Steam engines available for traffic in 2014

I'm not sure I get this "Byzantine" point (by which I assume you mean, having loco owning groups being separately constituted bodies from the railways on which the locos run).

To prove the point, I think you would have to demonstrate that the total resource (in cash and labour) coming into the movement was lower as a result of having separate bodies, than if everything was under the control of one body with complete executive power. I'm not sure there is evidence for that - if anything, I'd suspect the opposite: locos with vigorous owning groups tend to be better at fund raising than "company owned" locos, which sometimes seem to languish down restoration queues. (Compare 75027 and 73082 on the Bluebell, or the Stanier Mogul and the Stanier Black 5 on the SVR).

I think there are plenty of examples where separate groups add value to their host railway and certainly the structures don't get in the way of the restoration queue. For example, on the Bluebell, Maunsell Loco Soc members were extensively involved in the restoration from Barry condition of 1638, despite that being a company-owned loco. That loco was finished in 2006. They then moved on in funding and labour terms to 847, which was finished in 2013 (with help from the company, especially for boiler work). Now the MLS members are getting involved with "Stowe", but the company is providing extensive support through the Fundraising Committee; at the same time, the Company is taking the lead role in the restoration of 541, which is an MLS-owned loco. I don't see any evidence of Byzantine structures getting in the way of getting as many locos as required overhauled.

Tom

 

Well every separate organisation needs a Chair, Secretary, Treasurer etc. These admin. tasks are thankless and difficult to recruit adequately and the more groups there are, the more duplication of effort. Dare it be said that one of the "turn-offs" of a visit to the Bluebell is a plethora of collecting boxes for this and for that rather reminiscent of the annoying sort of cathedral with collecting boxes for bells, chancel, etc. everywhere. I am not the only one of this view.

As for whether this sort of structure led to more stuff being saved, it could well have done. However I am not impressed, as you will know, of the general suitability of what did get saved. A case of short term gain, long term pain I fear.

Paul H.

 

In many cases what was saved was what was available. I'm sure if every scrapyard had been like Barry then a much different selection of locos would have been saved. Many suitable locos never made preservation simply because they were scrapped before anyone had a chance to buy them.

 

Whilst it would be more efficient and perhaps less costly (though not if you have to pay for all the labour that you could have got for free at home) to send your loco to a mainworks on a planned schedule, the cashflow impact needs to be considered as well. In general terms the relative poverty of most heritage railway organisations means that some time and or cost is traded in order to maintain the right cashflow.

The ownership structures are a complicated legacy, but they are gently being resolved. Many railways are acquiring their own fleet of locos as resources permit, and often this leads to an improvement in the railway's economics. Anyway, the original point was why not save the money of transport and spend it on restoration, and whilst a good point, the problem is that the money is spent from a different source than would spend on the locos. This isn't so much to do with ownership of the locos, the point I was really getting at, was that if the Mid-Hants (for example) never used WCRC or a low loader again this year, we wouldn't save enough to offset the benefit we get from that transport (increased gala takings etc) let alone contribute toward a loco overhaul, and even if our gala takings did not fall off (which I am sure they would) then the saving would be perhaps 20% of the cost of an overhaul.

 

And what would the alternative have been? About half the UK preserved mainline locomotive fleet came from Barry, and almost every loco in Barry ultimately got saved: a high proportion has subsequently been restored and have run in preservation. So to a very large degree, what we have closely models what was in Barry - lots of GWR and later LMS types; slightly fewer SR types (and broadly big pacifics at that); a reasonable number of BR standards, very few more modern LNER types. Complaining that preserved railways would be better served if there was a preponderance of class 2 0-6-0 tender engines and 0-6-2Ts does seem rather futile! It effectively would have required someone in the mid 1950s, pre-Bluebell, pre-Middleton, to have gazed into a crystal ball fifty years ahead and said "we need to save all these pre-group small engines before it is too late". Are you seriously suggesting that anyone in the 1950s could have had the foresight to do that, or indeed the cash to have created a Barry-like strategic reserve of a few hundred small engines, just waiting for preservation groups to spring up and use them?

Tom

 

Whilst the jobs of secretary etc can be onerous they also have their rewards - job satisfaction, self actualisation etc. While it is difficult to fill the boards of any voluntary organisation (ask any PCC) it doesn't alas follow that if you reduce the number of such organisations the availability of staff becomes greater. How many newly redundant secretaries of GW loco groups merged into one Greater Great Western Society would volunteer to help out the Lancashire and Yorkshire Soc or whatever? There is also the issue of how big a fish one wants to be......some would rather be Sec. of the Appledore and District Railway Telegraph Insulator Preservation Society, than second under porter of Arley UP platform on the SVR. The ability to appeal to that range of people, interests and capability, is what makes the "movement" successful IMHO.

