Did they want to run the diesels or was it because the steamers were failing left, right and centre?
The NYMR does have a reputation for running the diesels into the ground and then sidelining them, they always put the diesel maintenance at the bottom of the to do list, a steamer always takes priority for shed/ workshop space.
If it hasnt got steam coming out of it then the railway is not fussed, why else would they let a bridge get in such a state that it had a 5mph limit over it until such time as it could be replaced?
That bridge had not seen a paintbrush since the line was bought, if it had been maintained then it may have lasted a few more years.
Why was 50027 moved away to the MHR again, I seem to have forgotten?
Oh dear, typical narrow minded diesel enthusiast garbage. "I want you to do my pet project, regardless of real world realities"
If the diesels weren't advertised on the timetable, then they shouldn't have been out. They upset the majority of the paying public. Of course steam is the priority, it is what pays the bills. However, you will see a 25 in the workshops right now, and I'm sure one of the 24s will be in there pretty soon after it. Hopefully 5032.
The 50 hadn't turned a wheel in years, and there was no realistic prospect of it doing so. Better for all parties that they moved on. Best wishes for the future, etc. There's not really much need for, or facilities to maintain, private owner diesels up there.
As for the bridge, it had been 15, never 5, for about 20 years, and had been slated for replacement since the line re - opened. The bits that you could see from the top weren't structural, and there is no point in painting something that is going for scrap! You obviously don't know that NR have replaced the bridges of the same type on the EVL just this winter. Do you think we'd have stood any chance of getting the grant funding for the bridge now? Or was getting it done when they did rather sensible?
