Heritage Line Loco Power Requirements

Following on from other threads, what are the minimum power classes that Preserved lines need to operate their usual service trains.

The WSR say they need a (real) class 4, & I know that the Mid Hants prefers large locos because they are more economical but what about other lines?

 

Kwvr needs a class 4 for peak train 6 coaches. A 3 would no doubt take the train but not to the timetable.

 

Wicked Pete! The requirements for the NYMR should throw up a few interesting comments.

 

SVR is a little more complicated than that, dependent on the time of year.

It has lower limits for its smaller tank locomotives and for the Ivatt '2'*. These are generally** restricted to 6 Mark Is and 7 on the lighter LNER/LMS/GW sets. It's not a power class as such as some are Class 4 and restricted (1501, 4566*, 57XX***) and some are Class 4 and not (the large Prairies* and Standard 4*). This distinction tends to excite some comment.

The larger locomotives are used on trains of 8 or more Mk Is. These are Class 4 and above.

Currently the SVR has in traffic six Class 4 and above for use on the longer trains and four Class 4 and below with restrictied train lengths, but with the next ones to traffic that will move in favour of larger engines. I will let the SVR enginemen compare and contrast the economy of a Pannier on 6 and, say, a WC/BB on 8.

Patrick

* Not currently in traffic
**813 and 1450 have lower limits.
***The 57XX were sometimes 3F and sometimes 4F

 

Are the restrictions for smaller locos to do with power or water?

 

Just to oblige!

Should you think I am the only one who feels that railways seek "reasons" to use bigger motive power than they need, let me cite someone I met from a certain "big scale" line. Its the sort of place I would have said only needed class 4 as a maximum had it not been for "big chufferitis".

To my surprise he volunteered (i.e. without the slightest suggestion from me) that they needed nothing larger than a 2MT and, if they did do, it would cut their costs considerably.

PH

 

Water supply in the tank engines,mostly. The Ivatt 2 is now restricted to six coaches for reasons of wear and tear, but in the good old days she regularly took eight.

 

Does this debate miss a key factor about the public perception of their experience?

I would fully agree that all lines need to think carefully about costs and not burning more coal than necessary but what about the paying customers. I've been asked in the past whether Sir Nigel Gresley is running on the NYMR with an affirmative response getting a reply along the lines of "good in that case we'll have a ride this year". Others have speculated about the public perception of having a "named" engine and the continuing rush for Flying Scotsman (at premium prices) suggests it is not just the costs side of "big chufferitis" to consider but also the income generation. The public will also have their own views about things like service frequency where the costs of two small engines and shorter carriage sets may offer flexibility and journey options taking in other attractions in ways which big trains less frequently do not. There is often a gap between marketing leaflets extolling the virtues of breaking journeys and the practical realities of infrequent trains.

The heritage sector needs to remember that it is in an entertainment business and as such the technical power needs for moving a train to a reliable timetable are only part of the necessary commercial mix of attracting both volunteers and paying customers.

 

I know nothing about loco power outputs etc so I will leave this for Steve.

 

Thank you Pete, I stand corrected. I had equated wooden with light I think.

Where I was getting to for the OP is that the SVR's minimum power class to operate its usual service trains is dependent on calendar and carriages, and that it uses things other than power classification to differentiate its locos for traffic.

Patrick

 

Tare weight is the actual limiting factor with restriction of say 211t equates to 7 LMS/GWR whilst 5 33t MK1 plus 39t buffet equates to 204t. There have been occasions when a coach has had to be dropped off due to the rostered loco not being available

If you are wondering why 7 LMS is 211t, well all bar one are 30t with just one plated at 31t.

 

Longevity & in some cases water.

 

Any income benefit from big "chufferitis" is quickly subject to the law of diminishing returns. Use X famous loco 5 times a year and advertise its use & additional folk may come. Steam (and pay for!) the same loco 100 times a year and it becomes so ordinary that nobody is bothered any more its just another steam loco (FS excepted). The costs of big chuffers is also rather higher than the very suitable but maybe more ordinary ones in hire, repair, fuel and - commonly overlooked - wear and tear of the infrastructure.

I volunteer on the footplate on two lines & have done over many years. It is noticeable how the number of folk taking detailed interest in the loco heading their train has declined over a long period. Few folk now bother to take a close look at the loco hauling them before or after the journey. Most are just happy that a steam loco is up front with all the associated sounds smells etc. There are exceptions but our lines are mainly now patronised by joe public with only a passing interest.

 

It shouldn't really excite too much comment since the pannier tanks and 45s are GWR power class C and the large prairies GWR power Class D.

 

This is not an easy issue. Recently I shared a compartment with someone who knew little about railways but had visited a number. Looking at the door with its droplight and leather strap she suddenly observed "I'm having my Eric Ravilious moment". Evidently she knew Ravilious' celebrated watercolour of the view from the inside of a pre-war third class compartment. For how many passengers is the inside of the carriage more evocative than the outside, yet alone the size, of the locomotive.

PH

 

On a recent visit to the NNR with my family and some friends, we were travelling in their recently restored Suburban Mk1s hauled by the utterly magnificent 564 (Y14, or J15 for the modern image folks).
Apart from me and my three year old, the others gave the loco only a passing glance, but the carriages delighted them: door handles, seats, tables, luggage racks, windows, etc., we're all poured over and admired.
What they liked about the loco was the smell and the sound. They really didn't care what it was.

Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk