West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I'd love to put something on wsr.org.uk - but - I'm afraid the Plc's official announcement is awaited...

Steve

 

My comments wrt depreciation on recently overhauled locos was in response to the thought from Jeff Price that if you owned all your locos and times were difficult you would not have to pay haulage fees on a hired in loco. This is of course exactly what happens ie the allowed for internal steaming fees and even donations are waived and/or spent elsewhere and at the end of ten years there are no monies to fund a new overhaul on your Company owned loco. Whether you hire or own you should pay or accrue steaming fees. (As an aside increasingly it appears revenue from operation will not alone pay enough to cover the ten year overhaul and donations will be required. Steaming Fees plus Covenanters may be the future not just for Main Line steam but for Heritage Line steam.) Not accruing is akin to selling the Company car fleet and leasing it back, you can only do it once and you are unlikely to ever be able to justify buying it back (similarly the sale of 6412 and proposed by some sale of 4561.)

(Apologies for the MHR John Bunch reference earlier. I was around the MHR most weeks during the much publicised happenings. I thought beneath the main issues there was a sub plot wrt hire fees/operational revenues not set aside against ten year overhaul costs, obviously I was mistaken.)

It is true that owning a loco represents an asset, but it is not quite like a house, for example it may be worth 100 units when fresh from a ten year overhaul; after ten years, particularly if there have been no significant sums spent in the interim, its asset value may be less than 20 units. I am sure the ideal mix is 50% owned motive power, the core and 50% hired in, the flexibility/variety.

Regarding loads on the WSR. What a lot of old 'baloney' ! Until the middle of July MD1 was invariably six coaches (I have only one instance when it was seven), even when carrying parties over a hundred in number. The secret is 4TSOs, a BSO and a buffet ie 295 seats plus 40 off in the buffet. Even now MD1 is running with only 7 (6 when I saw it last week). As for these 9 coach trains Jeff mentions, perhaps 10 times a year at the most on BL2. When we grow our pax from 180-190K to > 230K we can start worrying, but then we will have the fare box from 40K plus pax, assuming same spread as of now another c. £425K pa. plus any associated additional spends on buffet, shop etc.

Robin, not sure where your anti 4561 mission is creeping from and to, but your thought processes appear to be dominated by to-days time table yet not so long ago when I was commenting on the lack of pax growth you berated me for not thinking outside the box wrt special events, trains etc. Is your barrister's disciplined pursuit of a specific plea getting in the way of alternative thinking ? For instance MD1 invariably on the last down run of the day never loads to more than 50 pax, similarly the first UP seldom if ever has 100 pax other than the special Butlins/Watchet days, the QB appears to be growing in patronage and use, there are opportunities for select Heritage trains, yet we pursue the same basic timetable. (There has been some innovative thinking at recent Galas ?).

I have no doubt that 4561 is the best recipient of current overhaul activity (engineering time and finances of 4110, 7821 and 4561) in terms of overall benefit to the WSR in the short term ( the Railway would not have turned down its use during the recent loco shortage ?); In which order 4110 or 7821 should follow I don't know but I suspect, despite its apparent decrepitude, dependent on what is in the 'spares boxes', that 4110 might be a better bet than 7821. However that is merely thinking, 4561 is knowing.

Let's get behind the fund raising Committee (I know I am a member but...) and work together. Jeff respond to Aldfort's pleading (better to be inside than outside the tent ?), Robin we all know what is in the WSR loads book, some of us also know/have copies of the BR unassisted loads, we know there are strange numbers (on the WSR chart reproduced by you why would you have 9 for a Manor but only 8 for a 43xx for instance ?) but 4561 will be of use to the WSR, it offers the quickest for minimum cost possibility to return a loco (outwith 7828 & 9351) to service. As a dyed in the wool SR supporter my views on GWR motive power, other than remembering our heritage commitments, are I believe pragmatic.

Michael Rowe

 

I am not sure any savings in cash terms will be available from the WSR Joint loco fund raising process, I think it will be more akin to the Forth Bridge thus the WSSRT vintage train project may be best advised to look towards Hinkly Point community funding for its worthy project however as things stand.

Meanwhile

When would you expect a train of 6 or 7 heritage coaches to be available???

Would the WSSRT be happy that these coaches be used for service trains??

Will one of the heritage coaches be fitted out as a buffet.

Are modern retention tank toilets to be fitted as will no doubt come with Mk1 coaches (which will of course increase the hauled weight to the detriment of the small locomotives)

Jeff

 

I've worked aboard many QBs hauled by 4561, 5542, 5553, 4160 and several other GWR tankies over the years. All have proved very capable of the task without causing any ride quality problems. Can't think of a more suitable engine than 4561 to haul the WSRA-owned QB set on a regular basis.

 

Well, at least it's a better word than 'twaddle' or 'baloney'.

Jeff and I have had the advantage of a closer look at 4561 than most members and we look forward to a word or two of apology from you when the full scope of works necessary on 4561 becones publicly apparent.

