Steam engines available for traffic in 2014

Paul,
If you try to speed up the process of "folding into" it will cost more because there will be an inflationary effect in the price of locomotives. The single most important commodity for heritage railways, I have discovered, is patience. With patience comes the right solution at a price you can afford. Time is money, but very often for us that maxim works in reverse. "Folding in" is happening and is likely to accelerate, but let it happen at its own rate, there is no need to push the pace.

I don't see how the consensus Gios described of there being more data, would actually help much. MHR board deliberations aren't going to be helped over much by knowing that there are 199 locos in working order, or that there are 783 carriages in store pending overhaul around the UK. We know perfectly well though the status of our rolling stock and locomotives.

 

I am pretty sure if you went to any preserved railway and really dug around, you could find out how many engines were is service 10 years ago, which was the original point. You are right though, I was only observing that because we cannot answer, it does not mean that the information does not exist!

Are you sure about your figures though, if 30% are in service and 30% have been at one stage, then 40% must still be in 'ex-Barry' condition (for want of a better term) or in museums. This sounds high, does it not?

 

Or under active restoration, or reduced to produce, but I only did a quick mental tot up of the various numbers stated throughout the thread. I probably got it wrong. I make it 35% for the GWR built locos though, which is what I have on a spreadsheet. Those publicly claimed to be under active restoration runs to another 15%.

 

I'll take your word for it Jim, it doesn't feel right when applied to my 'local' lines but across the country you could be right!

 

Andrew

the figures I have for ex-SR locos are as follows:

In service - 28 (32%)
Under restoration having run previously - 22 (26%)
Under restoration (first time) - 6 (7%)
Out of service and not under active repair - 15 (18%)
Unrestored or dismantled for spares - 6 (7%)
Conserved as complete non-operational locos - 9 (11%)

Broadly that gives 32% in service; 44% have previously run in preservation but aren't running now; 14% under restoration for the first time or still in scrapyard condition; 11% conserved in museums as non-operational locos that haven't run in preservation and are very unlikely to.

I can give you the breakdown of which locos are in which categories if you are interested. It's possible there are one or two mistakes, and some classifications might be a bit arbitrary, but the overall shouldn't be too far out.

Tom

 

I would imagine most if not all heritage railways are thinking very much about the future and without recourse to endless debate on a railway forum. Some interesting viewpoints have come across though.

 

I always try to be on my best behaviour, polite and courteous, so I apologize in advance, especially as it is the Sabbath, if I fail to meet my normal standards. I will try my best to reply to the above comment, which I must say I consider a little unworthy.

There are certainly a majority of posters here who feel we should not entertain financial concerns about the future, and they may well be correct, although I have my doubts. But alarm bells should ring if your view is the one generally held. Your comment suggests, as the old and wise saying goes, 'that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing'. I was not suggesting a consensus just to show I am able to count to 783 - I leave another, better qualified poster to concentrate on sums.

If we are to drive costs down, then a much better understanding of expenditure than is presently evident, is going to be necessary. If on the other hand one subscribes to the view that everything is fine, then my views are of little consequence. Scrutiny can come from a combination of improved specialist advice and/or careful detailed observation of data. If we take the simplified example of the locomotive count, and from that an estimate of total overhaul expenditure per annum for the movement. It doesn't matter whether we agree on 4 or 8 million, a more detailed analysis will produce an accurate figure. Whatever, this is going to be a large number, and it is the size of the number which should raise questions and concerns. The first step at a local level would be to break down costs on a company locomotive, on a simple spreadsheet, One assumes this is already the norm. Starting with items of major expenditure and ending up with a box of washers, maybe a box of split pins are cheaper ! My brief to those concerned on seeing the first pass estimate would be to go away and reduce the estimate by at least 10%. I believe a 10% saving, if not more, would be perfectly possible with careful, knowledge based analysis and negotiation. Spread across the movement this would represent a significant saving. A separate but equally important question is who is charged with compiling these estimates. Are they really qualified to make these judgements ? The 10% might give an answer. This is not rocket science or a time consuming process, but simply a reflection in just one area of good management and a careful and rigorous accounting system. It is a process which has a start. The start being really understanding the problem, rather than assuming one understands the problem. To do this one needs numbers. Loco's were the example given, but consider the total spend per annum on coaches, bridges, engineering projects, P-way, stations, signalling - well you get the picture.

