Isle of Man Railway Number 7 Tynwald Removed from the Island

K Scanes What you fail to realise is that these items require an import licence - therefore they cannot be moved without consent from various bodies regardless of who owns them or not. So asking awkwardquestions of government as to why a historically significant artifact is being moved (ie the Cleminson), publicising it in the media and getting that licence pulled could do everything to stop the owner from removing it from the Island.... As for the money if you read the thread properly you would have recalled that an on island railway group was prepared to put the money up but RPH didn't even bother corresponding......

 

Actually it's an EXPORT licence and apparently it was legally granted. RPH , or rather the IOMR&TPS are the legal owners and now, having a licence, are quite within their legal rights to remove No7 & the Cleminson from the IOM . We might not like it but unless RPH changes his mind we might as well all get used to it and concentrate our efforts on something with a positive outcome.
I am sorry Allan but all you seem to have achieved is to re-open old wounds and cause ill-feeling between those of us on Island and those on the adjacent Isle.
Fortunately most U.K. preservationists realise your rants do not represent the views of most of us on the IOM. BTW the IOM is in Europe geographically speaking just not in the E.U.
PLEASE can we now close this thread as it is getting nowhere. Ray.

 

I assume that by "commissioned" you mean built new for the Isle of Man, otherwise anything bought and overhauled before use is "commissioned". The POLAR BEAR in question is a rebuild of a 1988 loco.

Both VIKING and AILSA are more rare than for example 2-4-0 Beyer Peacocks. Are they prized? Probably not. Possibly they should be. It depends very much on who is doing the prizing.

Mostly prized for their usefulness. And there lies a point, all recent arrivals to the island have been useful whereas the losses were not. Is it your attitude that locos can come to the island because they are needed for their usefulness but nothing must leave permanently because it is now "prized"?

You seem to dart around about this "rare or prized" thing. The CDR Walker railcars are surely prized now by their original country even if they weren't when they were disposed of. Isn't that a similar situation to the surplus Beyers? TYNWALD has hardly been "prized" over the years has it?

 

There are engines all over Europe that are "at home" in a foreign shore.
it is indeed remarkable that most of the UK's fleet of locomotives are actually in the UK.

Now given that, if the engine has a good home and is cared for and there are many similar engines " at home " on the IOM does it really matter where that home is ?

Would you be kicking up this stink if the frames of this loco went to Ireland or France
or
is your crux that nothing is allowed to move at all ? (in which case those A4's should head immediately back to Canada for instance.. After all they spent more time in North America than they have in the UK ?)
or
if everything should be at its original point of origin, then wouldn't most of the IOM fleet belong in Manchester where they were constructed anyway ?

At the end of the day it's just a lump of portable metal, which means it can go and it can return, it is hardly the pyramids of Egypt being moved.

 

Is it just me or is this geezer a five fingered knuckle shufler?

 

You seem to have been able to find the time to rant on here.

By the way, why have yiu started this thread in the Narrow Gauge Railways section (I would have thought 3 foot was standard gauge and 4 foot 8 1/2 was broad gauge to you) of the National Preservation forum rather than the International Heritage Railways/Tramways section?

 

Once again Allan does the Islands enthusiasts a discredit. It's great to be passionate about something and to want to preserve it 'at home' but not to the point of lunacy. No.7 and the Cleminson are no-hopers and at a time when the island is entering a period of austerity, there are a lot more government owned (and therefore easier to negotiate) items of rolling stock that are more viable restoration projects.
'352

 

Allan,

Comments like the above don't help the debate.

As to IoM locos elsewhere MoSI had 839,000 visitors in the last year. Most if not all will have been in the Power hall where Pender resides and many will have seen the board that notes it worked on the Isle of Man or watched the Engineer Erics difficult day. I'd say that was a bit of publicity for the IOM railway there!

More details in facts and figures from the last year are here:

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about_us/smg/~/~/media/9A2AC1D349674D1CAAA0D3AC75D6E201.ashx

Duncan

 

I don't know what all the fuss is about. The frames have been lying about the place for as long as I can remember. Nobody has yet made any plans to do anything with them and probably wouldn't had they remained on the island. The engine last run in 1939, and to be honest there are plenty of other BP locos on the island that could be done up if somebody wanted such a project such as No.6 Peveril & No.16 Mannin in the museum in Port Erin or No.9 Douglas & No.5 Mona in 'radiation proof' storage in Douglas.

Once the asbestos is removed, No.5 & No.9 would probably be available for some form of preservation or return to steam. There is plenty of potential on the island for the local enthusiast to tackle already, and I would put No.7 'Tynwald' low down on the list even if it was returned to IMR ownership. There is only a limited pool of local island enthusiasts in any case, and these volunteers are spread between the Groudle Glen Railway, Great Laxey Mines Railway and the miniature railway at the wildlife park. So the 'loss' of the frames of No.7 is not really that bigger a deal. As previously mentioned, if somebody does resurrect 'Tynwald', well that is even better, and yes, it could be a great ambassador for the Isle of Man. There is more likely chance of that happening where it is going than if the frames had stayed on the island to slowly rust away to nothing at Castletown station.