It provides me with no confidence in the fund raising committee that you appear to want to deny operational reality, and perhaps you are unaware of the difficulty 4561 is in or, worse, are not prepared to acknowledge it.

Yes, let's have some pragmatism based on a true understanding of the state of the locomotives, operational need and the value of each Loco (in the widest sense of value) not just the cost...

Jeff and I are quite prepared to speak up when we see our Railway embarking on a wrong course - as we seem to be doing here -

Robin

 

It seems to me there are two issues regarding 4651. One is of how much use it will be in the WSR. By the sounds of it, I, and it looks like others, seem to think it will be of more use than you give it credit for, with 6 and 7 coach trains even in peak season and the potential to make more. That can be discussed without knowing the current condition of the loco.

The second is in what dire state the loco is currently in, and for that, we await being told by someone in the know!

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

The voice of optimism....

Of course they'll take time, and a lot of money, but I'm so glad the WSR is doing it.

I don't really see what the point of restoring a whole rake of coaches is just for them to sit around all the time, so I'm sure they'll be used. I'd expect them to be in use not just during galas but on busy normal service days as well, otherwise it all really seems a little pointless.

I'm surprised by your "no doubt" regarding retention tanks. On network rail I'd agree, there's little doubt that will soon be outlawed entirely even on Mk1 charter stock. But heritage railways? It's a possibility, but by no means a certainty and given what an enormous and expensive problem it will be across the heritage sector, mentioning it just in the context of the GWR heritage carriage seems a little disingenuous.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

That is what I heard first hand from QB Cook .

 

More likely I suspect that, there will be no "traditional" train lavatories at all. Then there will have to be relief stops timetabled in on the longer lines which will give the chance to top up locomotive tanks whilst passengers are otherwise occupied.

I gather at least one railway has been converting some or all of its loos to pushchair stowage spaces. The recent unfortunate incident will doubtless encourage this process.

Ph

 

Forgetting to put a toilet floor back in is *not* a good reason not to have loos at all, that's ridiculous.

However discarding *some* loos in favour of spaces for pushchairs and the like is a good idea, and one I'm in favour of as a TTI. However, I still maintain having a few loos in the train is very useful, certainly on our line they *are* used and can be a lifesaver for parents of small children and indeed anyone who turns up late for the train, we don't want to hang about waiting for them in the loo, we can quickly tell them loos are on the train, bundle them in and give the right away.

There's also the heritage aspect, you could argue that removing the loos is a dereliction of duty of restoring the carriage. Just because you don't like Mk1s doesn't mean some of us care about their heritage. And of course there are plenty of non Mk1s with loos this equally applies to.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

One factor not mentioned in the 'hiring-in' of locomotives is that it does give added interest to any line and many people make the effort to see and ride behind the visitors. The Dartmouth line was mentioned in an earlier post. The line does have the advantage of running from two very busy and interesting places and as such any visiting locomotive is soon noticed by locals which gains good verbal and press publicity. Locals do use the line as it is a good way of getting to and from the terminal points when the local roads are very busy.
It seems to me that the steam heritage world would soon become a very different place if hiring was not a major factor for many lines - whatever the reason or needs. If loco owners did not have an opportunity such as hiring then their locomotives would eventually become just more non-working museum pieces.

 

I'm hearing rumours that retention tanks are not as likely to be imposed on heritage lines as was once thought and as a carriage restorer I don't think they represent the huge issue that everybody seems to think. If we do have to have them it'll be the shore facilities needed to service them that will provide the bigger headache, in my view.

 

If you have seen as I have, a rail safety film which showed a train (going much faster than tourist railway speed) spraying water over its surroundings you will see why I have the view I do. It wasn't "water" of course and the "safety" film oddly omitted to mention this. It is unreasonable to expect our track maintaining colleagues to face the possibility of this sort of thing.

PH

 

Hiring in engines does add variety and interest but is not a universal panacea. For one thing, the reality is that larger engines needed by lines like the WSR and NYMR are not thick on the ground, and those that are are keenly sought after - it is a very competitive market. The NYMR, for example, has not been able to find a hire engine this year for the peak season, despite being in a position to offer a lucrative hire proposition - fortunately its fleet of working engines has been very reliable and it has been able to maintain its timetable with just four engines, only now increasing to five with the introduction of Repton. The real solution to security of motive power is to have an adequate supply in-house and only hire in top-up power if it is needed.

 

Similarly it would be more than nice if the toilets are the extreme ends of trains were taken out of use. You might not want to hear what can occasionally happen when you are hooking on or off!

 

Again, irrelevant, as you say that train was going much faster than 25mph hence why I said I could see something being done to Mk1 charter stock, but not on preserved railways.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

I'm not advocating either way, merely recounting what I have heard. As I said, I think that retention tanks, if they become required, are less of an issue than the means of disposing of their contents.

 

Actually, the problem seems to me to be worse on heritage lines because there isn't the high splatter/dispersification effect at low speeds.

 

Better read Post 6115 (and 6118)

 

Is this part of your crusade against Mk1 carriages?