I have observed several major projects, in areas I have professional expertise, on my own railway, where significant saving, I am talking 10sKs in a year, could and should have been made, had those charged with the decision making process, been able to make better informed judgment calls. There are many other areas of expenditure where I am not qualified to make a judgement. This is not a criticism of management, but the reality is that they can not be expected to be competent in everything, even as a board, because they simply do not have the range of expertise and knowledge required. To be rigorous there needs to be a system in place which encourages rigour. Data bases are just one important tool in the box, but should not be reduced to ridicule. A data base requires an acceptance that the data represents reality, hence consensus.

You may be correct that it doesn't matter or is of little concern, scrutiny after all is just for the little people. I however, don't feel comfortable with the rather superior view that "We know the cost, so what's the point". As a subscriber I need convincing that cost truly reflects good value. I feel uncomfortable, when I see expenditure being made that is not required or is not the best value available .

I am rather more careful with my own money. I feel uncomfortable too often !

 

I don't know if I'm being thick, or are just too ignorant of the detail of running preserved railways, quite probably both, but I'm quite failing to make a connection between what's gone before and your post, which you've clearly put serious effort in. 21b seems to me to be making the point that what matters is the state of their own planning and development, not the nationwide (or even global) situation. I'm sure he'd qualify that in the sense that no line is an island, and with the decreasing heavy industry capability in this country there are contractors who must remain healthy, otherwise we're all in trouble, but to a good extent its surely true.

Its just that I don't see how you get from there, which isn't that unreasonable a position, to a belief that the majority of posters don't entertain financial concerns about the future. Its hard to believe, after umpteen years of recession and contraction, not to mention the number of recessions we older folk have lived through before, that anyone doesn't entertain financial and related concerns for the future. There are two things that could stop any preserved line just like that - running out of money and running out of volunteers. But for instance while I've said that, looking at the numbers of physical locomotives, there doesn't appear to be a medium term prospect of running out of steam locomotives if we have the money to repair them, I don't believe I've said anything about the actual money. At least I hope not, because I'm utterly ignorant on the subject of preservation finances.

I've never come across an organisation that didn't make at least some wasteful mistakes, at least with hindsight, but I've also never come across an organisation that didn't seek to reduce them. But the other point I attempted to make is that a preserved railway is a bit different from a conventional business in that its aim is simply to be there next year, next decade, next century even, carrying on the things that it aims and desires to do. I haven't bought shares in a locomotive company in the hope of ever getting a return, or selling them or anything. To all intents and purposes I just gave the money away with the sole benefit of feeling like a microscopic part of the preservation of steam railways. That's not why I would purchase shares in any other kind of business!

 

Is the Gios who is such a Cassandra on this topic the same Gios who, reporting on the 82045 AGM, breathlessly wrote "Excellent turnout - finances healthy - boiler appeal in excess of £30k after one month - [various large bits of metal] Money in place - Membership increasing" etc etc?

Now I realise that 82045 isn't the whole of preservation, or even the whole of the SVR. But I wonder how, seeing a project that is clearly doing so well at both an engineering and a financial level, why there is quite the sense of despair about the whole movement?

I sometimes think that, being so close to our own railways, we too easily spot the areas that need development and forget just how far we have come. It's easy to see a leaking gutter on a station or an out of traffic loco and forget that fifty years ago, the station had no roof or windows and the loco was languishing in a scrapyard! Someone on the Bluebell Matters thread posted a collection of photos from the 1970s and 1980s: comparing them to now, we are twice as long; we have more vintage carriages in traffic; we have two extra stations; Horsted Keynes has an entirely new replacement canopy and series of buildings on platform 1/2; our engine shed at Sheffield Park now has walls (!) rather than just a roof; we have our operational vintage carriages under cover and a much enhanced museum. That sounds like progress to me. Even the loco situation needs to be put in context: yes we have been short, but we have nonetheless been able to hire what we needed from elsewhere, so clearly the movement as a whole has engines available - at the right price.

I'm not saying everything is rosy: it is easy to find things that need attending to. But heritage railways have shown themselves to be remarkably resilient for more than fifty years, and I am sure they will continue to survive and develop in the future.

