Shortage in Steam

As we are now just 10 days from the school summer holidays it appears that a few railways are running rather short of steam motive power. The SVR has just three operational engines this week, and has only had five available in total since April on a line that requires four for normal peak weekend days. On the NYMR today's five-diagram timetable is running with 2 steam, 2 diesel and 1 DMU with only four on the 'available' list. The Bluebell, having lost two out of ticket and one to long term repairs in the last 15 months are having to hire 92212 (on an apparent fairly long-term basis) to cope with standard services. Near to me, the Churnet Valley recently spent two months without steam. The South Devon, which has often been able to hire out engines, is having to hire in to cover a two engine timetable over the summer. The Dartmouth Steam Railway has had to use diesel on service trains this year. The ELR is surviving on 80080 and 132 'Sapper' for most of the year.

Is this a temporary blip, or is this a more worrying long-term sign? Diesel up front leads to dissatisfaction from passengers and potentially lower load levels. Here's hoping things recover...

 

Some railways have got a glut of steam locos to pick from..

There must be a reason for the imbalance.

 

Do the 'major' Narrow Guage railways find themselves in a similar position, or are things generally better in that area?

And do we know which Standard Guage railways have a 'glut' of steam locos, because if they do they have a major business opportunity I woud say?

John

 

Good planning and some luck too....

NYMR + SVR have been hit with some unfortunate luck.

Some others havnt planned properly or have got themselves into a position where they have not been able to hire in locos.

 

We're about 5 years into the economic crisis now...so perhaps that is starting to bite, as locos are withdrawn the finance and staff (both paid who are being laid off and volunteer who have less free time) aren't there to put new ones into traffic to redress the losses.

You've also got the fact that locos are getting more expensive to overhaul, of course.

I'd postulate also that you are starting to get locos with owning groups who are ageing - they saved the loco from Barry, restored it, have overhauled it once or twice, but now are generally at an age where there are less bodies to throw into an overhaul from that sector. Affilliated to this is changing loco operation agreements between owners and railways, to suit changing circumstance. I don't know what the situation is like on other railways, but I know that this process is in hand on the SVR.

 

So its back to the old discussion, is it better to have a fleet(?) of railway owned locos which they are continually 'fire fighting' to keep operational and then have little or no time to overhaul, or an owing group 'focused' on the well being of the loco and its finances that have maximum control over operation, repair and major overhaul? With the continual tightening of overhaul , maintainance and boiler standards along with major changes on the horizon, things will have to change soon if preserved steam is to continue in the way we are used to.

John

 

You could argue that railway-owned motive power is probably more 'fair-weather' orientated than hiring in from external groups. The main problem with railway-owned equipment is that there is always something else that takes priority (take 80100 on the Bluebell, which must surely be one of the yardsticks for the proverbial 'rainy day' restoration project). If a railway is lucky enough to have managed the initial restoration, then all is well and good until its next overhaul. At this stage, has the overhaul money been allocated to a specific pot and ring-fenced within the railway's budget? More often that not it is, well, not, or that the repairs required far outweigh the revenue earned throughout its operational period. Although hiring from external sources may seem a steep initial cost, when one considers that the railway will only have to fund an overhaul indirectly through steaming fees, it may not actually be a bad thing. However, all this assumes that the bare essentials for storage, running maintenance and protection are in place and that there is no 'politicking' around the motive power situation. Just my uninformed opinion, but to me, I would have thought that the outsourcing of motive power helps take the pressure off the railway somewhat.

Anyway, what I think I am trying to say is that there are strong arguments in both directions, and that it will inevitably be up to the railways in question as to what their respective motive power policies will be.

 

I don't think it's a difference in methodology between railway's owning an engine or a group owning one, it's more a lack of foresight and planning for the future. A crisis in the number of locomotives available doesn't just happen overnight, barring a spate of unforeseen circumstances. It happens because of a lack of long-term vision. The situation on the SVR is a good example of a railway having lots of engines based on it but not enough money put into making sure that overhauls are spaced out over a period of time to ensure a constant rolling fleet of operational steam engines. But this situation is one that has been inherited and can only be rectified over an equally long period of time.

 

Well the Vale of Rheidol have essentially run the service with 2 locos available for several years, likewise the WHR. The Festiniog relies heavily on two double engines for most services despite having an extensive fleet. Even the Ravenglass and Eskdale which runs a far more intensive service than a lot of SG lines, only has 4 main steam locos. Then again those lines apart from probably the R&ER don't really have the option of hiring motive power in crisis. All the locos up to pulling service trains every day on the F&WHR are typically already on the F&WHR.

I expect it is down to the way each railway manages the situation and in the long term rather than a lack of skills or money in the short term. Railways like the ELR and CVR always struggle the most as they are almost totally at the whim of 3rd party loco owners. They have no back up if someone decides to take their loco elsewhere for whatever reason.

 

This replicates the situation found on Network Rail and the various TOCs and rolling stock hire companies (or is it the other way round)! In other words there are multiple groups competing for their share of available financial resources on any one railway.

It seemed like a good idea in the early days as it generated the air of faster progress than would otherwise have been the case . In the longer term, whilst it is too early at present to say it will be disastrous, the fact that there has been very little progress in amalgamating the various organisations is worrying. There is a certain preserved railway where one almost falls over collecting boxes in support of this or that owning group.

 

Paignton & Dartmouth have hired Kinlet Hall to cover washouts/failures during the two-train timetable as only 7827 and 4277 are operational (5239 has a sick boiler, 75014 is being rebuilt, 4555 in the queue behind that)