West Somerset Railway General Discussion

MT276 is a minimum standard. Tolerances based on slack LMS practices.

 

Happy New Year to all.

Wherever the road may take you in 2021.

 

Does that exist anymore?

 

Formally withdrawn in 1984. However it is still referred to in current standards.

 

Ahh, ok

 

As in so many things, here it was a case of "it's not what you do but the way that you do it". Saying that the Plc weren't going to be overhauling 53808, the way that they said it, together with the eviction of its owners from the railway and the writing down of the provision in the accounts for the overhaul, sounded much more like "Get off the railway, take your loco with you and no, we won't be overhauling it for you either".

Surely it is a simple calculation: Is (cost of new tyres) x (remaining life expectancy) / (total life expectancy) > (additional cost of replacing tyres in five years' time)?

 

The difficulty with that calculation is working out the cost in five years time, because that is dependent on other compromises you might be making. For example, to replace the tyres mid ticket means taking the loco into the works, dropping the motion, lifting off the wheels (lots of labour cost); sending the wheelsets away for new tyres (transport); the tyres themselves (cost) plus all of that in reverse to put it back together, plus the issue of storing the loco immobile while the wheels are away (potentially "bed blocking" one bay in your workshop).

Done on its own, that is quite expensive and has several costs that you wouldn't have if you did it at initial overhaul (primarily the disassembly / reassembly) - but suppose at first overhaul you also knew that on predicted mileage, the loco would need a p&v overhaul in five years: well at that point, you need the loco in the works partly disassembled anyway, so now all the fixed costs of disassembly and reassembly get split over two jobs. Maybe at the point the balance shifts towards changing tyres mid way through the ticket that wouldn't otherwise be the case. Intermediate overhauls mid way through a ticket are increasingly becoming common for locos doing high annual mileage.

Then you get the operational pressures: "We need the loco ready for March". That might result in a loco going into traffic with some "nice to haves" not done, put on the list of jobs to be done the following winter. ('Twas ever thus: it was not unknown on the LBSCR for locos to return to traffic unpainted because they were desperately needed for the summer season).

Tom

 

Surely it is a simple calculation: Is (cost of new tyres) x (remaining life expectancy) / (total life expectancy) > (additional cost of replacing tyres in five years' time)?[/QUOTE]

Oh so simple! You may think so, but I doubt that those at the sharp end see it like that. For example, it may be the cost effective answer but what if you cannot afford new tyres at that point in time what do you suggest? Nothing is simple where the maintenance and operation of steam locos is concerned.

Peter

 

RIS-4472-RST “Engineering Requirements for Steam Locomotives and other Heritage Rail Vehicles”

RIS-2003-RST “Certification and Registration of Heritage Rail Vehicles Operating on the GB Mainline Railway”

Both reference MT/276 “Examination Schedule for Preserved Steam Locomotives running on B.R. Lines”

The two RSSB RIS documents are current. RSSB members can download them from RSSB website.

 

Oh so simple! You may think so, but I doubt that those at the sharp end see it like that. For example, it may be the cost effective answer but what if you cannot afford new tyres at that point in time what do you suggest? Nothing is simple where the maintenance and operation of steam locos is concerned.

Peter[/QUOTE]

Life expectancy of tyres is not directly related to mileage. On preserved railways there is a wide range of track geometry and quality. A relatively straight railway with good rail profile will have minimal wear to tyres.
A curvy railway with correct cant for the curves, maintained rail greasers and good rail profile will get tyre flange wear, but not as much as on railways with poor rails with sharp edges, incorrect cant on curves and neglected greasers.

 

I will just say one thing here. WSR do NOT thrash loco's, ever! Whatever your POV about the PLC dont take it out on the footplate crews who always treat locomotives with respect no mater who owns them!

 

Is that a fact or just your opinion?

I don't think anyone on here (or not on here) can say the WSR do or do not thrash engines unless they are there supervising every loco movement ever made. And as that is an almost impossible task it would be fairer to make a comment on a general term like "the WSR treat there locos pretty well".

 

Perhaps thrash is the wrong word to use, 53808 Was heavily used in its last WSR year in operation So the operational department was rostering an locomotive, whilst at the same time the PLC was seeking to evict the owners, and at the same time telling the owners they might not fund the overhaul when it becomes due.
The nearest comparison would be for someone to borrow your car, use your credit card to fill it up, Drive to John o grouts and back return it to you with the tank empty, no oil and water, and then say sorry i can't pay you .

 

and can I borrow it again on Wednesday, to complete the analogy

Patrick

 

I very much doubt any preserved line thrashes their locos. Ok some have to work harder than others (I'm thinking Foxfield up from the colliery), but I wonder if thrash was intended to suggest wringing the maximum use and mileage out of it rather than abusing it?

 

I hope the fireman isnt wearing a mask because of the exhaust from your car

 

Where do you get these daft ideas from? There is no suggestion that the WSR ever used the 7F during 2019 without the owners consent despite them being made aware early in the year that there was some doubt about the Railways ability to fund the agreed overhaul when the time came. If it was used with the agreement of the S&DRT why should this be a problem?

Peter

 

Maybe the S&DRT was simply honouring their side of the agreement by allowing the WSR to continue using the loco in the (vain) hope that any apparent problem about future funding etc would soon by sorted out ?

 

More likely is a state of shell shock after receiving the eviction notice.

 

Do you really know or not whether this is so?