True Preservation

Point taken.

 

200 days a year for one loco might be a stretch, but a railway paying £200 per day for 200 days a year isn't (regardless how many engines they hire).
What it needs to be balanced against is revenue..

If they pay £200 per day, but earn in excess of £10k.. It's not that bad really..., but if they are only earning £180 they may want to reconsider.

I have always been interesting to see how railways finances look in January and November, when the mainline engines come home for winter, but only 3-4 people sit in the train.

 

I'd be amazed if any loco on a heritage railway is doing 200 days per year. There aren't that many railways that even operate for 200 days, and those that do aren't the kinds of railways that typically only have one or two locos and use it every day. 50 - 100 days per loco is more likely.

The other thing that everyone forgets is the mileage. There is a natural tendency to think "it costs £x to do the overhaul, divide by ten and that is what I need to make each year". But that is true only up to a certain point. If for example, you did run 200 days in a year on a typical heritage daily diagram of 60 - 80 miles, then you are looking at 120,000 - 160,000 miles over ten years. No loco will do that; somewhere nearer 1/3 (for a pre-grouping loco) to about 1/2 (for a modern loco) would be more typical. So if you could find a railway able to give you 200 days per year, you'd be looking at a heavy general after about 3 - 4 years, not 10!

The economics of loco hire is more complex than people imagine. In part, it helps even out peaks and troughs in supply by the "home" railway, helping to open up additional resources (time and money). In that sense, it could be argued that matching up the locomotive need of e.g. the Bluebell and the locomotive restoration capacity of e.g. the Furness Trust is good for both parties. Certainly, without the hire, we might be very tight for locos or, conceivably, having to run the home fleet to a level of mileage such that they wouldn't last ten years, which means requiring more restoration capacity. So I am not sure what the problem is, in the end having mixed economy of company locos, locos owned by closely allied groups, and the availability to hire in external locos when needed, is probably a more stable situation than relying solely on one source of locos. To me it simply looks like the workings of a mature market. After all, even if the ten-year cash cost of hiring a loco is more than restoring one yourself, the opportunity cost of not being able to run a service due to a lack of motive power is even greater.

Tom

 

Not getting cross, just amused that actually probably both of us can end up dragging about a thread into a discussion like this, in fact probably most months since I've joined

 

Which was exactly my point! Some on here seems to bemoan the fact that railways are using motive power too big for the traffic on offer. One obvious solution is to increase the traffic to a level commensurate with the size of locos - which would take away some of the heritage atmosphere, especially if the other facilities developed to suit. (Even if the traffic could be developed in that way - and God knows most railways are trying).

The other possibility is use smaller locos, which is what some seem to want. But actually that isn't a real possibility: the small locos in the main simply don't exist in big enough numbers.

Tom

 

Before Agecroft No 1 came along MoSI's Planet was doing anything between 100-150 days a year (and that's before you count specials and hires)

Getting back on topic it depends what qualities one is using for authenticity. I'm surprised the Worth Valley has not been mentioned. It seems to do exactly what it sets out to do and enough things to keep interest for passenger and enthusiast alike.

Duncan

 

Some figures being quoted in this thread aren't even close to the mark. Trying to do calculations using these figures is a pointless exercise.

 

Why do you think that operating costs are significantly different for a "smaller" loco as compared to a "larger" one??

I'd be amazed if a railway is only paying £200 per day.

 

Regarding true Preservation

On Wednesday
I should be driving a train which was used on the last day of services on BR on the exact section of line we now operate on.
Into a station which it ran into in 1985 on the same down line
The number of passengers will be around the same numbers in 1985 ( apart from the last day)
We normally get some local residents using the line to go shopping on these days
Also get more than a handful of families turn up with Granddad or Dad saying to their children this is what I used to commute on.

Line is the Spa Valley and train is Oxted unit 1317

Our Class 10 Loco Colonel Tomline is in use about 20 days per month, its file of daily drivers prep sheets is a very thick pile so I might tot up the days its was used over the past year.


Friday evening a LB to Uckfield driver slowed his train down so we paralleled the last three quarters of a mile with him into Eridge. All the passengers on the Southern service were looking and waving across to us and we were to them in return. I wonder how many how many on the Southern train would liked to have the opportunity to buy beers and get a curry on their train as we could on ours. Not true preservation I suppose as the peak hour 33 hauled LBs to Uckfields never had Buffets. 33063 was making same noise as it did then on our train later however leaving Eridge and Forge Farm Level crossing.

