|
|
Post by Admin Team on Mar 26, 2005 17:53:12 GMT
Although I didn't start this part of the forum for quite this purpose, I think this is an appropriate place to discuss what follows.....
Whilst out last night for a convivial beer or several with a few people (including a couple who contribute here!) I learnt of something I find a little 'disturbing'!
It seems that LU have decided to put Sarah Siddons up for disposal.
The loco has been kept at West Ruislip depot, and I understand that now that PPP has come into effect 'Tubelines' no longer want preserved stock occupying 'their' space.
The Mk.2 (?) Rolling stock that had ben used for such specials (the late, lamented Steam on the Met for example) has already gone - I believe to the GWS at Didcot where it's stabled on the roads outside the Railway centre, but which have now been leased to them.
As far as Sarah Siddons is concerned I believe that although it may well be made available to a private collector/collection, some of the parts used in the loco were cannibalised from the similar loco 'John Hampden' which is in the Covent Garden Museum and these parts will be removed prior to it's disposal, thus rendering it inoperative.
On a wider note this also has implications for other preserved stock, not least the CHTL 60TS unit.
This sounds bad news to me!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2005 18:34:15 GMT
WTF!!!!
I bl--dy well hope that someone stumps up the cash to save No.12, or else one of the most irreplacable pieces of working Underground history will be gone for good!
But I don't understand how Tubelines has the right to give her the boot - Ruislip belongs to Metronet!
Surely it would not be too hard to build a single-road shed near the station and put her on one of the Metronet-owned sidings, would it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Team on Mar 26, 2005 19:59:58 GMT
WTF!!!! I bl--dy well hope that someone stumps up the cash to save No.12, or else one of the most irreplacable pieces of working Underground history will be gone for good! But I don't understand how Tubelines has the right to give her the boot - Ruislip belongs to Metronet! Surely it would not be too hard to build a single-road shed near the station and put her on one of the Metronet-owned sidings, would it? My error - for Tubelines read Metronet - can't tell me 'net' from me 'lines'! Problem I see is that building such a structure will cost 'money' on which they'll gain no return (mind if they built a small diversion they could park it in my back garden - though I don't know how happy the missus would be!) There's also an ongoing issue as far as the maintenance of the 60TS is concerned (see the latest issue of CHTL's newsletter), so the whole question of preserved LU stocks seems to be rather a matter of conjecture - other than those of 'us' with a sense of history I suspect both LU and the Infraco's see such things as an annoying distraction. |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Mar 26, 2005 22:19:47 GMT
It's a bit of both, Tubelines have space at Ruislip as well for Transplant (Engineers Train Unit).
Off topic but still, I don't remember any beer, at least nowhere near my lips (damn those night shifts).
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Mar 27, 2005 19:33:41 GMT
 You should know by now Dave that in these days of "private" operators the bottom line is "no money, no runny" That is if a thing can't make a bit cash for the shareholders then it's not worth keeping 
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Mar 28, 2005 5:20:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Team on Mar 28, 2005 8:28:45 GMT
I *think* the anomaly as related to me the other evening is that No. 12 is now the ONLY piece of Rolling stock now actually owned by LU - everything else having been transfrerred to the respective Infraco's on the activation of PPP.
So the cynic in me wonders if they see it as a way of getting it of 'their' books?
I was told too that there *may* be a clause in the PPP contracts that challenges the right of the Infracos to demand the space. A colleague with an 'interest' in this area is, I believe, examining the contracts with the proverbial fine tooth comb to ascertain exactly what the position is.
On a more general point 'we' Brits haven't a good track record in preserving Industrial history - whether it be trains, aircraft, buses or whatever; many examples have been lost through the eagerness of the scrappers.
|
|
|
|
Post by q8 on Apr 13, 2005 15:29:16 GMT
 I think I must be earmarked for the LT museum myself. Maybe as dumb waiter. 
|
|
|
|
Post by setttt on Apr 13, 2005 16:25:33 GMT
Wouldn't Quainton Rd be the best place for her? She'd be on ex-Met metals & have a roof over her head  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2005 16:53:07 GMT
Wouldn't Quainton Rd be the best place for her? She'd be on ex-Met metals & have a roof over her head Actually, someplace like the Bluebell would be better - Sarah can run on 3rd rail SR electrification. Putting her at Quainton would mean the cessation of main line runs and expensive conveyance by road or rail onto LU metals (if and when they can ever handle a loco-hauled service again). |
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Apr 13, 2005 17:08:59 GMT
Sarah can run on 3rd rail SR electrification. As long as the mods are still in place. It's unlikely that the Bluebell would want her, apart from a very small petrol driven loco they were given, they are a steam only railway. There is a driect rail connection between Quainton Road and Amersham, via Aylesbury. Indeed in the early eighties two battery locos (L18+L38) delivered a retired "O" or "P" car (sorry can't remember which) and a Hurst Nelson brake van direct from Neasden depot.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2005 17:23:15 GMT
So there is a connection then? I thought the Met&GC went straight through the site without any link to BRC metals at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Apr 13, 2005 17:37:58 GMT
So there is a connection then? At the time the stock was delivered they had to break and slue the main line to meet up with a spur. There was talk at one time of a permanant link but I don't know if it happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Apr 14, 2005 7:21:57 GMT
On a more general point 'we' Brits haven't a good track record in preserving Industrial history Just to make you feel better - your record is far better than ours (that's why I always hold up Britain as an example of careful attitude to the history). |
|
You should know by now Dave that in these days of "private" operators the bottom line is "no money, no runny" That is if a thing can't make a bit cash for the shareholders then it's not worth keeping 
I think I must be earmarked for the LT museum myself. Maybe as dumb waiter. 
