Bluebell Motive Power

I think the requirement comes from the fact that we only need a max of five on any day (and only three most of the year), but the five needed to run the santa season are not the same as the three needed to run a weekend service at a quiet time of year.

So for example, during the Santa season we need three big engines and a medium one (the medium for the Victorian train) plus, ideally a small engine for steam heating / pilot duties. Allow for the fact that in an intensive service you need a spare engine to cover for washouts etc, and you get a santa requirement of four big, one or two medium, and say one small. That sets the large loco requirement - four large locos.

During the peak season, the weekend requirement is two big and one medium (the medium for the dining trains). Again, allowing for cover, that requires three big and two medium, but that is less than is needed for Santa, so not a problem.

During the off peak season, with smaller trains (at least in previous years, who knows what will happen now we are at EG), the requirement is still three locos at the weekend, but probably three medium ones. Add in some redundancy, and that gives a medium loco requirement for four medium engines. That defines the medium loco requirement - four medium locos.

We also run Obo specials to extend the midweek season into the spring and autumn. That requires a small engine, so allowing for redundancy, you really need two in traffic. That sets the small loco requirement - two small locos.

So overall, that gives a requirement during the year for four big engines, four medium engines and two small ones - ten in total. The peak daily requirement would be half that during the santa season - three big, one medium and one small.

Now, there are lots of ways you could say we could cut that requirement, most notably by using bigger engines on smaller trains during the off-peak season. That would effectively nearly eliminate the requirement for medium engines, since having four big engines in traffic (needed for the Santa season) could serve all year - though, at least based on historical usage, for much of the year you would be running 4-ish coach trains with class 4+ motive power, which at least one person would give a tut-tut to! But doing that would mean you could have a loco requirement of probably eight - four big, two medium, two small. And if you applied the same logic and ran Obo specials with, say, a H class or similar, you could get down to maybe 6 locos - four big, two medium, and have no requirement for small locos at all.

But at that point, you run into another problem. In recent years we have run over 45,000 miles per year, and this year it is likely to be nearer 55,000 miles. (A combination of longer journey and more daily trips on the timetable). With ten locos, that gives an average of 5,500 miles per loco per year, say 55,000 miles per loco between "ten yearly" overhauls. Cut the requirement to 6 locos, and they run over 9,000 per year each on average, say 90,000 miles between notional ten-yearly overhauls. It is very doubtful a class 0 or class 2 with small wheels could run that far. So fewer locos just means they wear out quicker, so reduced time between overhauls. At 9,000 miles per year, you certainly wouldn't get 10 years out of the Edwardian and Victorian locos.

So effectively it's a catch 22 - we could cope with a running fleet of, say, 6 locos (biased to the larger size), but only by hammering them into the ground, reducing time between overhauls and frequently running services with larger than optimal locos. Or we can have a fleet of 10 locos which would hopefully extend the life of each and optimises the match between duty and loco, but means having more restored at any time.

I haven't done the maths (*), but I suspect if you assumed an average of 50-60k miles per loco between overhauls, you'd probably come up with the same workshop capacity needed whether the chosen answer was 6 locos running an average of 9,000 miles per year, or ten running an average of 5,500 miles each per year. But having ten gives a better match between loco and duty and also gives more redundancy in case of unexpected failures.

(*) Edit: If you have ten locos doing an average of 5,500 miles per year and assume each can run 55,000 between overhauls, each loco lasts ten years and you need an overhaul capacity of one loco per year. If instead you assume six locos running 9,000 miles per year, each only lasts six years, so you still have an overhaul requirement of one per year! But running the service with only six means that locos are less well optimised to load, so potentially the coal bill is higher. Also, if you are overhauling one loco per year but it is always a big one, that will be more expensive than overhauling one loco per year, but which are a mix of large, medium and small.

Tom

 

I have been looking to see if there is another "Paul" on this thread to attribute the views ascribed to me. Perhaps fortunately there does not seem to be! It is exceedingly puzzling for the position attributed to me is about as far removed as possibly can be from the one I hold and have been cranking on about for what seems like ages. "Bean-counter", in my opinion, has it about right. Listen to him!

My objection to express (or heavy freight for that matter) motive power hauling six Mk. 1's on branch lines actually has less to do with "authenticity" than containing expenses. Hopefully I can retire from this now rather repetitive thread without having to return to defend myself again.

Paul H (The genuine article!)

 

I am not sure that running smaller engines is more economical - on the SVR for instance, I cannot believe that it is less economical to run 2857 on 8 coaches than thrashing one of the panniers with 8 - I doubt the coal costs are any less for the pannier and the repair/overhaul bill will certainly be higher.

 

That the point I was making earlier in the thread, a small loco working near it's limit will be worn out far quicker, the 28XX example you've used is far more suitable, nowhere near it's limit yet happy at 25MPH, and it's not like a Swindon No1 boiler is a coal eating monster of a thing either.

