Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Steve1015, Oct 25, 2012.
Just read Post 278. It's all there.
No it's not all there, it doesn't touch availability.
Oddly enough when 80072 was being restored, it was discussed more than a few times that there was little difference between its restoration and that of a Pacific ...
Having an 'ideal' sized loco is not the panacea that you seem to think it is ... Most especially when they don't exist universally
Have you asked yourself another question? Rather than asking why they are not in service ask what the owning group of say a standard 4 is doing to get itself in service? You can't blame a group such as I dunno, dinmore Manor who actively fundraise for their own locos, all of which are larger than a standard 4, for putting the time and effort in to do so. I can't remember ever seeing a single fundraising stall (apart from the coach at carrog for 72 and the elr have a coach) out and about looking for donations. I go to the SVR and I see the 813 stall, 82045, stanier mogul etc but I haven't seen anything for the standard 4 group (is it owned by the passenger tank group or something?)
Then you also have to look at places where they are in a queue. KWVR the standard only came out of service a few years ago and it's at the back of the queue. The railway are looking at the other locos that they have instead and quite rightly. Should the Bluebell that has 3 prioritize those ahead or more interesting locos? Personally I would say no. Wouldn't this be a very very boring hobby if it were just the same tank engines at every railway. I like to see more variety personally. And if that means bigger locos then so be it. Don't blame the owning groups of those locos for trying to see them steam.
Or maybe the railways with the larger amounts of locos need to start letting go of ones they don't have time for. There are a load of lines that need locos of their own. Churnet valley, ecclesbourne, mid Norfolk, wensleydale are hardly full of locos to start restoration work on and there are others with 10-15 in queues/sheds or sidings
Nicely put Gav, as regards owners of 80079 I think the same group own 75069, another machine that's ideal for heritage line use.
The same basic group of people own 80079 which is in the engine house awaiting its turn, 75069 which is under overhaul and 43106 which is in service. An ideal situation I would have thought.
I seem to have started a hare, which is jigging about in all directions and producing some irrelevant statements. There is little equivalence between, say, 43106 and 80079 because the latter has a major problem which will be quite expensive to resolve- it's worn out and needs, at least, a new firebox. This means that it may well be more costly to overhaul than, say, a pacific that only needs re-tubing and tyre-turning. But for most railways it's still the more useful engine.
Anyway, I'm off to drive trains.
Off to drive trains when there is a debate raging on an online forum? What sort of railway enthusiast are you? Lol.
In all seriousness, does one of those trains include 80078?
This is the bit I can agree with.
But do they have the facilities, the volunteers and the money? And if they divert facilities, volunteers and money from what they are doing now what will happen to those current tasks?
They don't necessarily have to be owned by or be restored on railways. There are other potential buyers out there who have both the facilities and the money. Railways benefit when the locos emerge from restoration as useful working units, rather than being stuffed and mounted or stuck at the end of sidings rotting.
Just a humble 03 today, 80078 comes out to play next Sunday.
They may actually be quicker:- see Cranmore.
Valid point there John, but as I said in my first post you can't have everything in traffic at the same time can you?
It appears to me that a number of railways are experiencing 'issues' related to their loco fleets as home loco's fall due for renewal & hired locos move away
Do wish people would lose that IMHO silly phrase. Stuffed and mounted means the external shell on display and all the internal components and workings discarded so it can never be returned to original form. There are precious few locomotives that have been treated like that.
If there are groups with money and resources available to take on locomotives sitting in linear scrapyards rotting, and they have attempted to buy such at a fair price and been refused that would indeed be very a bad thing. I'd need convincing there are many such examples.
I bet, however, there are groups without much of either vital requirement who think they should be gifted their favourite locomotive by the organisation that has bought said locomotive and maintains it safely and securely under cover as part of their public display.
When I use that phrase I mean locos which, whilst cosmetically restored, secure and in covered accommodation, are years away from restoration to working order even if there were the will, facilities and money to achieve that. There are dozens of such locos scattered about (indeed, I have one myself) In the case of a historically significant relic, keeping it conserved and on display is entirely reasonable, but should that apply to potentially useful, relatively modern locos such as 4MTs?
I can assure you, from personal knowledge, that there are locos, including 4MTs, which currently have no foreseeable prospect of restoration but cannot be purchased even on the most generous terms.
I fully agree that, especially in railway preservation, there are those dreamers who think that they deserve to have a loco, coach or wagon simply because they happen to like it. I'm not talking about them, but people who have the cash and the proven ability to "do the business" and achieve results more speedily and effectively than the current owners.
Even with a 4MT you are talking about a locomotive that is 60 years old - twice the age of say City of Truro when she went into preservation. So what's a historical relic?
All these locomotives are going to get more and more expensive to run as they get older, so to my mind a line that is thinking long term and has facilities to properly conserve its currently out of service locomotives is entirely justified in keeping them so they can rotate through the fleet slowly and steadily. Your grandchildren won't thank you if every preserved line runs out of the ability to steam locomotives because our generation has run everything into the ground.
But I do agree that a line that hangs onto a locomotive that is not properly conserved and stored, but instead is deteriorating in open air, especially if rotting away at the end of a headshunt, should be looking very hard at itself. I just don't think its justifiable to criticise any line for holding onto stock it can care for while we still have a generous supply of Barry wrecks and headshunt scrap lines.
And back to the great news that 80078 is back in steam.
Where did the "information" that 80079 needs a new firebox come from? That's not been mentioned before.
It wouldn't be the first of class to require a heritage era replacement firebox and 79 has given plenty of service.
Separate names with a comma.