 

Equally they had no way of knowing that lines would be saved and even rebuilt and thus what the requirement of these lines would be. The requirements of the NYMR are different to those of the Swindon and Cricklade for example but in the 50s nobody new that they would exist as heritage lines in the 21st century.

 

Of course not. There are plenty of a moderate size that were saved though and could do with a bit more priority. Some way has got to be found to reduce operating costs and if this means no more buffet cars on trains or anything larger than Class 4 at the head, so be it.

You have mentioned renewal of inside cylinders as an example of what needs to be done. One can easily add other aspects away from motive power such as spilling brickwork on bridges which will be frightfully expensive to sort, as it must be before too long.

Paul H

 

But what if the buffet car makes a profit? I find it hard to believe that a railway would have one dragged around all day if it didn't make money.

 

Look what I found Paulh gwsrsteamloco.blogspot.co.uk! (scroll down to bottom of first post)

I don't understand what you said about buffet cars just then, these are considerable earnings. As for no more than class 4 locos, I wonder if there would be a significant drop in visitors if there were no "big Engines?"

 

(a) For someone even as tea addicted as the late A. Wedgewood-Benn there is a limit to the amount of tea that can be drunk! No tea on the train, then the station will oblige when the train arrives and take the money which would have been spent in the buffet car. Catering vehicles are heavy and expensive to run. This is not the same thing as Pullman dining and the like, where a lot of money is charged to a relatively small number who are known in advance.

(b) We, as enthusiasts, need to get out of the habit of assuming the general public have the same mindset as us. Mothers point to red and green painted locomotives and say "look there's Thomas". Not unsophisticated people look at a centenarian loco with a particularly noisy vacuum brake and enquire seriously if it's a diesel made up to look if it is a steam engine.

(c) Another thing which needs to be done is not to look for excuses to run stuff that is really bigger than needed. In an earlier post G-F-G referred to the Kingswear line as being run in a commercial, economic, if not particularly interesting, fashion. Indeed so, they run very long trains behind a Manor and even, so I gather, a 45xx. A more gricerish concern would have insisted a King was necessary.

PH

 

I find it impossible to believe that buffet cars are not making a profit, for the same reason you said, if they weren't, they would have been stopped and all catering would just be at stations. And when I say "big engines" I just mean something with a tender really, I know many people who only consider tender engines "proper engines." Whilst there will always be examples of the public being incredibly naive (such as the other day, I was sat next to the buffet car when its generator turned on; small boy: "daddy, what's that noise?" dad: "that's the train starting up") I reckon the general public will always prefer a tender engine to a little industrial.

 

I do wonder if PH isn't sitting there having a chuckle to himself as we all run around in circles trying to counter his arguments. If he is serious in his beliefs then I wonder why he's not in charge of some heritage railway operation and showing the rest how it should be done.

 

First of all, I am not dealing with "little industrials" but a Manor class small/medium 4-6-0. On the steeply graded Paignton to Kingswear line it hauls a substantial load.

Secondly Thomas the Tank engine is, well, a tank engine.

Thirdly, as far as buffet cars are concerned, a line I am familiar with started life as a tourist railway with no station buffet facilities, so train buffet cars were a sensible thing to have. Since then, all stations except one have acquired buffets. However such facilities still remain on the trains. "We've always done it this way" is a mighty powerful instinct. I also suspect some feeling of "loss of face" may come into play if on train catering were pruned.

Turnover is much less important than the bottom line in any enterprise.

P.H.

 

In which case, in most situations, I don't have too much of a problem, although nice to see something unusually bigger at galas

I had noticed thomas was a tank engine, but you seemed to want heritage railways in general to be operated solely by these, which would get a little dull eventually I suspect, but see my point above.

with your buffet argument, I say again, if it's still running, I can't believe it would be allowed to run if it was running at a loss. unless you can find evidence to suggest otherwise, in which case fairy 'nuff

 

They are? Thanks for clarifying, because I mistakenly thought they were financially terrible - rapid body rot because of liquid spillage, never ending effort to rebuild the kitchen to comply with now very stringent but constantly evolving hygiene regulations and then keep it clean enough that Environmental Health don't nick you, a dedicated toilet just for the staff required by law, and formidable use of gas to cook, or cool, anything. And sometimes they catch fire, one even exploded in Old Oak Common. A trolley, on the other hand, seldom explodes, physically or financially.

 

That's the impression I get whenever I get emails asking me to become part of the on train catering team. I'm told they are an important part of the railway. I'll try and find one hiding away in my emails somewhere.

 

Granted this includes the specials like fish and chips, but look here

 

And that will apply to static facilities as well. No escaping the EHO and their rules no matter where you prepare the food. Although I will say I find the phrase "never ending" a little OTT as whilst rules change, they are seldom so drastic as to require a complete rebuild of the facilities - certainly not in my line of business anyway.

 

£100,000 is not to be sniffed at.