If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

80078

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Steve1015, Oct 25, 2012.

  1. houghtonga

    houghtonga Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    109
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chartered Engineer
    Location:
    Derby
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    These are all arguments I have seen before - many of us remember "Britannia" leaving the SVR, "Duke of Gloucester" and 61264 leaving the GCR etc. We have even seen the inverse situation of the Furness Railway society being asked to leave Haverthwaite. Its a difficult job for normal commercial companies to maintain steady relationships for long periods of time, let alone groups formed of passionate enthusiast persuing their dreams. All these organisations have survived and very often locos they have lost have been replaced by some they have gained.

    There are only a few railways with a gauge larger than 15" than own all their own locos and don't have to deal with any owner groups or individuals, however the recent fuss over the Welshpool Resita loco shows that sometimes it just swaps painfull external politics for painfull internal politics instead - so they grass is not alway greener.

    *Talyllyn Railway
    *Welshpool & Llanfair Light Railway
    *Isle of Man Railway
    *Isle of Wight Railway (do they own the Ivatts?)
    *Snowdon Mountain Railway
    *Llanberis Lake Railway (if you discount Una's occaisional steamings from the neighbouring museum)
    *Torbay & Dartmouth Railway

    (Vale of Rheidol and Brecon Mountain have private locos owned by the respective railway owners).
     
  2. martin butler

    martin butler Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,440
    Likes Received:
    388
    Fully agree, No way can it be healthy to have to be at the behest of one owning group, or person, they can always hire out their engines on the open market but its not as easy for the Swanage railway to hire in replacements, Ideally, Swanage railway should have purchased an engine or attracted other owners, well before now, if as has been stated the swanage railway wanted 80078 to be overhauled, but instead SLL started on 34072, selling 80078, then the relationship between the two groups will fall apart , so Swanage railway should start planning now for a future that doesnt include SLL
     
  3. gwalkeriow

    gwalkeriow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,704
    Likes Received:
    1,728
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired.
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I can confirm that yes the Isle of Wight do own the Ivatts, including 46447 which will be going to the East Somerset Railway on loan. The only item that is not owned by railway is the NRM owned LBSCR Van
     
  4. lil Bear

    lil Bear Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    6,122
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Railway Technician
    Location:
    8C / 5D / 27C / 71B
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    There are a couple of Pannier Tanks on the market at the moment... Wonder how popular that idea will be down the Red Lion!
     
  5. Spamcan81

    Spamcan81 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    35,146
    Likes Received:
    20,794
    Occupation:
    Training moles
    Location:
    The back of beyond
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    And locos move away from and then back to their "home railway." (4)5231 went from the GCR to the NVR and back again and 34081 going NVR - NNR - NVR are but two examples. Many things are seldom for ever.
     
  6. ADB968008

    ADB968008 Guest

    There could be a number of southern 2-6-0's looking for a home in a few years... Maybe MHR's loss will be Swanage's gain ? Who knows maybe SLL may move its bulleids to MHR who knows whatever the future holds.

    At the end of the day it's only an engine.. It moves by design.. If one moves away one day.. It could always come back another.
     
  7. paulhitch

    paulhitch Guest

    urther

    Gareth's point here cannot be overemphasised. Along with failing to get a grip on the issue of re-boilerings, heritage railways, more particularly standard gauge ones, have made scant progress towards securing unity of ownership of the equipment they use.

    Yes indeed there are always internal squabbles. However the existence of a multiplicity of landowning, equipment owning and railway operating organisations within an umbrella of what seems to outsiders a single entity has the potential of multiplying such squabbles by the number of such satellite bodies.

    The "deal" between Haven Street and Cranmore shows just what can be done with a unified structure. It will also bring about a further re-boilering. More please!

    Paul H.
     
  8. Spamcan81

    Spamcan81 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    35,146
    Likes Received:
    20,794
    Occupation:
    Training moles
    Location:
    The back of beyond
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    In many ways it suits a railway to use locos owned by others on a "pay as you go" basis. Most locos seldom earn sufficient steaming fees to fund an overhaul and are subsidised by other fund raising activities by the owning group. In these cases the railway has got the loco for much less than the "going rate." If the railway owns the loco then they bear the whole cost of ownership which can be a lot more expensive than 10 year's worth of hire fees. Both scenarios have their merit though and it is up to individual railways to decide which approach is best for them.
     