 

The economics is complicated. A 28xx on an 8 coach load on a line with 1:100 gradients sounds pretty reasonable to me. It is where you regularly have a 28xx on a four coach load that it starts to look more questionable. Of course, if the four coach load is a rarity in the season it may still be more economic to occasionally use too big an engine for just a small portion of the season, rather than (as we try to do) have big engines for big loads and small engines for small loads. You have to set the excess running costs of having too big an engine against the maintenance costs of having an extra engine in service, all teh while keeping an eye on annual mileage and how long a loco is therefore likely to last.

And then of course is the big factor, which is that no preserved line today is running with a free choice of motive power! We can't just go down to Brighton and say "the line has outgrown the Terriers, can you send a couple of D tanks...". So sometimes a line might be running too big an engine not through choice, but simply because it is all that is available.

Tom

 

PH was suggesting the Bean-counters should "get a grip on" the justifications for larger than absolutely necessary locos being restored/built. My point was that they should not dictate policy. Their input and advice is necessary, but should not be taken as sacrosanct in a sector which relies so much on enthusiasm for what may or may not be the most financially appropriate option.

Not all are avid enthusiasts, but I suspect that they are pretty much all more interested in supporting a railway that wants to expand where it can and which has a sense of adventure/can do/joi de vie or whatever, than one which deliberately restricts it's size/equipment/activities to the minimum.

Indeed, but they also won't donate to a small loco if their interest is in a large loco. What is better, to have a larger loco which is more difficult to justify economically, or no loco at all?

No disagreement there.

No disagreement there either.

All this discussion seems to be centred round the new atlantic that PH seems to be so set against. So it isn't perfect, but someone wants to build it and it will do the job, so what on earth is the problem? Just to poke a stick in the hornets nest, I'll add that I reckon it's a better use of the money than building some victorian loco which will be more use as a film prop than as a working loco. Still it takes all sorts doesn't it?

Well, I've listened to Bean-counter as noted above, and don't really disagree with him a great deal. I've followed your comments across many of the threads on this forum and based my assessment of your views on those. If I have misunderstood you, then I'm sorry. The rest of the forum can decide for themselves.

I think we all realise it's wasting money to use more than the minimum size of loco! But the larger locos are generally what enthusiasts want to restore/build/see ( or even may be all that's available). And that is the whole point of Enthusiast input. Effectively we are paying for our "fun" and that "money" fills the gap between income and expenditure. If more is needed, then more will problably be provided - volunteer and donor "income" are flexible, which must make the accountants' job a lot more difficult.

 

Can I second what Lplus has said in relation to your postings Paul Hitch.
Daniel

 

To cope with extra passengers could the line not just run a shorter third train that would pass at Kingscote rather than two longer ones?

 

Good grief I have to defend myself again! Just read what I have actually said rather than what you think I said or, even, what you wish I had said. You may not agree, which is fair enough, especially for something which may be a touch iconoclastic. However please do not misrepresent me.

PH

 

It's possible to add some hard numbers to this debate about "enthusiast" versus "non-enthusiast" income.

The railway "family" (to use a GFG phrase) derives income from four main sources:

A) The PLC, which gets money from fare income, catering, film contracts, rent on houses etc
B) The Society, which gets money primarily from membership subscriptions, though some comes from donations. The surplus from the running costs of the society effectively gets transferred to the PLC
C) The Trust, which recieves money from charitable donations from individuals and a small amount from grant-giving bodies. This money is spent on a variety of projects around the railway, including the Atlantic, 27, 84030, the Maunsell Restaurant car etc etc. Money for the extension was also primarily raised through this route.
D) Other affiliated bodies which aren't part of the railway, but effectively conduct their operations there. That would include income to the Maunsell Locomotive Society, the Camelot Society, the Bulleid Society, the Howlden Trust etc.

In the terms that are being framed in this debate, it is reasonable to assume that A primarily represents "non-enthusiast" income (the majority just comes from members of the public), but B,C and D are primarily "enthusiast" income.

Taking figures for 2012 (pre-East Grinstead; 2013 may be quite different), those amounts are:

A: £2,984k
B: £175k (can't lay my hands on the accounts but it was of that order)
C: £1,489k
D: Unknown to me, as the figures don't show in the Bluebell accounts. But given the amounts being spent by the Maunsell Soc, Camelot Soc etc on their own projects, it is likely that that amounts to maybe £200k per year or more between them all.

Totting up, that gives a "non-enthusiast" income of £2,984k and an "enthusiast" income of about £1,864k. In other words, the "enthusiasts" are contributing about 38% of all the money spent within the Bluebell, and the "non enthusiasts" about 62% - that's before you factor in the value of volunteer labour on the "enthusiast" side of the equation.

