I really dont understand people complaining that Bruce didnt spend his money the way they wanted. 1881 was not unique, what made it special was the chance that it was owned by someone who had the money to put it back on the mainline - ultimately that ambition was unrealistic, and he sold it to recoup his losses.
Asking the relatively small number of enthusiasts willing to put their hands in their pockets for Mk1 EMU's to either outbid the 5BEL trust, or get it on the mainline, would have only served to make the likely appeal for 3417's mainline return at best a lot more difficult and most likely impossible.
Chris
I don't think it's a question of people complaining in the way you describe to be honest. Ultimately to preserve something is an ongoing process. The initial outlay admittedly is usually by a financially privileged person or group of persons or even the enthusiasts themselves by donation with the explicit intent of restoring for preservation what has been acquired. The ongoing preservation of any train usually requires a constant stream of money of which a fair part comes from the enthusiast who is grateful to be able to travel in, photograph and enjoy the preserved artefact. What price I wonder will be placed on the prospective rider of the 5-BEL when it eventually appears. I suspect it will be well above the wallets of your average enthusiast and as such a CIG would probably have brought in a bit more money over a longer period because it was a train that ran from as far east as Ramsgate to as far west as Weymouth. I doubt a BEL went that far as there were onlt 3 5-BEL units!
Nice as it is to see the "Belle" being restored it's a sad fact that i will now think a lot less of it because of the destruction of 1881 to get it going.
When someone announces in such a way as Knights Rail did when they bought 1881 as to excite and give some hope the very people who would have travelled for money in the preserved train, and then go on to sell it for what is essentially scrap without announcement or providing the chance for someone else to perhaps preserve it then I think such actions in the world of preservation should be brought to question by the enthusaist. It is not a question of complaint but more of perhaps asking questions as I have in an effort to ensure such actions by so called preservationists are avoided again. My other question which was what happened about the other two EMUs Kniights Rail bought with 1881 which were towed with 1881 to
Eastleigh at the same time. No one has yet answered the question as to why these were not sold to the 5BEL trust instead of sacrificing 1881 which was in perfect working order.
It should also once again be noted 3417 is NOT owned by Knights rail it is owned by the Bluebell Railway and is in safe (we hope) store at Eastleigh.
It should also once again be noted 3417 is NOT owned by Knights rail it is owned by the Bluebell Railway and is in safe (we hope) store at Eastleigh.
I fell that the demand for a Cig tour is much greater and there is much more interest for one than for the 5-BEL unit which many enthusiasts like myself wouldn't remember unlike slammers like 1881 which i would love to go on a railtour on and i and I'm sure other enthusiasts could relate to more.
I cant agree that a CIG would be more successful on the mainline - most railtours are dependent on 'normals', not enthusiasts and they dont travel on trains because they 'relate' to them but the experience they offer; that, after all, is why the VSOE can afford to offer regular trips all year. While perhaps there will be a sense of nostalgia about slammers in the future outside of a particular enthusiast niche, i suspect thats some way away.
When it comes to selling railtours you've also got to remember the branding; 'slammers' have a dreadful reputation whereas the 'Brighton Belle' is well known name full of nostalgia even now. As well as charters it is just the right size both for hauled operation on preserved lines and for corporate/private hire on the mainline both of which offer lucrative year-round work. I suspect however that it will spend most of its time on the mainline offering a first class rather than full pullman service so as not to directly compete with VSOE - that would be interesting to find out.
IMO, when you take into the account the Belle's ability to make money, and the trust's aims which arent limited to the 5BEL but to other units and a sorely-needed museum as well, i think on balance the project is good for 3rd rail preservation as a whole regardless of the loss of 1881.
Chris
I cant agree that a CIG would be more successful on the mainline - most railtours are dependent on 'normals', not enthusiasts and they dont travel on trains because they 'relate' to them but the experience they offer; that, after all, is why the VSOE can afford to offer regular trips all year. While perhaps there will be a sense of nostalgia about slammers in the future outside of a particular enthusiast niche, i suspect thats some way away.