Tom

 

Tom,

I always try and avoid mentioning specific projects or railways, but as you mention it, indeed one and the same. Proof if anything that I exist and am more than just a doom and gloom merchant or a keyboard protester. Also illustrates I am prepared to put money, time and skills into the service of what I consider to be a worthwhile, commendable and well managed project. There are many other excellent examples up and down the country. Don't make the mistake of assuming everything in our complex movement fits one model.

My professional experience is in a completely different sphere.

I have made all the useful contributions I can to this thread. Everybody is entitled to their views on the current situation, and I accept mine are in a significant minority. Thank you to those who made interesting contributions. Nobody as yet has attempted to make a serious attempt to show my concerns and observations unfounded. I remain with serious concerns about the greater movements general direction of travel.

 

Gios,
A number of people have made serious attempts to discuss your concerns, which actually I think are far from a minority view, however I would characterise your comments as generally pessimistic and others as broadly optimistic. However, you do keep shifting the target a little in your debate. I think the last sentence of the first paragraph is precisely the mistake that some of us thought you yourself were making from your posts - "Don't make the mistake of assuming everything in our complex movement fits one model.

JimC defended my "unworthy" post better than I could, he was precisely correct in the point I was making, one which is actually aligned with your "Don't make the mistake..." comment. It was precisely this knowledge that led me to comment that it didn't much matter to me how many locomotives were available for traffic on other railways (except that the fewer there are the more we make in hire fees).

Organisations of every kind are prone to make sub-optimal decisions (of the kind that end up costing money) when faced with things that they don't have expertise in, and one of the things I have long thought we could do better at is tapping into the expertise within the membership. It is a fair bet that for most eventualities there is a genuinely knowledgeable person within the membership. How do we identify them? How do we build a register of talents? Having said that I know of a number of occasions where a genuine (and known) expert existed within the organisation's membership, but couldn't or wouldn't help...so it isn't just about knowing you have one, they also have to want to help.

One other factor that must not be forgotten is that sometimes waste is an inevitable outcome of the decisions that are made in good faith. Sometimes "waste" is the outcome of a decision that was the least worst option. There is quite a lot of "least worst option" choosing that goes on.

 

What I'm hearing though is people saying that the movement is in trouble. But no-one has yet provided any statistics. For example, is the total number of loco-miles greater now than, say, 25 years ago, or less, or the same? Is the average yearly mileage per loco going up or down? Those sorts of statistics would show whether restoration capacity was keeping up with demand for locos. I'm not in total denial about whether there is a problem, but so far, no-one has been able to conclusively demonstrate that there is a problem - or, for that matter, that there isn't.

There is also a lot of talk about costs (especially loco overhaul costs), but so far no-one has come up with an actual cost-cutting suggestion. (I suppose actually the cheapest way to mass-transport people between A and B would be by bus - apart from anything else, the council picks up those pesky infrastructure costs by repairing the roads!)

Finally, I'd try and drag this back to income. You can cut costs, or you can increase revenue. Everyone seems to focused on the former, without thinking about where the opportunities are for the latter.

In short - I'm not denying that there could be a problem. But from this thread, it hasn't been proven; and I haven't seem many tangible solutions for either reducing costs or increasing revenue!

Tom

 

Having just caught up with this thread I wonder how many posters have identified that the question is part of the schizophrenic nature of the "beast" in that most heritage lines operate on 2 levels - one portion dedicated to / part of the area in which it operates and another at the national level where it is subject to the rules and regulations of a "standard" operation which sometimes clashes with the "local' element.

In fairness some of the bigger railways such as the Bluebell; the KWVR; the SVR; are big enough to be a major part of their local area and therefore receive much support from local funding resources that helps to maintain assets such as infrastructure and rolling stock whilst being able to offer training (through apprenticeships) and employment to the local population in return but the smaller lines without this support need to look elsewhere.

An interesting recent example of this was the hire of the Railmotor by the Churnet Valley Railway when the SVR decided that the cost of hire would NOT be covered by any extra income whereas the Churnet Valley Railway took the risk in order to raise its profile and more than covered the hire cost thus gaining in 2 ways - profit from hire and raised profile. From the Churnet Valley Railway point of view this is part of their difficulty in providing a local amenity for the benefit of the local community whilst also being able to offer a "product" that attracts people into the area whether as a day-tripper or as a holiday-maker.

Yet again the SVR provides some evidence whereby the recent flood-enforced closure actually cost many businesses within the Severn Valley area to lose much of their income and - I wonder - how many of them were forced to close -permanently.

