Best & Worst Locos to Drive

It's not that small and not just fuel. Wear and tear on civil engineering, overhaul expenses, you name it. Returning to the Dartmouth Steam Railway. it has as severe a route as any apart from the NYMR. All their motive power is of moderate size yet does the job.

PH

 

You are overlooking a major factor, we are talking about different working museums, the GCR advertises itself as a Britains only preserved mainline and if you are attracted to it for that reason you will expect to see mainline locos. A Bluebell big engine weekend should consist of just that. If larger locos are not used what should happen to them? A lot of the money and motivation for overhauling them comes from being able to see them in action. I suppose in your view the building of an A1 and P2 is a waste of money but look at the new money it's brought in a high proportion of the covenantors are not hardcore enthusiasts

 

I have absolutely no problem with the A1 and P2 projects. Their place is on the main line not sculling around at 25m.p.h. at the head of 5 or 6 vehicles on a tourist line. Just hope signalling developments and stupidities by trespassing gricers do not mess things up for them. As for turning rural branches into ersatz main lines that topic really is stretching this thread too far!

PH

 

I think you'll find at least two which were mainlines.

 

If you mean the 2-8-0 tank, it is a modest sized machine with a No. 4 boiler. The large cylinders give a very high tractive effort for starting.

PH

 

Five or six at least if use as diversionary routes is counted. Whether single or double track matters not (think Strathspey or Dartmouth) Still 25mph nowadays.

PH

 

That's not the point. Every respective railway is trying to an extent to preserve what it once was, SDR do a fantastic job of preserving a small GWR branchline, and GCR do a great job of getting as close as they can to preserving a mainline as it would have been, albeit at slower speeds.

 

SDR is one of the relative few which have much of a "branch line" air about them and a degree of authenticity.

PH (Again this has little to do with the supposed topic of the thread

 

But surely the GCR has a degreen of authenticity running large engines as that is appropriate to its mainline origins? Equally GWSR running a hall on a 7 coach choc n cream set is what would have been running along our line originally, albeit probably an even longer train, and of course at higher speeds.

 

Just point out I said ""branch line" air about them and a degree of authenticity"

PH

 

Here we go again!! It has a sustained climb of 1 in 60 and long trains with passenger numbers which justify their length. Some places would justify using something in power class 8 for such factors.

PH

 

....or even a class 7 tank?

**grabs coat, hides behind a terrier**

 

That is exactly what I suspect. There ought to be more to this business than headlines in Steam Beano though.

PH

 

I both agree and disagree with Paul as I have indicated before. I agree in the sense that far too often the locomotive choice has to be driven by any number of factors which are not directly related to the operational characteristics and requirements of the line. The "love" generally for big locos sometimes means that getting the money together for them is easier than for a small loco, and sometimes it is just what is necessary. The P&DR demonstrate a professional type of approach in having a locomotive fleet appropriate to their circumstances, far more so than most. I disagree with Paul because providing the money to overhaul is forthcoming from donations then the operational "on cost" of a Merchant Navy versus an Ivatt tank is fairly small (though not absent). Thinking of my own line, I would (all things being equal) run only the class 4 and class 5 locos .... 499, 506, 828, 75079, 76017, 80151, 925 (maybe). However, there are lots of other factors from ownership to fundraising to take into account.

So I think Paul is right broadly in what he says, but the world is generally imperfect, and compromise is forced upon us.

 

I don't hold with all this new-fangled Midland stuff; they are power class A, as written on the valence by the front buffer beam

On the substantive point: where I agree with Paul is that railways have to pay their way, and sensible consideration of costs is always worthwhile. But where I disagree is that I think the cost model of running locomotives (or indeed a railway) is far more nuanced than the somewhat binary view he takes. If big loco A is more efficient at leveraging money from supporters than small loco B, then that all goes on the individual loco balance sheet, which might show that the whole life cost of the big loco is actually a more cost effective proposition, taking into account overhaul + running costs, and netting off voluntary contributions from supporters.

I think you also have to consider the per mile repair costs. For example, you would be doing fairly well to get 50,000 miles out of a small pre-grouping loco between heavy overhauls (especially if you have also hammered it on relatively heavy loads) whereas you might reasonably expect to get 80,000 miles out of a BR standard in the same time - though conceivably the initial overhaul may have cost more. In addition, given the lower mileage between overhauls, you need to overhaul more small locos to do a given job. For example, if you run 40k miles per year, you might be able to cover the service with 5 modern locos, which means outshopping one every 24 months. You might need 8 older locos to do the same job, to allow for lower annual mileage target, so that means outshopping one every 15 months or so (or, looked at another way, still cover the service with five smaller locos, but don't expect them to last more than about 6 years in traffic before they need a heavy overhaul - either way, the net workshop requirement is the same).

So the picture is very complicated, and made more so by the fact that you don't have big fleets of identical locos that you can average out costs to get an accurate picture. You may also find that, for example, overhaul of loco X was very expensive this time round on account of having a new firebox, but that might reasonably last three periods in traffic without needing significant attention.

The bottom line is I think the cost model is complicated: it doesn't just boil down to a simple mantra of "small engine good, large engine bad".

Tom