Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Sidmouth, Feb 7, 2017.
Err 2968 was built after 1923! I think what you mean to say is it's very early LMS guise!
I was just thinking there was something wrong with "Stanier Mogul" and "Pre Grouping"
I think the stanier mogul fund are well organised. As far as i know the SVRs old contracts with loco groups was along the lines of you restore them to working order then we will use them for as much as possible and the. Pay for the overhaul once it was out of ticket. And this contract arrangement was the same as with other groups on the line. Now this is all good and well but there was never a time agreement for when the loco would be returned to steam. So some locos that need a lot of work keep getting put at the back of the queue as they are expensive to do as replacement parts are required. I think I'm right in saying that the mogul group actually chips in to the overhaul to fast track it and keep it in service. Add to that i think they also recently were left around £140,000 in a will which gives more security. Cracking group who do seem to have their finger on the pulse.
Oops!! Back to school, detention and 1000 lines for me..
Thanks for the info
Very topical Banner advertising for this thread "NEW BOILER IN 48 HOURS from Homeserve" does the management know this?
But if one locomotive can't earn enough money over a heavy general to heavy general cycle to pay for one overhaul. why should two locomotives be able to earn enough for two overhauls? I get you've got a permanent income stream, but you've also got a permanent expenditure stream.
That thought had gone through my mind!
One possible advantage of being a multi- engine group is that, in an ideal world with some of the fleet running and some under overhaul, it may be easier to keep a relatively large support base motivated and keep utilising the differing skills of those interested in operating, overhauling, fund-raising etc. Whereas in a single engine group, the requirement for those skills will vary over a relatively long cycle, and it may prove harder, for example, to hold on to support crew if they percieve a period of several years without an operating locomotive, or hold onto those who enjoy overhauls if the loco is spending a lot of time out and about in traffic.
I guess the other advantage is that some overhauls may be relatively cheaper, and some relatively more expensive, and being a multi-engine group helps smooth out some of that variation. Whereas a single loco group may get overwhelmed when they suddenly have to fund a huge amount of boiler work, or retyre the whole loco. That said, I suspect that that will increasingly become the norm as whatever residual value was left over by BR ends up having been well and truly exhausted.
It seems to me that the multi-loco owning groups tend to be those with, shall we say, non-democratic structures, whether that is because they are private companies, self-perpetuating non-profits, or whatever, and this is the key difference. The days of democratic societies owning and operating locos on a speculative basis i.e. with no long term contract to a railway or operation, seem to be over, certainly for large locos.
NELPG excepted, then?
There's always an exception to the rule in this game!
I agree that NELPG seems to be well run but like Southern Locomotives, or (as a one-loco group comparable with 6201) the 35028 Group, which also appear to be competently run, it is probably no coincidence that that competence manifests itself in not relying on speculative mainline hire as a significant component of the economic model (I don't think Southern Locomotives does main line at all). 6201's model hitherto is (or with the passage of time, has become) unusual, and it will be interesting to see what is proposed for 71000 (although I do not understand the corporate structure there), and for the new-build Patriot. I suspect Didcot has similar issues when considering the economics of restoring a loco.
It would seem that having a permanent income stream is the crucial point here, rather than the amount of money. As 6201 has found out now, when you run out of money having an alternative income stream is very useful. I guess it acts as a kind of insurance to get you through the tough times when inevitably more needs doing or costs increase unexpectedly. How many times have we seen appeals for the last 20 or 30k to complete overhauls simply because every last penny has been spent?
It would appear the 6201 group had the bare minimum done to get it in Steam and earning again, with the hope it earnt enough before breaking - a gamble which didn't work. The question is if they had another locomotive earning money during the last overhaul bringing in money, would they have been able to put that income stream towards getting more work done on 6201? I don't know the answer to that, but it would appear to be the model a fair few groups use with income not being ringfenced to particular locomotive. It removes peaks and troughs and makes income far more predictable, allowing better planning of overhauls. Certainly makes business sense.
Being a single loco owning group doesn't seem to have hindered the owners of 34081, 35028, 60007 and 73082 to name but four.
One possible pitfall of having one loco running and earning the money to fund a parallel overhaul of a second loco is that if the first loco runs into major problems resulting in a period out of traffic, then there's no income stream for the second loco and if there's nothing in reserve, how do you fund repairs to the first loco?
Surely one of the biggest things any group should be doing is keeping hold of its members. You fight for years and years doing fundraising to get hold of people who obviously like the Locomotive you have. These will be your single most dependable source of money when you need help. In the Patriot project we have over 1000 members so when the time comes for an emergency appeal your asking lots of people for little amounts that is realistic. But however if you alienate your membership and ignore their wishes you can quickly loose them and their money.
This has obviously happened with Lizzie. Shame really.
I beg to differ. Members all have different personal circumstances. Some can afford to be generous, others not so. The majority of our income has been raised buy volunteers getting out there and raising the money. You are lucky to have 1000+ members. Many loco societies have memberships that are somewhat smaller than that.
That's why there are different funding methods these days. You look at the change in membership numbers, society to society, the almost rewards based system of membership of newer funding models - railway preservation has to change fundamentally to survive against a change in the times.
Railway preservation is ever changing whether we like it or not, the industry is growing year on year and the workshops across the land are full to bursting with restoration and overhaul projects that consume ever growing mounds of cash and take far longer to complete than first envisaged. It's clear to me that year on year there is more and more work for less and less engines.
The Maunsell Locomotive Society is another you could add to that list, with ownership of four locos and a fifth for which they are custodian but not owner. Of those five, two are currently running; one is under overhaul and two are stored pending their turn; and four of the five were originally restored from Barry condition.
Separate names with a comma.