  9. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,180
    Likes Received:
    57,802
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I think it is a complicated discussion, but ultimately I think there is a room for a "mixed economy" model.

    To take our example (here we go again - Tom banging on about the Bluebell :smile: ) We own about 2/3 of our engines, and about 1/3 are owned by outside groups. That seems to work OK, in that the outside groups bring a focus to restoration and fundraising for "their" engines that might not happen if they were all under the umbrella of the Society en masse. (Maybe it helps that, with one exception, all our externally-owned locos are owned by owning groups, rather than by single individuals, so there is more financial and resource firepower to draw on).

    Of course, it does mean restoration cycles don't always quite align: for example, at the moment we have two big 4-6-0s, owned by different groups, racing each other to a finish. Is that ideal, in that they will both come on stream probably within about a year of each other, but a decade from now, will both be stopped at about the same time, leaving a big loco shortage? Maybe not ideal, but on the other hand, without those groups, at the most we (the railway) would only be working on one, not three big engines right now: 541 (Maunsell Soc owned, but being overhauled largely by the railway); 847 (Maunsell Soc owned and being overhauled with largely their resources) and 73082 (Camelot Society owned and being overhauled largely with their resources).

    The position I wouldn't want to be in would be where a railway is very largely dependent on a single owning group for provision of motive power - in that case, if you have a falling-out, you may find yourself very quickly losing most of your motive power in a relatively short time. At the very least, it would be prudent to have individual loco agreements in place over relatively long timescales so that a single loco owner can't hold a railway to ransom by removing all their engines at short notice.

    The IoWSR model seems to give the most security of provision, but the downside is I wonder how they mobilise support (financial and labour) for an engine that is potentially useful but, in enthusiast eyes, rather dull. To take the case quoted, I am sure they will have no problem getting their supporters excited about the E1, but, were it not off to Cranmore, I could forsee that the Ivatt tender engine would probably always have ended up as the Cindarella not invited to the ball.

    Tom
     
  10. david1984

    david1984 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,910
    Likes Received:
    1,387
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Birmingham
    Power wise, a Panniers probably right on the money for what Swanage need, granted it's not authentic for the line or Southern, but that's for Swanage to decide whether economics or or authenticity is more important, that said on most lines, usually 60% or more of what's based there never actually ran there.
     
  11. paulhitch

    paulhitch Guest

    A thoughtful posting, as ever from this source but it really supports my own point. Had the Ivatt been merely based at the IOWSR, rather than donated, it is highly unlikely that the necessarily complicated deal could have been finalised. As it is, the E1 has gone to somewhere which has the resources to re-boiler it whilst the Ivatt has gone to a place which can use it. Both parties have benefitted as has steam preservation as a whole. Now the question is, are the abilities to build a new E1 boiler to be found in the UK. Nothing bigger than a Terrier has been reboilered yet.
     
  12. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,967
    Likes Received:
    10,172
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Are you advocating the nationalisation of the heritage railway movement here?
     
  13. paulhitch

    paulhitch Guest

    Not at all but I regard the situation as anarchic and undoubtedly unduly costly overall. It must have seemed like a good idea at the beginning as heritage railways tend to be undercapitalised and various "Uncle Fred" figures offering to provide motive power and/or rolling stock relieved the operating companies of some start up costs. However woe betide you if you ever fall out with Uncle Fred for he can then "take his bat home", not only leaving you in a pickle but also rendering all the time, money and effort spent in maintaining his stuff abortive. The said uncle will want his cut of the income and it will matter little if his Class 8P costs five times as much to operate the 25mph max service as an 0-4-4T perfectly able to do the job. You are stuck with the 8P.

    Saying that a degree of of amalgamation and rationalisation is need is not the same as advocating "nationalisation". Ironically though I did feel at the time that the template for privatising British Rail did take rather too much notice of the then expanding heritage railway sector. The multiplicity of operating companies, land holding companies, rolling stock companies, leasing companies, all wanting their cut seemed to be a common feature between public transport rail and heritage rail. Not good.

