The Linear Scrapyard: Which locos/coaches/wagons in it would you most like to see get restored ?

Like a ruddy great warship my grandfather served on as a boy in WW I !

 

I would strongly agree with many previous posters that the LBSCR Directors Saloon on the Bluebell should also be top of the list. Until a month ago this vehicle was out of sight and in the open for 30 plus years at Horsted Keynes and covered in sheeting. Like Paul I remember this important carriage being in service in the early 1970s.

It is only in the last month that the sheeting has been removed and at long last this gem of the LBSCR put undercover.

When it has dried out, I hope a plan will be formulated for it's restoration. I know there are significant problems as to what form this should be, and be useful in traffic once again, but I have not the slightest doubt that a well targeted appeal will result in considerable goodwill and donations.

My own view for what it is worth would be to restore/rebuild the carriage as an open and semi open saloon without the corridor connections that were ad hoc, and make it a maximum capacity passenger vehicle, but with all the glory of the remaining sections of the passenger sections extended to the rest of the vehicle. The vehicle has undergone too many alterations over the years to consider anything else IMHO, and as a heavy vehicle it must be as much use to the traffic department as possible.

Cheers,

Julian

 

Won't that have to happen before it could be scrapped, though? If so, that goes in both sides of the scale...

Noel

 

As ever Steven you do make some valid points, however in 45015's case it really is a complete wreck, a cosmetic restoration would be nice for this machine but what story could it tell? A steam locomotive is a big lump of metal with the majority of it's working bits on the outside. A diesel loco has pretty much all it's (complicated) working bits on the inside, the body shell is just something that makes it look nice! 45015 has serious problems with things like asbestos, there's a problem with one bogie not having a leaf spring and that part of the bogie not supporting any weight, it's been stripped of so many parts and been stored in the open for so long (I'm 33, I'd guess it'll have spent at least 30 years in the open) throw in a legal battle between its current owner and landlord and Peak spares were last available in any quantity in about 1993 when BR had it's big clear out before privitisation and the numbers of 44,45,46 and 47 in preservation. It's either death by gas axe or 'Peak fan wins £167mil on Euros and says 45015, you shall go to the ball!' Why am I not expecting to read the latter headline?!

 

Ultimately the only beneficiaries from 45015 are likely to be lawyers, as they try to work out just who will be liable for asbestos removal. Even the scrap value of what remains of the beast is likely to be a fraction of what that will cost. Aren't there some hefty outstanding storage fees due too?

 

I am trying very hard to remember what furnishings were aboard but I recall a seemingly complete "boardroom" end and the other end which contained wicker armchairs which would not be out of place n an Edwardian conservatory. Presumably the middle contained facilities for preparing refreshments and the other sort of "facilities".

PH

 

Until recently I would have said 76077 would have been top of my list, but happily it looks like things are moving forward for this locomotive.

 

People mention the problem with Asbestos but presumably the owners of other Class 44, 45, 46 and similar aged diesels have also had to deal with similar issues with their machines ? In some cases I believe it can be sprayed to seal it in and then just left in situ (if it isn't going for scrap) and there is also different types of asbestos which have differing levels of danger.

Also Springs etc can be made. You go along to Jones Springs or whoever, take one of the existing springs and say, Can you make me another one please, How much ? There may be other owning groups who would already have a spare one they could sell.

Consider how much has been done to the many Barry wrecks where replacing whole Tenders, motion, cylinders, springs that were missing (and removing Asbestos) have all been almost routinely done.

A lot of people not involved with restoration also believe that you need to have £200k sitting in the bank before you can even start a project, not so. Most projects are funded by their owners gradually bit by bit. They earn a bit and then spend £300 on that part, Earn a bit more, spend £150 on some other part etc. They might spend a lot over the course of say 10 years but they never had it up front. It is like with a mortgage, you earn a bit, pay a bit.
There are of course a few projects done by wealthy individuals or where some lottery money is given where 200k is sitting in the bank at the start but that is extremely rare.

