Talk:Locomotives (Visiting, WHR(P))

Keith and Nigel

I have always been unhappy about the blanket banishment of all locos that "have not turned a wheel in revenue service" to the "visiting" category.

In any case, "revenue service" is a nonsense because most operational locomotives are not cleared for passenger work, and that's the only activity that brings in revenue.

We have to accept that WHR(P) is not an organisation like the FR or WHR(C) and that therefore categories cannot be imposed so arbitrarily. Certainly ownership cannot be used as the key characteristic.

I would agree with Nigel if what he has done is to include in the "non-visiting" numbers those locomotives currently present that are clearly intended to be part of the operating stock of the WHR(P).

It it turns out that some leave without being used, then it's not too much trouble to relegate them to the "visiting" category at that time.

Keep up the good work

John Browning

John & Nigel

I plead guilty of all this.

As John will remember, having created the WHR side as a seperate but linked part of the wiki, we had the problem of the many subsets on the WHR (Building of, NWNG, PBSSR, demolition, (C), (P)), which was eventually sorted to how it stands now.

John has trawled through the books and identified a large number of locos that have a "Farm" connection, for which we are all thankful.

But a lot had arrived at the farm, with good intentions, only to depart "without having contributed to the Farms operations". - This last part comment probably being a better wording of my original "have not turned a wheel in revenue service" To have these, that stretch over 25+ years, mixed in with the vehicles that are currrently on site, and the locos that are actually used, makes a large amount of data that may impress, but would not produce an accurate picture of the operation.

--Keith 08:46, 2 July 2007

Keith and Nigel

I think Keith's comments do represent accurately what has happened.

If Nigel has a grasp of current happenings at the farm, then maybe he should take the responsibility of moving any current locomotives over for which this is justified.

Or maybe he is quite happy with the explanation that has been offered so far. Our touchstone should be what the user will find most helpful, and this is what Keith has attempted to do, generally very successfully.

Cheers

--John 2 July 2007