Motive Power

Steam lines, in fact any line, don't strive to be profitable. Expenditure on projects expands in line with available cash. That's how some of them come to be mega big whilst others can operate with an 03 shunter.

 

Exactly - if you are just trundling up and down a 200 yard long siding with an 03 and a single clapped out Mk2, you only need about a dozen people to turn up on a Sunday afternoon to make it appear "profitable". It's different though if you're running a proper heritage railway.

 

Like the 11 mile long Mid-Norfolk, which only runs steam on high-days and holidays? Anyway, the railway that you have in mind, if you have one in mind, is probably financially viable. Can the same be said of those longer lines which rack up tens of thousands of pounds of losses each year because of their refusal, of fear of, trying something different.

 

I note that you are a fairly new member here, and your forum name implies that you're here to flame rather than enter into a constructive discussion. You keep on about this railway which finds diesel trains as popular with the general public as steam trains, but you will not identify it. I suspect it's a figment of your imagination.

 

no preserved railways rack up losses as you suggest, they would be dead and gone if they did. Pretty well every railway uses diesel for some roles, what is it that is different that they are frightened of trying?

 

Well, I certainly seem to have inflamed a couple of you! For your edification, "Flaman" has nothing to do with flameing or inflammation of any kind. M.Flaman was the CME of the Eastern Railway of France at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, who invented a machine for indicating and recording of the speed of locomotives and by whose name the instrument became generally known. The device was fitted to all French main-line locomotives and, incidentally, was originally fitted to the A4 pacifics.
Oh, and the railway that has so inflamed you is no figment of my imagination, however much you might like it to be!
I have never said that diesel trains are as popular with the public as steam, only that the margin is narrowing and the difference in the costs of running steam and diesel are such that it is increasingly difficult to attract the additional numbers of bums on seats required to finance steam operation. This often makes diesel a more viable option. I expect, based on experience, that this will become increasingly the case in future. You will never agree with me on this point, but time will tell. Meanwhile, I shall be busily restoring, maintaining and running diesels as well as steam.

 

but do you accept that there are way too many preserved and many (Most) will never operate again? How many are operational on your railway?

 

Please keep the discussion on topic and not establishing the users identity/railway or choice.

As an admin, to diffuse it, I will note here the user has "credibility" unlike some of those attempting to "out them", please therefore accept this and accept their wish to remain anonymous, we are lucky to have such people here posting.

 

There are quite a number of heritage railways that rack up substantial losses and do so every year. They rely on their supporters to keep them going.

 

Having re-read the first post, I was not aware of being off-topic, simply that's the way the conversation has gone. I was not trying to "out" the poster, I have no need to do that

 

I have no doubt of the existence of the railway Flaman is connected with; I've been there and enjoyed my visit. I will disagree with him on some of his thoughts, though. I don't think it is the cost of motive power that is the Achilles heel of heritage railways so much as the infrastructure and the need to maintain it in the long term. Overhauling the SVR steam loco fleet is probably cheap compared with possible major repairs to the Victoria Bridge (as an example). The NYMR has had to fork out well over £1m in bridge repairs in the last couple of years and there's more to come. Railways with bridges, tunnels, embankments and cuttings are likely to be expensive; those with none of these might be more boring but they are cheap to run in the long term and can more easily survive.

 

Wasn't there a railway promoter back in the day who, in an effort to boost passenger numbers, organised a public event whereby two old steam locos were driven at speed into each other? IIRC it actually worked to increase revenue.

Well.... if there are a 'surplus' of class 37s around.....

 

Some of those locos will not operate again, but the same applies to some steam locos. In the case of diesels, as was mentioned in an earlier post, some were bought by those, often youngsters, who thought it would be nice to have an example of their favourite class. Particularly in the early days of diesel preservation, scrap prices were low, making locos affordable (in the late 80s you could buy a "31" for under £5k). However, the enthusiastic buyers often had little idea of the cost, time and technical expertise required to restore and maintain them, so they lost interest and left their purchases deteriorating in sidings, often to the embarassment of the host railways. With the increase in scrap prices in recent years, some of those "no hopers" have already dissappeared, others will, no doubt, hang around to become valuable sources of spares (if the travelling community don't get to them first!) Many others have been restored and there is considerable demand for certain classes, "33s" for example. There is certainly an over-supply of some classes, but I think that it would be unwise to assume that most do not have a future. I can foresee a future when serviceable ex mainline diesels will command a premium, in fact, it's already happening.

Our railway has 7 ex BR diesels currently operational, both "at home" and hired to other railways, ranging in size, or rather, power, from 200hp to 2500hp. We also have a further 4 under or awaiting restoration.

 

In your opinion, is this too many? How does it compare to your steam fleet?

Just interested

 

No, not at all! Current steam fleet is-
1 operational, 1 nearly, 1 under fast restoration, 2 under prolonged restoration, 1 "one day", 1 probably never! It reflects the relative level of usage.

