SVR Loco Newsy News / discussions

Wonder if we could see a relaxation on the rules of 1501/7714 running load 8? Very much missed, those runs!

 

I'm sure 7714 ran double headed with 1450 quite recently, my Dad told me

 

1450 and 1501 certainly double headed back in April.

 

We are often told on this forum that a loco will be ready ‘when it’s ready’. The rebuild of 75069 is a major restoration and I think it was always optimistic to assume it would be available sooner rather than later. 34053 could have been kept on at the SVR for the remainder of its ticket and the cost offset by hiring out other locos if they became spare.

 

I don't think it was as simple as that, there were a few other factors involved.

 

I think you will find 34053 was on a 5 year hire agreement. This expired and the owners chose to take her back to Swanage - a line the owners are closely associated with - such as they are entitled to do.

 

Not quite true, see post 1831 on this thread.

 

The 5 year contract expired. The SVR offered a rolling 2 year agreement as a replacement, Swanage offered a longer term agreement.

SLL evaluated both offers and decided to take up Swanage's offer where the rest of their fleet is based and where there was a better guarantee of a prompt overhaul. All this information is on SLL's website where they reiterate that this was simply a business decision and they were very happy with SKP's stay at the SVR. Indeed they would one day like to take a loco back there.

My point though was that either way it was the loco owner's choice to take her away. She was never the SVR's loco to decide where she would be based and whether she should remain on the line.

 

Agreed.

 

I had 7714 a few weeks ago, in April, on 7, with steam heating, and it performed perfectly, with ample reserves...

I have fired both Panniers for many years, on 8 coach sets, with steam heating, without any problems.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

The BR Working Timetable "Standard loads for passenger, parcels and fish trains" allowed a 57xx to take up to 310 tons over the Severn Valley Branch, which would suggest that 8 Mk1s should indeed be within their capability. Granted, there weren't many 8 coach passenger services in BR days...

 

The 6 coach limit is due to water not power requirements. As I understand it, the water at Bewdley isn't reverse osmosis so both up and down trains have to do the 16 miles without a top up (with some water to spare for delays etc). Now this is possible with a sensible crew. I have heard that there was a not so sensible crew which let the tanks run dry on one of the panniers, due I believe to the tanks not being adequately refilled by the driver/fireman. Crew blamed the loco insisting it was too thirsty, and so the reduced load limit was brought in.
I have no idea how true it is but I did get the story from an experienced driver on the SVR, (maybe he was having me on or trying to reason why when the locks could clearly pull 8 coaches). I guess this is why the rule gets bent every so often.

 

That may have assumed that this was ok occasionally but not doing it everyday all week as it would be on the SVR

 

Probably quite the opposite. It was also more usual to make an allowance for things not being ideal, such as adhesion & steaming. BR load limit for a Cl.4 tank on the NYMR was 5 coaches. Nowadays, 7 and even 8 coach trains are handled by them.

 

Could another reason be improved track geometry and materials?

 

Announcement on the SVR Facebook page that 45321 will not make it to the railway for the '68 event on Saturday. Is the visit cancelled all together or merely postponed?

 

It's probably because the loco was scrapped in the 60s.

Bob.

 

SVR featured heavily on BBC News today in relation to the 50th anniversary of the end of steam.