When it comes to selling railtours you've also got to remember the branding; 'slammers' have a dreadful reputation whereas the 'Brighton Belle' is well known name full of nostalgia even now. As well as charters it is just the right size both for hauled operation on preserved lines and for corporate/private hire on the mainline both of which offer lucrative year-round work. I suspect however that it will spend most of its time on the mainline offering a first class rather than full pullman service so as not to directly compete with VSOE - that would be interesting to find out.
IMO, when you take into the account the Belle's ability to make money, and the trust's aims which arent limited to the 5BEL but to other units and a sorely-needed museum as well, i think on balance the project is good for 3rd rail preservation as a whole regardless of the loss of 1881.
Chris
Well, I'm sure nobody would have objected if the Belle trust gone for some sort of push-pull operation, maybe using a 73 or something - least of all the "normals" paying to travel on it. Would have avoided breaking up 1881, which, however remote it's chances of making it back onto the mainline, must surely be worse after a trip to the cutters yard.
With the recent news that a lot of silly health and safety rules and regulations are to be scrapped or relaxed at least, I wonder if one that gets the axe is this silly mk1 slam door mainline ban? And the increased chance that there will one day be one more at least, mainline slammer EMU tour? Still too good to be true though.
Lymington CIG 1497 has been preserved, but does anyone know what happened to 1498? I am getting rather concerned for its welfare!
With the recent news that a lot of silly health and safety rules and regulations are to be scrapped or relaxed at least, I wonder if one that gets the axe is this silly mk1 slam door mainline ban? And the increased chance that there will one day be one more at least, mainline slammer EMU tour? Still too good to be true though.
1497 has indeed gone for preservation but in Norfolk??? Still i suppose it's better than nothing.
1881 is still in one piece at Barrow hill but I don't think it will stay that way for much longer judging by the latest newsletter I received from the 5BEL trust
Lymington CIG 1497 has been preserved, but does anyone know what happened to 1498? I am getting rather concerned for its welfare!
Thanks for the info.I asked fleet the other day as i work for swt and some people have enquired but not put in a solid bid for the unit yet
If theres a spare MK1 EMU coach from 1881 left over coundn't this be put into 3CIG 1399 currently stored at Eastleigh and reform it to make a 4CIG again?Although i love the idea - i do doubt that there will be many Southern 3rd Rail tours in the future, unless it was being acceptably push pulled by a 33/1 or 73 - largely as a result of various modern safety requirments of OTMR & CDL, and yet when you think about, what are the only remaining CDL / OTMR Fitted Southern units left now?
1497 & 1498
Sadly 1881 Won't be around for much longer im afraid
The 5 BEL trust brought 1881 for the traction motors & associated electrical equipment, despite the amount of spares left over from already scrapped units... As to what happens next to 1881, God knows...But sadly it's looking like the end of out last remaining 4 car CIG left, unless a miracle happens and someone takes on 1881, minus traction equip.
All for the return of Brighton Belle - Am i in favour of this, i would be if it was being restored over a longer period of time and included the saving of 1881, but my feelings still stand at a No, Not at all.
What im also interested in, is how the 5 Belle trust will get the motor bogies & associated traction equipment onto the BEL? When, for a start, the motor bogies of the VEP/CIG/REP Fleets stand that bit taller than the original motor bogies of the Belle...
Although i love the idea - i do doubt that there will be many Southern 3rd Rail tours in the future, unless it was being acceptably push pulled by a 33/1 or 73 - largely as a result of various modern safety requirments of OTMR & CDL, and yet when you think about, what are the only remaining CDL / OTMR Fitted Southern units left now?
1497 & 1498
Sadly 1881 Won't be around for much longer im afraid
The 5 BEL trust brought 1881 for the traction motors & associated electrical equipment, despite the amount of spares left over from already scrapped units... As to what happens next to 1881, God knows...But sadly it's looking like the end of out last remaining 4 car CIG left, unless a miracle happens and someone takes on 1881, minus traction equip.
All for the return of Brighton Belle - Am i in favour of this, i would be if it was being restored over a longer period of time and included the saving of 1881, but my feelings still stand at a No, Not at all.
What im also interested in, is how the 5 Belle trust will get the motor bogies & associated traction equipment onto the BEL? When, for a start, the motor bogies of the VEP/CIG/REP Fleets stand that bit taller than the original motor bogies of the Belle...