80078

Slightly off topic but in the same theme of things, another 264T has been sold to Jeremy Hosking for use on the MHR I am led to believe.
Is this just a rumour??????????????

From what I've heard elsewhere is probably just wishful thinking, but you never know, he could have bought 80150!

 

Firstly, declaring an interest as the owner of 3 shares in SLL, can I ask those on the Swanage who are clearly upset with what has happened:

1. Can you tell me the basis on which SR operates/has operated SLL locomotives? That is, are SLL paid a hire fee or are SR responsible for maintenance and overhauls?
2. Am I incorrect that SLL (or a predecessor organisation) effetively took over management of the Swanage when its finances were in a bad way a good few years back and helped turn matters round to the SR being one of the most successful heritage lines in the country?
3. Do SLL pay SR a rent or pay part of the costs of the works direct?
4. If SLL are told "where to go", does SR have sufficient other locos to operate the service? (And how difficult do you think it would be for SLL to find a new home?)
5. What is SR's long term policy on ensuring steam locomotive provision?

Many thanks

Steven

 

Steven

Please can you explain the NYMR locomotive security of provisio
policy?

 

I didn't mean 'inextricably linked' in the way you thought I meant; I meant to imply that hitherto, the two have almost been inseperable, whether for better or worse. In my own opinion, I agree that as an organisation, SLL needs to start thinking about moving to neutral ground where it can store its own locomotives and overhaul them safely in the knowledge that they are not treading on anyone's toes. But that doesn't stop me from thinking that there's been an over-reaction from some quarters, and that the sale of 80078 is merely being used as an excuse to browbeat SLL.

 

Does anyone know what will happen to 34010 Sidmouth. I wonder if SLL would considering selling 88104 and putting the money in to overhauling 34010 Sidmouth from Barry condition?

 

Policy is a core fleet of owned locomotives, supplemented by a small number maintained by the NYMR but owned by others, plus "Home Based" hired (which are on medium or long term contracts) and guests for Galas or to cover shortages or for Special Events.

Actually achieving this may take a little time and is perhaps not what has been achieved for the past couple of years but that is the plan to ensure long term provision. I suspect at least one or two other lines have similar aims

Steven

 

Would love to see 34010 restored, but not at the expense of selling 80104. Why not SLL sell 34010 to someone who can give her a positive future?

 

So why didn't SLL sell 34010 Sidmouth to help pay for the overhaul of 34053? Surely that would have been more amicable way ahead. Than selling 80078 from under Swanage Railway feet?

 

Sll won't sell 34010, my hunch is the management would rather sell norman and 80104 than let a bullied go, thats the whole problem, they are only interested, or should i say some senior people in SLL are only interested in restoring pacifics, I was never a member of SLL, but knew quite a few, and this was remarked upon more than once , that they view their pacifics as what they are about, at the cost of the standards and anything else, they sold the 2 merchants, but that was because they were too heavy and in the case of 22, needing more work than they could do at the time . but if asked now, i am sure that selling 34010 would be to some, a step to far

 

I am sure if Nickt is reading these comments he may be able to give a better insight into what is going on?? My hunch is they won't let 34010 go though.
Also with regards to 34010, she is pretty much in the same state as 35009 isn't she? And didn't Ian have trouble trying to sell 35009?

 

Because the restoration of 34053 really wasn't supposed to happen originally. It begun because someone donated a large sum of cash to that particular locomotive. I believe originally she was only spares and 34010 was due to be the next restored. So in effect it would be rather wrong to sell 34010 for 34053 when the latter wasn't supposed to be restored in the original plan!

 

What was the story with SECR P class 178? That was originally bought by the Bluebell, sold to SLL and then sold back to the Bluebell in 2006. I can understand that such a small loco didn't really fit the SLL model, whereas there was plenty of experience at the Bluebell, but what did the proceeds go to fund?

Tom

 

I have been asked to assure you that SLL has no intention of selling 80104. Its restoration was largely funded by a single SLL shareholder and we have a close affinity to it.

We referred to 34010 in our September News: "As for our last Bulleid, 34010 Sidmouth, it's hard to see how we will find the time and money for another major restoration without a lot of outside help. If anyone has any suggestions we'd like to hear from you." Its restoration would cost around a million pounds and no-one has ever shown an interest in buying it. If anyone with a lot of money approached us we would be delighted to explore the options.

I'd also like to mention that our next volunteer session at Herston is next week, Thursday & Friday 7-8th November. If anyone is interested in actually helping to restore a steam loco they would be very welcome to join us. If so, please drop me a PM. Nick

 

So why did SLL sell 35027 Port Line for. If SLL management are only interested in Bulleids?

 

Because the pride of Bournemouth depot was too big for the Swanage Railway.

 

SLL's raison d'etre seems to be to provide locos for preserved lines. Economically, I suspect that a Merchant Navy will simply never pay its way on any preserved line - even a WC/BB is probably a bit marginal for most lines. So if your main business is providing motive power for heritage lines, even if you passionately love Bulleids, it must be obvious that a MN is going to cost a shedload of money to restore but then find few, if any, potential hosts to repay that cost through hire fees - if you are the Loco director of a heritage line, why have an MN when a WC/BB will be much cheaper to run but still have, for most punters, the big engine "wow" factor.

Tom

 

I Presume Port line was sold as merchants are not really suitable for most preserved lines enjoy the big engines including Bulleids while you can as i can see a lot of these engines being laid up as there will be no money to overhaul them.When you look at SLLs record of restoring engines they have done very well to restore 5 Bulleids and 3 tank engines not many other owning groups can say they have done that.

 

I agree a MN is a bit large for most preserved lines. But surely any Bulleid is to large a loco for a preserved line. Does anyone have any idea what the cost difference is between running a MN to a WC/BB is? If SLL sold 35027 Port Line because of running/overhaul costs then it doesn't make senses to sell 80078. Surely they would want to keep 80078 and sell 34072 257 Squadron to cover the overhaul cost of 34053?

 

It's probably almost impossible to make a detailed cost comparison without a really close look at the books, and it would depend on what your operating pattern is. But a MN has a grate 27% bigger than WC/BB, so that's a lot more coal for lighting up even if, once running, the costs might not be quite so different as that comparison appears to show. Also, if your daily diagram does, say 55 miles (as on the Bluebell) or maybe 100 miles (as on the NYMR) then the ratio of how much coal you use lighting up relative to how much you use in service is completely different - it all gets rather expensive if you need, say, a ton of coal to light up but then only use another ton or so during the rest of the day.

So if you only run the engine say two days per weekend on a short line and then let it get cold during the week, it's probably rather grim reading when looking at the coal bill.

As for why would you sell 80078 and keep 34072 - I'd agree, I'd have thought 80078 would be a much easier proposition to hire out than a WC/BB. But I suspect while there has to be a certain amount of rationality and pragmatism in railway preservation circles, there is also possibly some romanticism...

Tom