This year the figures are likely to be different, not least because the fare and catering income (in box A) will be substantially higher, while the Trust income (in box C) is likely to be lower, as everyone takes a bit of a breather from the fundraising needed for the extension. But clearly, even if not a single enthusiast bought a ticket and rode the trains, the cash value they put into the railway is substantial. So it is understandable if they want their influence on what exactly gets restored! Indeed, if the railway didn't cater for them, no doubt most would vote with their wallets...

Tom

 

It has been discussed, using the loco that later in the day would run the Golden Arrow or Wealden Rambler. As such, it couldn't run all day, but could fill in a service between the current first and second trains from East Grinstead, which is the main pressure point for passenger numbers. Probably a "wait and see" to see what is on next year's timetable.

Tom

 

I wonder if it is possible to put a value on this. I imagine the railways have records of volunteer attendance and even if only a portion of the time spent is assumed to be effective - even at minimum wages, it's likely to be quite a sum. Is any railway be prepared to do the sums and provide the info?

or their feet.

 

It's even more complicated than that - for instance, if a big engine was in steam on a Sunday, it's cheaper (both in coal and boiler stresses) to use it on Monday - even if the Monday train is only 4 coaches - than steam a small engine from cold.

 

Bringing economics into it opens a whole new discussion! Big boilers generally have higher start up and standby costs so there is an argument against them there. In operation, you can only get a very small return on the energy (coal) fed into the loco and the higher the pressure, generally the better the efficiency. Add superheating and the efficiency will go up even more; so, in theory, the coal consumption is going to go down. That's only the tip of the iceberg, though, as such things as exhaust back pressure, cylinder clearance volumes and a host of other design considerations will affect the amount of steam used (and hence coal used). A loco working nearer its grate limit will use a lot more coal than one working well within its limit. But then, larger superheated locos are generally heavier than saturated ones and more weight equals more coal. Add in maintenance costs where a large superheated boiler is going to be a lot more expensive than a small saturated one and that can make a fundamental difference in the lifetime bill.
In my experience, the amount of coal used to do the same job varies quite a bit from loco to loco, irrespective of size, and can be greatly varied by the quality of the crew and how they do the job. The whole lot is far too complex to simply say big is expensive and small is cheap. Tenders are definitely an expensive luxury to drag around, though; a large and generally unnecessary payload on most heritage railways I'd venture to say that the economics are best if locos are not be worked near their limits and are on top of the job but not to the state of overkill. I've no figures to back me up but, in terms of the NYMR, my gut feeling is that a class 6 (i.e. an S15) is a more economical bet than a class 4 (i.e. 75029/76079) as the latter are working at their limit but a class 4 tank is better still because it doesn't have a tender.

 

Well, maybe the 'Brighton, as the pre-eminent "tank engine" line in the country, knew a thing or two about economics! Certainly my entirely subjective view is that, on the same load, you shovel less on the SECR H class than the C class. The H weighs 54 tons; the C weighs 82 tons - that's an entire pre-group bogie coach extra that the C is dragging round. Which is probably why, despite being nominally a bigger engine in boiler capacity, tractive effort etc, the C only has 5 or 10 tons extra limit than the H on our line.

As for superheating - our loco director was on record as saying that, for us, non-superheated class 2 locos were optimal for our "mid engine" need, on account of lower overhaul cost. It's worth remembering that in every 2.5hr round trip on the Bluebell, the loco is at rest or coasting for nearly 2hrs and only working hard for about 40 minutes in about seven sustained bursts, so superheating adds complexity without really adding a lot to efficiency. Certainly I'd doubt that the decrease in coal used by superheated engines when used on a heritage line with lots of stopping and starting is sufficient is sufficient to pay the extra overhaul costs. There was a reason why most branch line engines remained unsuperheated right to the end of steam!

Tom

 

There was a reason why most branch line engines were unsuperheated but nothing to do with efficiencies, quite the opposite!

 

Certainly on the Southern!

 

Well, I guess in BR's eyes, the capital expenditure of new engines wasn't justified by the traffic receipts, so soldier on with the old-timers. But if the engine is doing more stopping than starting so to speak, then any nominal efficiency gain from superheating probably didn't generate enough of a saving to pay the extra maintenance costs. Certainly even when they were quite new, the LSWR built a superheated M7 but found it was no improvement over the original, while costing more to maintain. The experiment wasn't repeated, even though the same boiler was widely used to give a new lease of life to the Black Motors, which at the time were the primary mainline goods engine.

Tom

 

The BTC attempted a modernisation of branch line services but that plan was rendered unfeasible by the Conservative government of the Macmillan era. Had it continued then more DMUs would have been built, more steam engines withdrawn and more branch lines saved, probably. BR built plenty of new steam engines and would have continued building them had the political times not turned against the railways.

 

If the Bluebell have no plans to overhaul 88100 in the near future wouldn't they be better off selling 88100 to another railway and using the funds to overhaul another loco in the collection? On another note I've heard that 88100 could be leased to a near by railway on the understanding they overhaul the loco and then have x amount of running years with the loco before it returns back to the BB.