The main difficulty - as I see it from looking out of the box - is that whilst railways are looking to be an important part of the local community they also have to attract custom from a national market which may identify the particular line in a particular way. The case of the Bodmin & Wenford Railway with it's iconic operation of the Beattie "Well" tanks or the Isle of Wight Railway with its iconic 02 and "Terriers" are cases in point where the line could attract visitors based on its motive power - both to its own and the area's benefit. In that context it will be interesting to see how the IoWSR markets and operates its pair of Ivatt 2-6-2Ts once these become available to traffic. As a personal example I travelled from Southport in 2011 for a photo charter in which the travel / accommodation costs were greater than the charter cost and am still trying to arrange a return as a holidaymaker once I know that the "Terriers" will be at work and - again - once the Ivatts become available.

Here again another factor comes into play as the above example indicates that monies can be earned from charters which tend to be operated in support of "guest" locomotives. Again a recent example is the Llangollen Railway which has "returned" 1638 and 5322 to old haunts with a Croess Newydd Gala; at one level it appeals to the "local" community whilst attracting visitors to the community and at another level is funded in part by the charters which I understand are being held during the forthcoming week. Thus here again is another aspect of the heritage movement - the transfer of locomotives between heritage lines - but this also depends on there being a pool of locomotives whose owners are willing to undertake the necessary arrangements - including cost.

The Heritage Movement is a strange beast - possibly reflecting the nature / eccentricity of its main participants - that provides a great deal of pleasure and in which cost is a secondary aspect to the "volunteer" element of engaging in an activity for the sheer joy of doing it whilst providing pleasure to many who are prepared to pay monies in return. Many heritage lines, however, have now grown beyond the "playing with trains" stage to become businesses operating in a commercial world in which the assets (locomotives; rolling stock and infrastructure) need to viewed in a different way that recognises when to repair, when to replace and when to overhaul specific items as part of a framework for which monies need to be available.

Sadly that mix of enthusiasm without commercial appreciation and commercial needs at the expense of enthusiasm is the one element that cannot be changed yet where the main problems of the heritage movement in the future will have the greatest effect. Whilst I hope that the "British" willingness to "compromise" will come into play that is not to say that the future is still full of problems as the current WSR / WSRA disagreement bears testimony when human nature - rather than commercial logic - is at the centre of the discussion.

 

This sounds fine in theory and I'm aware of locomotives for which this has happened, which has ensured their overhaul where the previous owning group may not have been in a position to do so. However it also increases the potential liabilities of the railway taking ownership, particularly if the loco does not fulfil its expected nominal 10 year usage period following a substantial investment in overhauling it, or suffers some catastrophic and unexpected failure. There are locos around the country which are "railway owned" and have not turned a wheel for years, in some cases decades, not because there is no will to do so but because the railway concerned simply can't afford it, or doesn't need it, or both - often because a cheaper-to-fix loco is available instead. Against this background, if I was the owner of a loco requiring an expensive overhaul which I could not afford to fund myself, I would be very wary of handing it over to a heritage railway owning/operating company as I would not be convinced this would be in the loco's best interests to ensure its future. I might feel more inclined to sell it to a wealthy individual, form a specific trust for the loco or stuff and mount it and leave it for my relatives to worry about when I'm gone.

 

Indeed tourist railways tend to suffer from a tendency to hang onto stuff (not just motive power) past its time when it needs to be moved on either for renovation and further use or the gas axe. Apart from being an affront to the eye in some locations, it represents resourcess tied up which could be put to the maintenance or restoration of other objects.

P.H.

 

Paul,
You miss my point, I think. If we consider the Bluebell as an example of a railway which owns more locos than it probably will ever need, you have cases like 488 which will probably only ever be restored if a wealthy benefactor gives them a huge sum for the purpose. It is a loco whose fortunes would probably be improved if there was a "488 trust" fighting its corner, and there is no reason why such a trust could not still sign up to keeping the loco at the Bluebell in the longer term. Nobody is calling this loco an eyesore, or calling for it to be scrapped, and it isn't really using resources other than storage space - it just isn't going anywhere. [I use 488 as a handy example; I'm not involved in the Bluebell and I apologise if there is a fund quietly accumulating for this loco!]