 

I hear you but the decades have passed and the "stuff" under consideration gets worse. Some of the pictures in this thread show some pretty indescribable sights and, hopefully there are no adjoining dwellings to "enjoy" these. Railway managements ought to give some thought as to the impression such things give to actual and potential visitors.

PH

 

Another point about asbestos removal - if it's been kept sealed, and if you look at photos of the so-called "ghost ships" that were laid up at Able UK, Tees, for a while before being broken up, the insulation on the steam and condensate pipework there was still in perfect condition, then removal is relatively straightforward. Go across the river, though, and look at the remains of TS "Dover", sunk at her moorings thanks to metal thieves who removed pipes which allowed the machinery spaces to flood, then much of the engine room is now contaminated with a sort of asbestos 'soup', the result of the insulation breaking up after being soaked with water, which is going to be very tricky (and more expensive) to remove. In the case of a wreck like 45015, the asbestos there is now similarly soaked and breaking up. It surprises me, actually, that the local authority haven't insisted on the remains being covered over and efforts made to control water runoff - the ground around it must now be a health hazard, particularly after a prolonged dry spell.

 

Concerning the Brighton Saloon this page http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/60.html (for those who haven't seen it) gives some more details about it's condition, and some thoughts about it's future.

Steve B

 

As ever Tom, I would pretty much agree with everything you except perhaps the highlighted point.

The 'surplus' should cover repair and renewal of what is operational (but often because of the amount of backlog in such work, can't realistically do so on a current year by year basis) but restoring things (and other enhancements or 'increases' in what is operational) is a long way from from being funded by operating surpluses. Indeed, many such activities are, from a pure railway operating point of view 'WIBN'. However, they are an essential and core role of 'preservation' and 'education' and hence 'fund raising' in all its form is what should be looked to for funding.

The preservation sector has a hugely variable track record on fund raising - some lines (e.g. the Bluebell) are VERY good at it (but could still spend 2 or 3 times what they raise) whilst others seem not even to realise what they are missing out on!

Actually, both 'commercial' and 'fund raising' are areas where many organisations are raising their game but I would suggest ALL have room to raise it further. However, in doing so, they may have to 'slaughter several sacred cows', such as 'we have always done it this (wasteful) way', 'that idea wasn't invented here', 'you'll never get funds for that (because I am not interested in it, so nobody else will be)', 'it's not what we use now, so we won't use it if you restore it because it is different', 'any change must be to make my life easier, not busier' and even 'if you raise money to allow this restoration to be completed, what I am going spend my weekend tinkering with?'!

Steven

 

Two observations. One is that I respectfully disagree with you on the role of surpluses; and feel that operating income should allow further development/enhancement and not just maintenance of a steady state. I recognise that this poses difficult challenges in terms of balancing preservation objectives against commercial objectives, and also in terms of setting fares at a level that will attract traffic.

The second, given your posts elsewhere, is that I'm surprised not to see you comment on another sacred cow, namely the idea that funding for one project must necessarily be at the expense of another.

 

And where are you going to get all the spares needed to rebuild that power unit and it's electrical systems after 30 years exposure to the Great British weather?

 

Absolutely - passengers don't travel in locomotives (and no-one moves without them!) but as I commented on the thread about the forthcoming Channel 4 TV show, enthusiasts tend to be more numerous for locomotives than carriages and too many forget the vital part carriages play. Too often, it is assumed that a Mark 1 (or even Mark 2) looks no different to a Victorian, Edwardian or even 1930s coach to 'the general public' when in fact many do notice and appreciate the difference.

When you have major lines with fleets of 40 plus carriages of which only 5 can be accommodated in workshops and none in storage, you realise the scale of the problem.

Steven

 

In the interests of brevity (unusual for me, I know! ), I didn't state that any 'business' needs to fund developments of its commercial activities and hence some developments undoubtedly fall to be covered by 'surpluses' (present or future returns from the actual project), but the point I was making was that a service often could be maintained in many cases without restoring historic stock, and hence the costs of such restoration would usually fall on 'preservation' rather than 'operating' resources. Of course, it may be that a particular vehicle would have a strong business case based on the commercial opportunities it offers, or that restoring historic stock on site is a better commercial option when more stock is needed, or a mixture of funding can be justified.

