Churchward 2859 for sale

Reading SR Magazine today there is an article regarding Churchward 2859 which has been up for sale. The owning group is unable to find a buyer for this loco and is considering selling off useful parts of the loco to other groups. Will anyone come to the rescue of this loco and stop another loco from becoming broken up and lost forever? Is this also the start of some think bigger to come? With the possibility of more unwanted locos coming up for sale with few people to buy them.

 

I thought about starting a thread on this. This loco was the last to overhauled at Wolverhampton Works in Feb 1964 & only ran about 10 months afterwards. Therefore the basic loco should be in good condition despite it's "Barry wreck" looks. It has also been cosmetically restored. A complete set of rods & back head fittings plus more have been bought for this loco. It would be a shame to see it broken up. More here,

http://www.llangollen-railway.org.uk/sloco2859.html

 

I don't know what the asking price is, but maybe it's too much?
The loco may not be attractive to many (shorter/curved) lines due to it's size and more particularly, it's long wheelbase.
Does it have a tender?


Keith

 

This loco is, so I'm told, one of the better ex-Barry locos and its boiler is in very good nick. There is a story of the SVR group buying 2857 when they should have bought 2859 which had the better boiler report! I've heard that story from a bloke who knew a man in the pub at Llangollen etc etc but it could be true of course. I was all set to contact the owning group tonight but the lottery only coughed up £10 instead of £1m so I'll have to wait!
Ghost - this loco is a Churchward 2-8-0 so its beautiful!
I do hope 2859 finds a good home and isn't broken for spares as it is quite a good loco. However, it can't be denied that it is quite big for a smaller line and this is perhaps not a good time for fund raising (pray tell me what time is?!) As regards a tender I don't think 2859 has one but I'm not certain so perhaps someone else could confirm this?

 

2859 has been for sale for at least 4 years, i believe it does come with a lot of parts including a tender and is a very viable restoration project. Several parties over this period including myself have enquiried about it. One can only assume the reason it hasn't sold by now is price.

 

I think you misunderstood me Kinghambranch - I meant it may be unattractive (from a purchasing point of view) to some because of it's size. I didn't meant to imply that it isn't an attractive loco!


Keith

 

I know!

 

Is there simply not a market for an Ex-GWR 2-8-0? If there was then surely the South Devon would've found a buyer for 3803?

If what I've been led to believe is correct then 3814 is 'the' Ex-GWR 2-8-0 that deserves to be running by now. The complete bottom end is fully restored and almost able to in theory take steam, with just boiler work to do. Sad thing is it's been like that for several years and has stalled for several reasons - which I'm in no position to speculate about here. The situation of 3814 I find more sad than that of 2859 to be honest.

I won't be surprised if we reach a point in the future where more un-restored locos are lost to provide donor parts to sister locomotives or other projects. In an ideal world each locomotive will be restored in its own right, but perhaps the hard reality is that some locos won't have a working future.

 

3803 is for sale at around £350k. While this may be good value for a loco of this type in working condition, I would've thought most railways would struggle to raise £350k
2859 must also have a high asking price which, coupled with projected restoration costs (£100k+ ?) is putting potential purchasers off.

If 2859 and other locos are not able to be sold then I'd much rather see them cosmetically restored and placed in museums/public display, than see them dismantled for parts. At least if they are complete it gives a chance of restoration in the future, plus they would provide a useful exhibit for visitors to get up close to. If a loco is dismantled for parts it is unlikely to ever be put back together.


Keith

 

Is the market just flooded with GWR 2-8-0's? its not like they are rare or anything. If it gets scrapped for parts, I predict it will soon be forgotten after the initial shock horror statements.

 

Compared to some, relatively large numbers of GWR 2-8-0s survived thanks to Barry Scrapyard (a bit like Bulleids) and that is how fate played its hand. Unlike the new build 82xxxx, which I keep banging on about to any poor sod who is listening, the 28xxs and 2884s aren't "ideal" for all heritage railways but they are relatively simple (yes, I know its relative) and very powerful. The fact that another thread on this site is exulting the popularity of a member of the class for winning the heritage ward (2807 of course) speaks volumes.
One loco, 2873, is already in a dismembered state and will probably go the way described by Coboman (whose Avatar represents a unique loco I believe!)
BTW I agree with the comments on 3814. This loco is, I believe, owned by 1 individual so progress is probably dependent on his hard work and funding.

