a case of it's too big and lots of the others are too small? I can see many of those formerly working locos becoming permanent museum exhibits. I think the time may come when it would be more logical to build a new loco of the right size rather than overhauling one that's too big.

 

My substantive point is that a moderator is akin to a sports referee. No-one would expect the latter to start playing for one of the sides. (Well you did ask)

PH

 

Since the moderators of this forum seem to be of the persuasion of liking trains and having enough brains to support their own opinions, it seems to be the rules of the game here are that they also participate in discussions as well as performing moderating duties. You can't decide to take a dive and cry "foul" just because at times one of them decides to run with the ball in the opposite direction from you!

 

It's owned by the railway, as are the large majority of locos at the Bluebell.

Tom

 

I have no problem with them (or anybody) disagreeing with me. It does neither you or I any harm to hear contrary views and look forward to your own Damascene conversion.

However sports referees and umpires are interested in the sport they officiate in but they do not start to play for one side or another whilst continuing so to officiate.

PH

 

One other issue applies in this case. The Bluebell's 9F is also the focal point of their young volunteers
http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/9f-club/index.html

It goes without saying that this is one group we alienate at our peril!

 

Would anyone care to venture a list of railways which are so lacking in their own motive power that an out of use 3MT tank might be of use? This is not meant rhetorically - I would genuinely like to know. The early arrivals on the heritage scene do have a clear advantage in terms acquiring stock and it might well be that in a few years time that movements to 'redistribute' might make sense. But if so, where to?

 

A, Because you are a moderator.

B How can this be?

PH