Your response to my comment, coupled with your earlier post, seems to suggest that you believe the host railways should take ownership of locos (and other assets), use them until it becomes too difficult or expensive to continue to do so, and then throw them away. That is hardly "preservation" but as some lines become more commercial in their outlook there is always going to be the temptation to do this, but this is precisely why I wouldn't trust a lot of them with my pride and joy!

A heritage railway colleague recently expressed to me the view that the 'BR pritvatisation model' of an infrastructure owner/maintainer, separate operating company and separate ROSCOs is possibly the best model for a heritage railway, and I have to say I can see the merit in this view - which appears to be the exact opposite of what you are proposing.

 

I am afraid I don't as much miss your point as not accept it.
As far as the "B.R. Privatisation model" is concerned I am sure the heritage railway model actually provided the inspiration for this. In other words a multiplicity of different groups all wanting their share of the loot, all wanting their profit, which the politicians seemed to think was a good thing. It takes the besetting railway sin of departmentalism and makes it into a formal structure whilst the passenger has no option but to pay for all of this. (Incidentally I am not decrying privatisation as such, merely how it was done).

The heritage railway "scene" cannot put the "squeeze" on its passengers in quite the same way so something has to give for they are never going to be truly profitable. If we are talking "preservation" in the museum sense then there is only room for one example of each type to be maintained simply for display, for example, 488. Everything else has got to sing for its supper and if it doesn't it will decay again eventually.

Next weekend sees the return of a newly re-boilered locomotive on demonstration goods trains with passenger trains to be handled by its older sister also re-boilered. There is a new covered facility which not only shelters restored stock but also will house the unrestored stuff so it does not deteriorate further. This is what needs to happen generally on the standard gauge (as it has for years on the narrow gauge) and is why I wish for unified ownership as soon as possible.

PH

 

Paul,

I get a sense you are letting a theory get in the way of what is actually happening on standard gauge railways.

Firstly, to take the Bluebell as an example - 488, 75027 and 27 are all owned by the PLC (as are about 2/3 of all locos on the railway) and for various reasons, all have been out of traffic for a long period of time. Meanwhile, 592 and 847 are owned by separate groups, and both are in traffic … So ownership doesn't seem a guarantee of a quick return to traffic. Condition and usefulness have far more to do with it.

As for selling redundant assets to free up resources that can be better used elsewhere: how does that help?

SupposeRailway A has an engine out of traffic and with no immediate likelihood of restoration. I can see three scenarios:

Option 1, it sells it for scrap. That probably generates a low five figure sum - once. Not especially helpful, and not really preservation either.

Option 2, it sells to Railway B who themselves don't have the resources to overhaul it. All that does is shuffle money round, without actually solving any problem (i.e. without returning the loco to traffic).

Option 3, it sells to Railway B who have the resources to restore and use it. That's presumably a good thing, but actually - how many railways out there are simultaneously rich in restoration capacity and short on unrestored locos? Not many. Even your beloved IoWSR and the various transfers that saw the E1 and Ivatts go to Havenstreet: quite a good deal for enriching the historical authenticity of the IoWSR fleet, but you could argue that it has simply pushed the restoration of some of the unrestored steam engines over there further back down the queue. Not that I am criticising the IoWSR, but it's a rare case and still didn't actually do anything to increase the net overhaul capacity of the movement.

Tom

 

Unified ownership may look good on the outside and there is merit in it in some cases but looking at from another point of view, many locos and items of rolling stock are funded by groups and individuals who have access to funds/fund raising not available to the host railway. Would a person like JH fund the locos he has if they were owned by someone else? Would an owning group work their backsides off raising funds for their project under the same circumstances? I recall reading an article by Andrew Naish (I think) in which the author put forward the view that loco owners subsidised heritage railways by not charging a realistic rate for loco hire. He pointed out that many privately owned locos never earned sufficient funds for the next overhaul through steaming fees alone and owners filled the gap by raising extra funds through other activities. I suspect the situation has changed little since the article was penned and in which case, railways taking on the ownership of the private fleet - assuming they have the capital to do so - could find their loco running costs increase as they wouldn't have access to the funds raised by the private owners. There is also the view that dedicated owner groups are prepared to take on some schemes that are not financially attractive to a railway - such as a loco with limited traffic potential - and thus get things running that would otherwise continue to languish in a siding. As owning groups get older though I do think that ownership will transfer gradually to the host railways as a natural process. I see no point in speeding things up.