Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Sidmouth, Feb 7, 2017.
Couldn't agree with you more on this occasion.
I also lament it's passing from active service. My point is that preservation can be achieved in a number of ways, of which operation and keeping in a museum are two.
That's still two A4s expected to run on the main line again in due course, plus one other Gresley pacific and two Peppercorns. Whereas we currently have a total of five preserved LMS pacifics but only one in traffic, one (Princess Margaret Rose) expected to run again eventually but not for a long while, one (City of Birmingham) very unlikely, and question marks about the other two. Just as well there are plenty of Bulleids, albeit mostly not currently equipped for the main line.
In what way is there anything permanent? Far better to organise a secure future under cover than have a locomotive rot in a headshunt as so many are still doing. As far as I can see the only locomotive that is genuinely stuffed and mounted is Ellerman Lines. I'm not aware of any other currently static exhibit that couldn't be taken out and overhauled into running order, quite possibly for a lot less effort than restoring a Barry wreck. Or am I missing something and boilers and cylinders are being filled with concrete?
A thread on boiler tube life.......
Do you know, when I saw in my notifications your name, I had a feeling of dread!
I am glad we agree. The fine work your group has done with 92 Squadron, amongst other groups, convinces me we need to change our thinking about ownership in railway preservation.
It is not for me to tell John Cameron what to do with his locomotives, but I wish that there was scope to discuss a way forward. Retaining him as owner and building a support and funding group around him and the engine could have been a way forward. There's no chance of a discussion it seems.
I was astounded the NYMR said no however. I am aware the K4 probably needs a very costly overhaul - but its USP as a unique LNER engine on an LNER line - great publicity and scope. Great shame.
It's far easier to bring back locomotives that are recently out of service than those that have stood silent for a number of years, Dean Goods 2516 would be popular, But look at the ballache that would be just to get it out of Swindon, Let alone get agreement with the NRM and restore it, While your correct it doesn't make a future comeback impossible, It does make it that much harder IMO, Also by then you could be fighting a musuem not wanting to lose it's prize exhibit which is it's reson detre (My French isn't great), Only likelyhood I see of Mallard steaming again is possibly 2038, Sad to say many reading this won't be around by that time.
No surprise at the NYMR saying no based on the cost and a 2 year ticking clock to retirement - and I don't blame them for their decision.
I must emphasise, I don't blame them - but I do think it short sighted. K4, B1 and K1 potential to run the services on what is one of the premier LNER lines.
I am sure they ran the numbers and came up with a decision based on fact. Perhaps the heart rules the head here a bit for me.
And how many of the visitors go to the NYMR as its 'one of the premier LNER lines' compared with how many ride as they just happen to be up there on holiday, no doubt K1, K4, B1 would be a draw if it were your thang, but to the average joe would it be any different to what the NYMR already have?
In very simplistic terms how many might you attact to offset say £500k for an overhaul?
Absolutely fair point. As I say above, perhaps the heart leads the head for this one with me.
I struggle to think of many examples of LNER locos sitting out of traffic rotting in a headshunt. Due to the comparatively small number of surviving ex-LNER machines, there is likely to be enough people to look after it, if it was another GWR 28xx, I would agree with this being the best way to preserve it.
The offer to the NYMR was to 2019 only so unless the cost and time involved to get the K4 running was minimal it was always a non-starter
Absolutely agree, why spend the cash on a loco you won't get even 2 years use out of when for the same you could have it for a lot longer, I understand Mr Cameron's decision as regards 60009, but with 61994, rather than stuff and mount it, it would have been nice to have had it offered to the SVR or the NYMR first? A few years ago one of my friends said about his machine 'we don't own it we just look after it... Be interesting to see if it's still around in a hundred years or so though' There's no wrong or right answer to this though, I respect Mr Cameron's decision but surely the best legacy/ memorial of something like 61994 or 60009 is something that lives and breathes and is something of a living memorial to those who built these machines. As I say it's not wrong or right, just my thoughts.
Returning to the subject of 6201...
It seems very ungrateful for the 6201 company to blame Tyseley for its present woes. If I remember the publicity at the time of the start of the overhaul, TLW was praised for coming up with very reasonable terms and even hints of a few favours, which helped get the company out of a tricky situation. I think we can tell from his posts on here and quotes in magazines that "Uncle Bob" is a bit of a fan of LMS Pacifics.
Anyway, we are where are. It could be that, by luck rather than judgement, Lizzie has ended up at the right place. Some kind of merger or "joint enterprise" with PRCLT could be the best way of giving her a future. The trust that already looks after the other 2 "mainline" Stanier pacifics could be an ideal partner. It's a shame that the 6201 company has run it's funds of cash, volunteer support and goodwill quite as low as it has. It means that all it can really offer to a new partnership is the loco itself and the prospect that new arrangements will attract new volunteers and donors to a combined organisation.
This is all very lovely, but if part of the reason for the locomotive's current situation is indeed a case of individuals being too precious about their association with the locomotive, then I can't see how any arrangement with PRCLT will change this underlying issue.
You sort of see it being added to the list of "former homes" somewhere down the line don't you...
PRCLT May be good at looking after 46233 and 46203, but they have full ownership and control over them remember.
Which of course is the nub, the base and partners keep changing but the ultimate control does not. Neither do the outcomes. Join the dots, do the math, QED etc.
While i can sort of see sense with a merger with the PRCLT as they have the experience, expertise etc etc especially with LMS Pacifics i would also ask another question. When ever anyone has ever asked about 6203 on their Facebook groups all official responses have been that they don't have the ability to run both at the same time so it would be a case of one then possibly the other but they also can't see how to fundraise for Maggie rose as it needs a lot of work. If that's the case then 6201 becoming part of that doesn't really help keep more locos in steam. It's not like 6201 would even be coming along and saying here is a working loco along with a load of cash for the future. And I'm not bashing the PRCLT, just merely stating what they have said themselves on Facebook. I obviously want to see these locos out working on the mainline. You need a group or individual who are very good at fundraising or have large wallets!
I think I agree that the end has come for single loco groups. It is clear that one loco can no longer raise enough money on it's own to pay for itself. Even 35028, which had the benefit of regular contract work and an exacting maintenance regime, had to ask it's supporters for extra money for it's last overhaul. Carnforth, Tyseley, LSL and Riley's all have the benefit of other locos and additional sources of income to support (or subsidise) locomotives under repair. Dinmore Manor group even purchased an additional locomotive to ensure they always had one locomotive in steam to provide an income stream. The A1 steam trust is currently an exception to that rule, but they are very well oiled marketing machine that perfected the crowd funding technique long before the digital age. I don't know what the future holds for 6201, but I fear they have thrown the dice once too many times and the last overhaul gamble has backfired spectacularly. I just hope they realise that a locomotive is always bigger than it's (current) custodians.
As an aside (& not wanting to promote thread drift), but does anyone know what the Stanier Mogul fund's secret is? They long ago reported that it's overhauls' for the foreseeable future were accounted for financially and this is backed up by it's now rapid return to steam ahead of other SVR locos! (By the way no complaints here, can't wait for it's return in pre-grouping livery..)
Separate names with a comma.