V4 2-6-2 No. 3403

You're dealing with someone that reality doesn't exist to.

 

No186 worked on the mainline over here for many years and it's an 0-6-0:

 

You don't have to be superheated, but it may help. (1981. Mullingar. Ben Bulben tour.)

Pat

 

You mean a bit like 4709 ("The Night Owl") - sorry, I know that's a bit below the belt, but I couldn't help myself.

Peter

 

What, like this you mean?



Tom

 

So gentlemen, what would you suggest?
Baring in mind, the conversation was about a smaller/lighter engine like the V4 that has wider route availability on the mainline and greater potential for seasonal hire to a heritage line.

 

If the respected railways wish to do so, then I cannot see why not, I am sure there are plenty of pokey little branch lines in Network Rail use that could have these engines shuttling about all day.

Thought I would suggest probably a lighter coach load and maybe a small diesel [20 or 73] at the back.

 

The class 20s that worked the train to and from the Bluebell must really have struggled with 5 wooden bodied coaches and 592, as the latter had to give a bit of assistance over the Harringay flyover on the return!

Completely off topic, but it's a pity that an formation like that would never be allowed on NR metals with passengers on board. It's quite fun in Europe, trundling along mainlines in vintage four-wheel carriages with a small loco on the front. But they don't have the heritage railway scene we have in the UK, so they don't have much choice.

 

There are several are examples of heavily subsidised one off workings on NR branch lines but if you were the loco owner would you want to go to the expense of fitting all the electronic gubbins just for an outside chance of doing something like that? The only regular possibility would be Sheringam - Cromer but the NNR have already got that covered

 

It would depend on what the situation is.
If I was an owner of... I dunno... let's say... L90 for example, then I would probably fit all the electronic gubbins.

However, if I was the owner of.... 9629 for example and it was based at.... Glos Warks for example, I wouldn’t.

It also would depend on the person you are, I tend to be not to fussed about mainline heritage and would happy to have my engine transported via lorry to other heritage railways for people to enjoy at a much reduced cost.

 

Then you'd be bankrupt in short order.

 

The fact that 76017 has sat at Southall all year rather suggests that there isn't a market clamouring for a small loco as things stand. The more surprising thing really is that it hasn't found any employment in the hire market. 76079 came off the hire market when Ian Riley sold it to the NYMR, and 76084 has never really found much work on NR, all of which suggests that apart from a very small number of cases there is no suitable work available even for modern, well suited locos.

 

How much do you know about loco management and its costs?

 

In his defence (not a phrase I expected to use!), “much reduced cost” could mean either subsiding transport or that experiencing a locomotive on a heritage railway is cheaper than experiencing it main line. I suspect, however poorly worded, that was the sense intended.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It still costs a fair few quid to do either though, something I’ve been told several times by my friends who either own locomotives, or have recently sold them on.

 

Completely agree - at least keeping medieval churches going doesn't require an overhaul every decade or so!

But you still miss my point in his defence - that the focus is on allowing more people to experience it, by prioritising running on preserved railways rather than main line. That needn't involve subsidising operation.