    Paul H
     
  14. houghtonga

    houghtonga Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    109
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chartered Engineer
    Location:
    Derby
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    A very amusing observation! I believe the nearest historical precedent to what we have now is Welshpool & Llanfair in its orginal pre-grouping format (a bit ironic considering the self contained arrangements it has today). In modern terminology, the line was operated by the Cambrian Railway on a 99 year vertically intergrated franchise using and maintaining infrastucture and rolling stock that was owned by the independant W&LLRCo (the latter being state subsidised via treasury grants and loans).
     
  15. 73129

    73129 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,500
    Likes Received:
    1,092
    Location:
    Winchester
    Don't forget they could also have 73096 and 34016. But don't forget only 31806 will be serviceable and who would overhaul the others. Unless JB and SLL join forces together and become a mega owning group?
     
  16. Swan Age

    Swan Age Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    941
    Likes Received:
    260
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    21C101 in the South West
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    That's about as likely as David Cameron joining the Labour Party! Remember a lot of individual shareholders in SLL are people that didn't get on with JB at the MHR in the early days.
     
  17. Shaggy

    Shaggy Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,509
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    72B
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    That's not the first time I've heard rumour of the U boat heading to the Dorset Coast! If the MHR cannot find a way of keeping it (and that looks very doubtful) then I can think of no more suitable place for it to go. It would be very suited to the Purbecks. As for 73096, I expect that that be heading in the WCR direction along with 34016 for mainline running.

    I've been keeping a close eye on the SR over the last few years due to several friends being involved, it being local and also a Southern Branch that holds good galas. The concerns regarding the relationship between SR and SLL raised by swanrail are not the first I've heard. It is a real shame that 80078 is leaving. Regardless of what some may say, it was the iconic Swanage loco but circumstances forced its original sale and SLL do hold all the aces when it comes to what happens to it. A pity but not the first line to lose its icon.

    It was mentioned earlier in the thread about 34016 being the MHR flagship and that will be leaving in 2014 along with the rest of the impressive JB fleet. Yes it was the flagship and was my favourite loco but it was returned to traffic in 1979, two years after the line re-opened. For me, if you're looking for a more line historical loco in the same bracket as 80078, you need look no further than 31874. It ran the first train in 1977 and was suited to the sort of work asked of it. It, along with 31806 will be a great loss but look at what is in the wings to replace them. 41312, 30506, 30499, 30828, 76017, 75079, 34105 and (long term) 34058 and 80150. Add to that the current fleet which includes 850 and 925 and there is a fleet most heritage lines would kill for.

    Time moves on. People move on. Locos move on. Sad but that's life!

    Only my opinion!
     
  18. 21B

    21B Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    6,416
    The current fleet also has 34007, 45379 and 92212 (long term resident, even though it will be on hire the Bluebell again next year). I don't think the loss of 31806 will cause much more than a ripple, lovely loco though it is. BTW it isn't about the MHR finding a way to keep it. It is up to the owner what happens next.
     
  19. paulhitch

    paulhitch Guest

    The only thing I can add to my previous posts is Quod Erat Demonstrandum!

    Paul H
     
  20. Pugwash

    Pugwash New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    8
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    The point here was "It's not so much what you do as the way that you do it" and although SLL undoubtedly had the right to sell 80078 and it will probably get restored more quickly under the new ownership It was the way they went about it that has caused so much stir.

    There was a gentleman's agreement made some years ago when 78 was sold by Swanage to SLL under terms very advantageous to SLL that 78 would always continue to reside on the railway. SLL are well aware of the importance of 78 to Swanage and well aware of our motive power needs. The SLL operation also benefit from being entirely housed in an engineering facility provided by Swanage Railway under which roof they restored SKP (now at SVR).

    The closing of a deal for 78 without prior warning to Swanage and only giving a few days notice of its removal from Swanage metals showed a complete lack of Gentlemanly behavior and is considered by some to be a deliberate act of utter Arrogance towards the railway. In fact the whole deal smacks of bitterness and revenge for Swanage not taking SKP. Given the extent to which Swanage has supported SSL over the years, SLL could be perceived to be biting the hand that feeds them.

    Swanage should at least have been given first refusal at the final sale price and a decent period of time in which to give an old friend a good send off. In short there appears to be a clear messages being sent by both sides here.
     

Share This Page