 

It's rather ironic that in reality - and yes this will shock a few - in many ways a 28xx is far more practical for heritage rly use than a Bullied Pacific.

Perhaps the fact that the Bullieds are "namers" means they get greater attention?

 

Agreed on 3814. It's not so much that work has stalled, but that the fully overhauled bottom end spent several years dumped at the end of Grosmont shed headshunt (not sure if it's there now) - a period during which the NYMR has spent many thousands of pounds hiring in locomotives. While I appreciate that she is probably unsuitable for Whitby, the same is also true of 53809, the Super D, and Pete Waterman's 42XX, all of which have been regular performers on the Moors over the past few years.

Like the out of control Japanese knotweed either side of Goathland and those hideous green posters which festooned Pickering station for most of last year, the condition of 3814 is to my mind one of the very few things which lets the NYMR down.

I appreciate however that I may have got the wrong end of the stick and be talking out of my, ahem, big end.

 

It is indeed, after a miraculous survival, is now been worked on and will be back into working order sometime soon (ish!)

 

I don't know the full story behind 3814's current position but, without possession of the full facts, I suggest that people should be circumspect about being condemnatory of either party!

 

I wasn't being condemnatory; I just find it very sad and not a little dispiriting, not to say quite difficult to understand.

 

Without going into too much detail, that is indeed the case!

3814 is a privately funded restoration. It's not an NYMR operated loco, and its overhaul is entirely the responsibility of the owner. First of all, can I suggest that it may be polite to show respect to Mr Robinson for what he has managed to achieve, and for the amount of his own time and money he has sunk into this loco? Rather than criticise, offer to help him out! Even if the loco had been operational, I understand it would have been on a hire agreement, so it's no different to the locos that you list.

It would be helpful if people didn't make accusations of this type on the internet, especially when they are not possessed of the facts. We've already had someone post on here that the NYMR was running locos to Whitby that weren't in compliance with Group Standards. That accusation was picked up on by the powers that be. I hope the person that made it is proud of himself, as he was talking out of the top of his head, and he wasted a considerable amount of paid staff time, whilst they proved that they do actually know what they are doing! Please engage brain before pressing the "post" button!!!!!
As for GWR 280's vs Bulleids in general, don't forget that a Bulleid is effectively an austerity loco, so restoring an all steel, welded boiler is likely to be a somewhat cheaper option than the more traditional type on the GWR loco.

 

I have made no such accusations and am fully aware that 3814 is a private project and that her owner and a small group of volunteers have sunk a great deal of time and money into her; that is why I find it a little sad that she spent several years at the end of the headshunt, exposed to the elements and in an area where she could not be worked on. I am also fully aware, and said as much, that she would be on a hire agreement; I was asking why assistance appears not to have been given to completing her overhaul when it has quite rightly been given to the owners of other locomotives on similar agreements. I note incidentally that a similar question was asked by a stalwart NYMR volunteer of very long standing in a recent issue of 'Moors Line' and in far less temperate terms than those in which I asked them. I think he called it a 'disgrace'; I merely called it 'sad'. That said, as a volunteer he has far more right than I to take that tone.

I have no idea to whom the other part of your post refers, and I repeat that I was not throwing any accusations about. Neither did I even hint at any criticism of Mr Robinson. I simply asked why the NYMR seems to be ignoring 3814 in favour of non-home based locomotives such as the Super D. I'm quite sure that completing the work on 3814 will cost far more than it costs to hire a similar non-Whitby loco for a season, but would it honestly cost more than hiring in a loco for five years, let alone more? I don't know, and nor do I know why work seems to have stopped, or why somebody who presumably does know what he is talking about felt moved to write that letter to 'Moors Line'; that's why I'm asking.

Unfortunately these days I live a long way away from the Moors, but if you'd like me to come up for a weekend and help to get rid of that Knotweed I'd be more than happy to do so.

 

Just had a very helpful PM which has explained the situation regarding 3814. I'd like in all seriousness to thank the sender.

 

One poster on here, who is a driver on the NYMR, does not like GWR locos - maybe this view is widely held on the NYMR?