35009, Shaw Savill

But presumably the railway’s concerned have availability of those locos factored into their motive power plans. Why should they sacrifice the value they see in those locos just so someone else can wear them out and thereby abstract value from the considerable investment of money and resources put into their restorations?

For a heritage-based loco to go mainline, it isn’t just the one day it is out: by time you factor in FTR, any positioning moves etc, the loco could be unavailable to the host railway for a week, and that week costs the host railway by virtue of needing an additional loco available as cover.

Tom

 

I agree with nearly all of that and would have given it a "like" except that I disagree with "71000 ... does seem to have problems". I would say rather that 71000 had problems. One was financial and organisational with the original supporting Trust, and that has been sorted out by the setting up of a new Trust. The other problem was technical; failure of the middle valve gear. That could probably have been sorted out fairly quickly if it hadn't been for the financial and organisational problem, and it is now being sorted out as part of the general overhaul.

On the general issue of Class 8 availability; some are not available right now but should be before too long. Even 6024 should be able to work a few routes. AFAIK only one, UoSA, will be bowing out soon. So the situation should get a bit better. Anyway it seems there would be a very poor commercial case for either restoring another MN or equipping one of those running on preserved lines for the main line. (Restoring GSN has a different purpose.)

True as far as it goes, but his business isn't a TOC or tour promoter.

 

And I guess that is where the issue really lies where the market will be in a few years time? Forgetting any issues around recessions that could be caused by global events we have the head of NR, who is in favour of steam, about to retire. I have no idea what the view of his successor may be, but he seems to be inheriting an organisation that is about to seriously get it in the neck over its contribution (or lack of) to some of the major issues that are impacting the network on a day to day basis. If NR has insufficient resource to timetable regular service trains what will be the public view of charter trains getting some of that resource? I suspect open access is only as enshrined until such time as a government wants to pass a law removing it.
I would like to think if I am still around in five years time steam will still be on the mainline, but it must influence decisions if you are a) lucky enough to own a loco, b) thinking of putting it on the mainline.

 

Nail, head!

Steven

 

Until there is proof positive that the valve gear fitted to 71000 is now developed and modified to the point where it no longer gives somewhat unfathomable issues from time to time it remains an engine that does seem to have problems. When it is proved that these are eliminated then we can say that it had problems. A long period of trouble free running will bring much relief and make many people so much happier.
So, I will watch events with interest and won't be asking about valve leakage tests.

 

I suppose it had to happen sometime but I totally agree with you.
A point I've been derided for, too, in certain quarters. Obviously there is a finite resource to get locos running so the other question I was trying to address is prioritisation of overhauls, particularly I guess for LSL. All other things being equal a MN is a most versatile 8P relative to a King or A4 perhaps which conceivably might count in favour of the Bulleid?
I wouldn't say an MN is my favourite 8P either, although they appear to be remarkable performers by all accounts. Enviable, but hard headed, choices to make in the context of running businesses long term.

 

One possible fly in the ointment though is the present problems on the entire network, for instance how long before you get passenger groups complaining about " steam hauled tours taking valuable paths that could be used to ensure we can get from a to b?" of course without knowing the full facts, that its often that their TOC does not have enough staff and units to run any additional service, how long before we get northern hiring west cost coaches and T&T 37's to run some services, perhaps theres a market here to use heritage stock for some tourist routes such as the Settle and Carlisle, or to go one better sub contracting west coast to run a number of out of peak tourist trains, similar to what DBS did with Tornado ?

 

Perhaps West Coast could do the Oxenholme-Windermere service.

 

Or, to put it another way, why have they not been brought in to do that?

 

Indeed, or DRS for that matter. Fully appreciate there is a route sign off issue but the branch could effectively be isolated from the network in a 'degraded mode' for the duration..

 

But who would pick up the bill? The modern railway seems quite content with shoving people on buses which I guess work out cheaper especially on an self contained operation like this and the units and drivers have presumably been allocated elsewhere already.
The S&C idea may work as I guess that would free up a number of units for use elsewhere, problem is of course not sure what other routes those drivers would sign for.

 

I'd suggest that Northern should pay the immediate bill, and keep trains running rather than buses. The arguments about who pays the ultimate bill can then be dealt with later.

 

Strange how the contributors to this forum display the flexible thinking so demonstrably lacking within those bodies allegedly responsible for service provision to the end user.

 

Is that simply that everything looks easier from a distance?

Do charters (of any and every flavour of haulage) really take up paths that would otherwise be used for timetabled service trains? I would have thought that anyone who wanted to run a service train every day of the week would get first pick over a charter operator simply because of the extra income. Or is it more complicated than that?

 

Quite agree, Northern was quite capable of arranging a plandfampf on the S&C last year with partners so an interim service on the Windermere branch should be a doddle, comparatively.

 

Is there a run-round facility at Windermere and Oxenholme?

 

Agreed Tom, I think the arrangement would have to be long term and along the lines of , 'can we borrow your MN for x years, we will overhaul it after - you can have use of this Jubilee/ Black 5 /Hall/ whatever instead...

 

At windermere no (only space for one) there are sidings south of Oxenholme (if they are operational). Ideal for a 14xx and autocoaches or even a Railmotor ?

 

ASLEF would strike if non-union drivers were used - simple as that! I understand that when DRS drive the Cumbrian Coast trains, the Northern Driver has to travel as a passenger to ensure they don't lose work, despite there being a shortage of drivers on Northern. This also avoids recasting drivers diagrams as the whole turn may not be on the loco hauled set.

Steven