Replica builds for heritage lines.

I can certainly see that argument, but when railways are spending their money on tyings like carriage sheds, replacing bridges, (extensions...) all good stuff, why would they prioritise spending money on a loco that is fairly secure anyway? And that assumes the society that initially owns the loco is willing in the first place. You may end up losing them altogether depending on how you go about it.

 

All of these things, except extensions(!), have a genuine call on resources and having multiple ownerships would tend to exacerbate the inevitable inter-departmental wranglings over priorities.

The ideal situation is 100% ownership by one body in order to achieve stability. It can take decades to achieve so the sooner a start is made the better!

PH

 

That is only right up to a point. Not all locos are kept with the object they should be in traffic for much of the time. Lines with a good stock of locos can divide these into two groups: the useful and economical ones, and the more interesting/rare but awkward/less useful/expensive to run or repair ones. When one of the first group comes to the end of its ticket, yes, it ideally needs to have generated the income to finance a reasonably quick repair to get it back in traffic. But the second group is different. From time to time one or two of these will get repaired (often slowly and with a fundraising campaign) to enhance the railway's appeal to enthusiasts. But most at the end of their tickets will go back in a long queue and not get repaired until some of the others in this group have had their turn to run.

 

That may be the ideal for some smaller/medium sized outfits but it doesn't suit all for a variety of reasons:

1. Some folk will volunteer & go the extra mile for "their" project be that a locomotive, carriage, station etc. They identify more with "their" bit than the railway as a whole. There is no harm in that providing "their" bit positively contributes to the whole. Put all ownership in a single rather large organisation & that sort of volunteer will find another railway.
2. Certainly for std gauge lines infrastructure costs are a predominant concern on which the railways in question have to concentrate. There is therefore merit in them having known (and contained) costs sensibly entering into long term hires with loco owning groups who are able to attract funds in addition to steaming fees.
3. Motive power requirements can change over time as traffic patterns alter, extensions are opened etc reinforcing the advantages of some flexibility

The movement really doesn't need any new builds for daily services - a redistribution of locos is needed perhaps - but there are already more than enough locos out there already.

 

I fear you are making a virtue out of what you have rather than what would be truly desirable. Point one, in particular, strikes me as sad and has the possibility of generating nasty troubles of the sort we have witnessed in one organisation already.

I was astonished recently, on one of the rare occasions I bought "Steam Beano", to read a piece promoting more cost consciousness in tourist railways particularly in terms of coal consumption. There is hope yet!

PH

 

Haven't we been through coal cost consupmtion before and determined that actually in the grand scheme of things even a significant coal saving isn't that much money wise? I think it was Tom @Jamessquared

 

I suggest {I can hardly believe I am saying this) that you buy a copy of this month's "Steam Beano" IMHO there is far too much wishful thinking in the world of tourist railways about costs.

PH

 

No I don't see point one as sad at all - quite the reverse. But here I am referring to lines > 15 miles long with several important stations, a substantial steam fleet (allied to the line but not all owned by it), & numerous items of rolling stock. In the SG world at least many (most?) locos & items of rolling stock were saved by the initiative of individuals, not railways, and small groups. OK some of those groups have disappeared whilst others have gone from strength to strength. A quick look at a list of currently operational locos soon shows that many lines are wholly or at least in part reliant on these groups for motive power. Lump it all into one big pot and folk who actually move things along become less involved and go elsewhere.

 

Absolutely, which is why I've always thought some sort of halfway house would be best, with a kind of federal set up. No idea ho it could work though, and in the absence of that, I'm minded to think that individual groups are better than one big one, which is in turn better than one individual owning something.

 

The operative word above is "were". The important word from now ought to be "will" as no-one is immortal. IMHO there needs to be far less improvisation in future and more consolidation.

PH

 

No one person is immortal, which is why I'm not in favour of individuals owning stock, as all too often it sits languishing. With groups there's less risk of that, and if you've got a really active group they can do an awful lot of good. And if the group does eventually wither and die, it's more likely to be donated to a home railway (as with the bluebell recently) as no one person feels too attached to it.