Which leads me on to an interesting point - Are the frames actually 'Tynwald's ??

The frames at present under No.4 are the replacement frames that were got for No.7 following the Oakhill collision in 1928, hence the Hendry frames are the ones that were taken off No.4 when No.4 was overhauled and given the old boiler off No.5 from 1914 (and the new frames off No.7) in 1946.

Remember, that No.7 was withdrawn from service in 1939 with a very tried 1907 bolier off No.5. Now ask yourself the question as to why No.7 was dismantled in 1945? No.7 had a chassis that was about 15 years old. It makes common sense to take a 15 year chassis of a small Peacock and put it under a larger bolier and tanks of enlarged Peacock, and this is how No.4 appeared when it retuned to service in 1946.

Why dismantle a out of service locomotive? To take parts off to keep another running.

Now to mix it up even more, No.2 has also been dismantled in 1951. She was damaged in accident in 1909 when it hit a fallen tree and thrown into a field at Ballacurry. And that's not the first time No.2 has been in accident either. The engine has had extensive repairs to her chassis in the past.

The patches on the 'chassis' that is reputed to No.7 could be possibly the chassis of No.2 as well.

So is the chassis actually No.7s, the old chassis of No.4s or the dismantled chassis off No.2? You decide.



As for the Ex-Manx Northern Clemison coach, personally I think its too old & sick to travel, not should it leave the island or not...

 

So you're saying that these frames never actually operated with Tynwald's boiler, tanks,cab, wheels, or nameplates? In that case, I would say that they are Loch's old frames. If the IMR ever actually allocated them to Tynwald then clearly this was only ever a paper exercise. (Did the IMR keep these frames in the hope of one day rebuilding No. 7, or simply as a spare set for potential use with other engines?) There's really very little reason to associate them with No. 7.

 

I think he is saying the frames were on no7 from 1928 until 1939 when it was rebuilt with the boiler and other items from No4 which retained the name and number of No4 (which would be easier as it was on the tanks and chimney). The frames now preserved as No7 are therefore either No4 or No7s old ones I guess, most probably N04s

thats my interpretation, did I get even close to it?

 

Is the painted "No 4" not a bit of a give away

 

Having read the stories and seen the picture..

It may make an interesting outdoor bbq table somewhere, but seems like maybe a set of wheels and a reverser may be all that's usable ?

Is this knackered set of frames leaving in a lorry or a skip ?

 

Ah I see.... I my fiance and also my mate were a few of those visitors to the power hall (no doubt that makes you feel smug that I was drawn to your museum by an IMR loco) do you actually have any evidence to show that any of these visitors to the power hall have actually gone on to visit the Island and its railways, or is this just your excuse to defend the sectioning of an engine from 1873 at the behest of an MHK's cousin??.......

Incidentally my fiance who has two master's degrees in history - one from St Andrews and the other from Durham remarked that she thought the sectioning was badly done and the paint just made it look like a child's toy. You could have built a plastic replica for a fraction of what it must have cost to buy it (if it was actually bought or was the £1000 an afterthought?) and ship it over and avoided b@stardising a locomotive from 1873.....

 

What you fail to realise is that the Cleminson is a no hoper as a runner. It is however not a 'no hoper' as far as being a museum display piece (which is what it was before it was moved to Douglas), and as a museum piece it has far more value to the Island as a representative of the sole remaining member of the Cleminson Coachs used by the MNR publically viewable than it does to Southwold which is just a strongly opposed fledgeling attempt at a railway system (do they even have track or any buildings - which is a vital consideration if they're taking a piece of our history?).

Good luck to them in establishing their railway but the amount of reconstruction they will have to do means they might as well have asked for the measurements built a replica and left the Island with a bit of our history plus saved the money spent on importation costs so that it could be spent on building a replica instead. Of course the fact it's going to the UK is not anything to do with helping to set up the Southwold Railway or preserve it, it's just a matter of it suiting the owner (who's done nothing with it or two of the other locos or the tramcars they owned for years and years). I'm sure his Father would be ashamed....

 

Finally some sense. Perhaps you should take it up with him then.........

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not convinced that Pender was the best choice for sectioning either. But:
a.) One has to view the action in its historical context. She was sold at a time when the IMR network had contracted and it was clear that the railway would not fourteen operational steam locomotives in the foreseeable future. (Indeed, it still doesn't. There was little likelihood that she would ever steam again; even the subsequent restoration of Sutherland would have been difficult to envisage at that time. Coupled with the fact that the almost-identical No. 1 was to be preserved intact as a static exhibit, there must have seemed little reason not to section Pender AT THAT TIME.
b.) However much we might regret it, it has been done now. Far better to leave her remains as they are rather than destroy even more original material by replacing the boiler, cylinders etc.

So maybe it would be best to just let it go now rather than continuing to get worked up about it?

 

David

I find the swapping of frames and locos carrying new frames a fascinating, though poorly recorded element of railway history, such lack of records being surprising when many consider the frames to be the identity of the loco.

In your book 'The Manx Peacocks' you stated that 'a couple' of the BP's received new frames during their lives, but don't go into any further detail. Are you able to expand on that here?

Thanks

Jonathan