 

Thanks, Steve, nice to know I have a supporter somewhere!
Motive power costs are not the biggest cost on all railways, though I suspect that they are on some and are substantial on all. Infrastructure and, indeed, employment costs are greater on some and could well become crippling in some cases. The point is that infrastructure and employment costs are fixed- they cannot be reduced without retrenching the business or finding cash from outside sources. Motive power costs can be reduced and, whilst that reduction may reduce footfall and thus turnover, it will not necessarily reduce profitability, in fact it may even increase it. If a railway is confronted with major, inescapable liabilities, surely it's management ought to be looking for any area where variable costs can be reduced, even to taking a critical view of motive power costs. I'm sure that they will and that is one reason why I believe that there is a future for diesel.

 

Well of course there is a future for some diesels, but they are and always will be in a secondary role to the steam locos. Ask a child to draw a loco, he/she draws a steamer.
If you were to allocate each existng line with , lets say 3 main line locos (ie non-shunters) which might fulfill all their needs, how many would that cover? Lets be generous and say 200...that still leaves about 100 with no home or future.They make poor museum exhibits (as the Science Museum found with Deltic) so what do you do with them?

 

I suppose that I should be grateful that Reading General has accepted, albeit grudgingly, part of my argument! I'm afraid he's still on weak ground with the rest of his post though. Ask a child, etc? I just did and got a diesel (2, actually). As to whether the Science Museum found the Deltic a poor exhibit, I don't know where he got that from! I was somewhat involved in the Great Clear-out of railway items at S.Ken. and seem to remember that it was the result of a general policy decision- after all, "Caerphilly Castle" and even little "Bauxite," got the push as well!

Just to round off (hopefully!) what has been a lively and, again hopefully, thought-provoking debate, we tried 3 times to buy 37s and were outbid each time. Show me one that's available, restorable and sensibly priced and we would still be interested. How's that for putting your money where your mouth is!

 

What I find really interesting on this thread is the number of posters who treat diesels as "plant" and hence only the exact number needed to day should be tolerated - a Railway would not have more lathes or photocopiers than it identified as being its peak operational requirement, yet I bet many have more steam locos and coaches, even if they are not all serviceable! This approach is not unfamiliar - although I normally hear it around a Board table!

Diesels are indeed complex and potentially very expensive machines, which can require repairs that are very time consuming even if not requiring major material expenditure. Diesel electrics in particular do not like intermittent use and being left outside for ages. Many diesels are not "push the button and its ready for use", although even the most time consuming to prepare can probably beat steaming even a steam loco that has recently been in steam.

Diesels undoubtedly have a role in preservation beyond infrastructure and thunderbird work, permitting running a more intensive service at margin times at a lower direct cost. This is probably less so the shorter the line in question, but, as flaman says, in such scenarios, they can provide a service on days when steaming a loco would be uneconomic. This can lead to building the market to the point where the number of steam, days increases.

I would suggest that in order to be sure of having a diesel loco available, a fleet of more than 3 is required. Indeed, if you have a scheduled diesel service, having a second serviceable loco available as "thunderbird" would be wise, so allowing for one on full overhaul and another on running repairs gives a requirement of 4 minimum. As I have already said, few lines will take such a purely analytical approach and say that they need 2 steam locos in traffic, 1 available to replace either of those with a fault, 1 on washout and 1 under overhaul, so they will select 5 of the most suitable and get shot of the rest of the fleet. A purely commercial operation may do so, but one that can call on enthusiasts to assist with maintaining the fleet will have more locos than strictly necessary and the same with carriages. As time progresses and costs increase, this may change, but it is probably true to say that potentially the pool of diesel enthusiasts is greater and hence the same ability to have maintain locos "because we want to" remains.

I would have said the problem at the moment is probably that too many diesels are in the "wrong" hands and at the "wrong" place for long term requirements. Just as many of the older lines find they have rolling stock in particular that they gladly accepted when starting up but which no-one can now remember what use was expected to be made of it (or, often, who actually owns it!), newer lines have provided homes for many machines without checking what support resources existed or what plans had been made to keep locos running. Even with well organised and funded groups, be they owners of steam or diesel locos or items of rolling stock, best progress can be made by concentrating efforts and what looks like a lost cause moldering in a siding to a visitor may have funding and parts waiting for its owner to finish the current project that is visibly being worked on elsewhere.

Some "preserved" diesels will move back into the mainline rail industry (quite a few are said to be negotiating this at the moment), some will be scrapped, others will change hands within preservation. The last of these is happening with steam locos also. For many lines, steam will remain the main attraction and could be the cheaper option in terms of overhaul costs, but diesels do have a part to play and this may be an increasing part in some places as years progress. Perhaps the greatest need is for supporters of steam and diesel traction to try to see each other not as threats but as helping the overall railway to survive.

Steven

 

It's pretty clear that many preserved diesels are just convenient ways of storing spares. If you take this view, there's no such thing as "too many" preserved diesels as you can never have "too many" spares!

Hopefully every preserved diesel which rots in a siding for another 5-10 years and is then sold for scrap will donate spares to other members of that class, spares that would have been lost if the loco had not been "preserved" in the beginning. Hopefully these spares storage vehicles will have some protection from the elements to stop the spares they're carrying degrading too much until they're needed.

JP