 

One place with this sort of system has had a recent very public crisis which is by no means absolutely resolved yet. It seems that one group was actually competing against another although they were supposed to be in support of the same railway. Achieving the sort of quality which appeals to the paying customer (e.g. cleanliness and customer care) is made more difficult by organisational complexities.

PH

 

If you're talking about WSR that is a different kettle of fish. The very problem was that they weren't focusing on their own bits, but trying to do everything, thus competing with the other. Can you see one loco owning group trying to do the same thing to a Plc?

 

I'm afraid that article was rather disingenuous. It quoted the coal bill of a major railway, along with three or four selected other line items, to give the very strong impression that the coal bill for that railway represented about 50% of the total costs. But more significant is what it didn't include: wage bills, any infrastructure costs; any catering costs ... If you look at the cost of coal for a major railway against the total operating cost, it represents a very small amount. For example, at a railway of which I am familiar, the cost of coal last year was less than 5% of the total income of the operating company. At which point, the impact of making significant cost reductions on that front comes into rather better perspective. To put it in context, we spend considerably more on catering supplies than coal - if the management team wanted to put a downward pressure on costs (and I agree, that is always sensible, provided done intelligently), then tough negotiation with the vintner might produce more results than tough negotiation with the coal merchant.

It's basically silly bewailing the fact that we somehow have the "wrong" locos preserved: we have what we have. Of course, the operating department, in conjunction with the loco department, need to pay close attention to the service offering to reduce costs; with big locos that may mean operating as many consecutive days as possible to minimise the costs in lighting up from cold, while also paying attention to the major peaks and troughs in demand. Maintenance costs rarely get mentioned in this debate, though they are equally significant, but very difficult to really quantify. What is clear is that a small engine worked hard may end up needing shopping at shorter mileage intervals than a larger engine worked more gently. To get a really informed view of the pros and cons of a "large engine" vs a "small engine" loco policy, you would need to look at total lifetime costs, i.e. the cost per mile of coal, water, oil and all maintenance (overhaul and running), against the haulage capacity. And even then you might find that your "ideal" stud and the locos actually available only vaguely matched.

It's worth pointing out as well that any preserved railway has a very easy way to cut coal costs, which is to run more diesels. However, if that also results in a drop in passenger numbers, it would be a classic example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face!

Tom

 

Well I wouldn't expect an article in an enthusiasts magazine to be 100% profound but if it encourages people to think a bit more than has sometimes been the case then it is a welcome development. It is an equally large assumption that a large locomotive will somehow cost less than a smaller one to repair over a period; it will certainly cost more to lubricate though.

Oddly enough it was a visit to the Bluebell many years ago which first alerted me to the high price incurred in operating large machinery. The Observation Car attendant, who said he was the "money man", observed that he could not wait for the boiler certificate of the then resident Merchant Navy to expire as it was burning an enormous amount of fuel. Wish I could remember how big an appetite was mentioned

I understand that the newly introduced "Ivatt"on the IOWSR is showing a remarkable economy. I don't suppose this is anything with it being (slightly) bigger than any of the others but more to do with superheat and long travel valves, both novelties on the IOW. When is the Bluebell's closely related machine expected to be available?

Paul H

 

Yes indeed I can.

PH

 

Well that's as maybe, but it has never even come close to happening as far as I know, so no reason to think it might in the future. Whereas tensions between pan railway organisations like on the WSR are more common.

 

WSRA are a loco owning group for a start.

PH

 

Paul, Paul, Paul, you know perfectly well he means a "typical" loco owning group who only care about 7869 Bilgewater Manor and not something like the WSRA which is a very atypical general support organisation which owns various things including locos.
Don't undermine your worthwhile observations with hyperbole and pedantic contradiction.
I find a good filter is that if your post could legitimately start with the word "Actually" it probably shouldn't be posted...

 

From discussion on the WSRA thread the condition of the boiler on Ditcheat Manor was mentioned.

Given the age of all loco boilers would it not be worth 'batch building' at least some of the major boiler components, or even complete boilers for certain classes in the way Terrier owners did? I understand that Meningen looked at building a batch of 'Austerity' boilers but the majority of owners weren't in a position to buy.