Totally agree with the point (implied I suppose by the 'you'll never raise funds because it doesn't interest me' comment) about the 'sacred misconception' that 'appeal' funding for one project will reduce funding for another - absolutely true yet I still hear stories of organisations suspending all minor fund raising because they have a major appeal.

Steven

 

Unfortunately I disagree - doing projects piecemeal in that way is why there are numerous part-complete projects around taking seemingly forever to complete.

On the Bluebell, I can think of at least two projects that were started years ago in a fit of optimism but with insufficient regard to resources (one in the Loco department; one has been discussed on this thread). Both stalled; both would now be far more difficult than they should have been had they simply been left alone until there was capacity to complete them. Thankfully, the loco is now subject to a full restoration. There's not much to be gained from raking over the coals about why decisions were taken as they were decades ago; just move on and learn the lessons - one of which (in my eyes) is trying to do projects in an ad-hoc way is fraught with inefficiency and risk.

One outcome of that is we now have a more rigorous process of approvals before projects can start, part of which is to demonstrate a credible resourcing plan (people and finance) before permission is given to start a project. Which explains, for example, why the group aiming to restore the Maunsell Restaurant Car have spent ten years raising funds while they work on the physical restoration parts of other projects.

Tom

 

It is not necessary to have all the cash up front, but it is highly desirable to have a realistic plan for bringing the cash in over a reasonable timescale. The A1 people have been outstanding in that respect: others (whether new-build or restoration) cover a spectrum from pretty effective to totally ineffective. An item of rolling stock for which there is no prospect of work starting reasonably soon should still have some sort of plan in place, and it should be better than just "we'll start work if and when we can afford it". Is there a reasonable prospect that the resources will become available eventually, if so when, and what can be done to minimise deterioration in the meantime? If it's unlikely that resources will ever be available, what else can be done with that item? Scrapping has to be an option.

Edit: Sorry not to have any specific personal answer to the question on this thread.

 

Speaking as one person, working as a restorer of timber vehicles (so including waggons), there is a huge number of worthy potential projects "out there" !
We have just started work on the ultimate "basket case" ... the NSR Brake found at Rudyard.
ie

1001 things - derelict brake par StoneRoad2013, on Ipernity

However, as much as I like the restoration process - the preservation movement, as a whole, needs to find a way of keeping all the rolling stock under proper and secure cover, otherwise "weathering" will soon remove almost all chance for items that have not yet been restored. Also items that have been restored will soon start to deteriorate if not protected ... eventually, even well resourced organisations will find themselves with a maintenance backlog for the "running" fleet and unable to make progress into the linear scrapyards.
My vote, such as it is, would be, firstly, to encourage the building of suitable storage facilities - and these could be off-site ! In terms of restoration, please can I put a word in for the freight vehicles, they always seem to come as a very distant back marker in the restoration queue.

 

A bit of out of the box thinking here, does every item of rolling stock have to be kept under cover at a preserved railway? Or would it not be possible for some owning groups to look at making use of non-railway buildings away from heritage lines (Something like a small building on an industrial estate maybe?) for storing and/or restoring rolling stock? That would mean railways would be able to store a greater proportion of rolling stock on site under cover, and there would be less possibility of petty issues like components going missing or other groups moving rolling stock away from positions it needs to be in, both of which I have heard of happening. I'm not suggesting every group should do that, and I'm aware it might add some start-up capital, but if a group is paying rent to store their coach or loco or whatever outside on a heritage railway, it may be more cost effective to pay rent to have it stored inside elsewhere. I know of a couple of owning groups which are at least rumoured to be taking this approach.
There is no one reason why such 'linear scrapyards' develop, but another potential cause I know of it politics between owning groups. I know of an instance where there were two different small groups, each owning a different DMU at the same railway. From the railway's perspective, the most sensible option would have been for both groups to work together to restore one DMU first, then the other. But neither owning group was willing to work on the other's unit in preference to their own. While I cannot comment on how widespread that is, it (sadly) would surprise me if this was just an isolated case. I think some owners/owning groups could probably do with having some sense knocked into their heads!