West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I understand that the reason the WSR didn't run in 2020 was because their SMS wasn't deemed fit for purpose and that was a sensible decision made by the directors. They have since had a well-known consultant re-write the SMS. Although I haven't read it, you can bet that the SMS has robust requirements for examination and assessment of the civil engineering on the line. You can also bet that the railway is complying with that SMS as, otherwise the ORR would have issued an Improvement Notice. They don't have to tell the world, or you, everything they do. I'm sure that the ORR will have asked the questions and had satisfactory answers.

 

I've remarked before that I don't think the WSR is very good at external communications. But "not being good at communicating what is happening" is not the same as "things not happening". I haven't seen a blow-by-blow account of their locos undergoing annual boiler exams, but I'd be staggered if they weren't happening quietly in the background. So "no mention was made of surveys or professional inspections" says nothing about whether they have happened. Inspections of rolling stock and infrastructure happen all the time: if their board infrastructure advisor and Locomotive Director are happy to sign off the infrastructure as suitable for the loco, I've no reason to believe other than that they have done it taking all factors properly into account.

Tom

 

The whole scenario has the stench of sycophancy about it. Are we really expected to believe that YKW had no hand in the manoeuvring to make it 'permissible' ?

 

Who or what is YKW please?

 

I would take a guess at You Know Who

 

I'm sure that the person you are referring to had a hand in making it possible. After all, its his loco. However, permissible is quite different so are you saying that the said person did not consult with and get agreement from those responsible for the railway's infrastructure and mechanical engineering and exactly how was all this manoeuvred, to use your word?

 

As long as the terms of hire mean the loco isn't receiving special treatment, the hire rate is not extortionate, and a comparison with other locos available to hire which demonstrates this loco is the best choice, then no there isn't and shouldn't be an issue and wipes any conflict of interest issues.

 

Causing the removal of the singular most useful loco on the line would be a good place to start. And yes, there's everything wrong with that.

 

Jolly Jack Putin ? ......

 

If I were to stand back a moment, and I am a public sector worker so its the sort of arrangement that makes my hair stand on end, BUT

There have been two libel cases involving arrangements around loco's that in my opinion at least had a huge potential to cause trouble, and indeed did. Which suggests that these sort of 'far from arms length' arrangements are far from uncommon in railway preservation.

Why this happens I dont know, so to some extent it may be that we are looking at a not uncommon situation, but of course as @Snifter points out there is a more serious issue in the background.

 

The sort of response typical of someone who has lost the argument.

 

From an historic view point, its never a good thing to allow a loco owner to be able to influence motive power policy, even if done with the best of intentions, the possibility will always be there that their own locos will receive preferential treatment, at the cost of other groups, will the arrival of the Chairmen's locos on the line mean that the on hire engines will be no longer needed, and their owners will have to find new homes for them? will the WSR end up with only the two engines , plus the ones owned by the plc, being the staple motive power, it will be interesting to see how much use each engine gets, and who ends up with the best deal .Then theres the engine owned by the WSRA, being smaller in tractive effort how much use will it see,?, might this end up having to be hired out elsewhere, to earn money for the association.

 

They are valid points and only time will tell whether any of them become true or not. I'm sure that there will be plenty of eyes on the situation, though.

 

What puzzles me is that 6960's tractive effort is little more than that of 4561, which has long been considered "too small" for high season duties and certainly doesn't compare with that of 53808. So the WSR will end up paying for two locomotives that are really only of use for the "shoulders" of the season, when we are told it doesn't really have enough work for one. Given that, the fact that 6960 belongs to the chairman and is being given special dispensation to run on the line does look fishy, to say the least.

 

Tractive effort is one way of looking at a loco, but by far from the only one (or even the most useful).

Two factors I'd consider with a 45xx:

One is water capacity, which I believe is 1300 gallons - not a very big figure for a hilly line with 20 miles between water columns.

The other is grate area: 16.6 sq ft I believe, in comparison a Hall is 27 sq ft. In other words, the 45xx may have the cylinder size and small wheels to give it a big tractive effort, but the sustained boiler power is really nearer a class 1 / 2 sort of size. (For comparison, the Bluebell's Wainwright H class has the same size grate - 16.6 sq ft - and is limited to 150 tons on broadly similar gradients. That means four Mark 1s. I think when L150 - another 45xx - visited the Bluebell it was allowed 5 mark 1s, but we had easy access to water at both ends and some access at all stations).

In other words - I'd have little doubt that a Hall or a 45xx could both move a six/seven coach train on a 1 in 60 gradient, which is what the tractive effort figure tells you. But the Hall would keep doing it up five or six miles of steady climbing much more readily than the 45xx, and wouldn't have the driver and firemen nervously watching their water level in the tanks all the way from Williton ...

Tom

 

6960 is Raveningham Hall. 4936 is Kinlet Hall

That said, allowing one to run opens the door for the other.

 

To be a little pedantic (and to further the case against 4561), while the later 4575 Tanks (including 5521, now L150) had 1300 gallons, 4561 as an earlier, 4500 series only had 1000 gallons of water, meaning crews would have to be even more careful about water usage

However, if 4561 did have 1300 gallon tanks (thanks to some alternate history), it may have been looked on more favourably, given that 9466 has a similar grate area (17.4 sq ft) and 1300 gallons tanks and it seems is set to become a regular on the line. Of course, that completely ignores the ownership politics which may well be involved...

 

My gut feeling, tells me 4561 will see very little use on the line, and the trust will have to send it out on loan elsewhere to earn enough money to afford the next overhaul, That will loosen the ties to the line, Which might serve the interests of some, who might want to only have the WSRHT as the only supporting group because they can be relied on to follow the management line. my prediction is that in a few years time, the WSRA won't be around.