Brian

 

Where do I start?

Firstly the fewer number of wheels the fewer number of bearings to maintain, tyres to turn etc. As a consequence easier, quicker and cheaper overhauls. This is particularly the case where dealing with express sized wheels.

Secondly, the fewer the wheels, the fewer bearings to lubricate.

Thirdly, fuel consumption. Lugging around un-necessary weight burns more fuel. Quite apart from the tare weight, five or so tons of coal plus 3,500 gallons of water cost money to haul. Leaving aside rude comments about GWR trains never being able to pass a water column(!) no fireman will desist from leaving the shed without a full bunker or a brimming tank simply because it is un-necessary and costing money.

This is an extreme example but the coal consumption of an A1x on the IOWSR was quoted to me as 10cwt each day on the "timetabled goods" and up to about a ton on the passenger workings. There are stretches of 1 in 68 and 1 in 70 which are encountered. Few places would be able to match this but it shows by keeping tare weight and size of motive power down, money can saved. Which heritage railway does not need to save money?

PH

 

aren't your first and second point the same or did I miss something?

 

In one way, we need ask the Mods to split off the "Railway Economics" arguments, but in another, they are the perfect illustration of exactly why true preservation is so difficult (there are other reasons as well, such as few of the Standard Gauge lines which have survived ever having decent sized MPDs located on them, or carriage workshops - indeed, probably the East Lancs is the only one that had!)

Firstly on Paulh's general point of loco size, apart from authenticity, there is another factor which should have brought this sharply into focus - the fact that coal prices have more than tripled in the past decade. Whilst always a major cost for many, it has now probably become the biggest single cost for most stand gauge lines, often after labour depending on the size of their staff. The nature of heritage line operations means that getting a loco into steam and keeping it in steam probably amount to getting on for 50% of coal usage as opposed to actual consumption whilst moving and hauling a train. I an neither an engineer nor a locoman, but have spoken to both enough to know that there can be a pay off between a small loco working hard and a large loco barely working at all when it comes to mechanical wear and fuel consumption - hence, to actually pull the train, an over sized loco can be little more expensive in the long run than one nearer its limit (and, indeed, BR frequently used locos such as Class 4s and 5s on much shorter trains than you would see them working on many heritage railways).

A major factor in coal usage is whether the firebox is narrow or wide - and most wide fireboxes tend to be on the largest of locos (with exceptions). I don't think any heritage line probably places the demands in terms of load or speed that sees a wide firebox essential to provide steam at the necessary rate, so using a wide firebox loco can be a major factor in coal bills with little operational gain - which is not to say there might not be a commercial gain.

When it comes to loco costs and hire fees, Pete was I am sure using a theoretical example to prove a point. I have said before (often in similar discussions) a number of factors mean that there is no such thing as "the cost of an overhaul" and it is not universally accurate to state "it will be £ 1/2 million plus at the end of every 10 years". The cost depends on the age of the loco, how long since a major boiler rebuild was undertaken (and the extent of work done), usage (there is mechanical wear on both mechanical parts and various aspects of the boiler) but also very much depends upon how and by who the work is done (mix of own staff, contractors and of course volunteers).

There are a number of Railways which run daily basically Easter to either the end of September or October, and even with a few days off in April or May, if every weekend is run all year, running daily for 6 months and weekends the other 6 will get over 200 days. That is not, of course, the same as individual locos running 200 days but in 2013 on the NYMR, 75029 would be heading that way and 61264 wasn't far behind - 75029 did around 13,500 miles and as the average daily diagram is 72 miles, that suggests nearly 200 days. Over the years, I have done much work on the economics of locomotive overhaul and usage, including making a business case for bank funding to speed overhauls which was agreed at the lowest point of general bank willingness to lend last year, so I can say that a Railway owning instead of hiring definitely can "wash it's face", being be no more expensive in the short run, tending to provide savings in the long run and also has advantages of security and control over assets - but I know there are those who don't accept these conclusions and the economics of having a workshop dealing with a fleet of just 2 or 3 owned locos (when that is all the operation requires) can be different from a fleet and requirement of twice that size.

Steven

 

Yes, I am afraid you have missed something. One deals with overhaul and maintenance costs whilst the other deals with consumable stores.
This is a good time to commend "Bean-counter"'s post No. 153 which sets out the issues with his normal clarity. His is one of the few railways with the length and (in places) severe gradients to justify large motive power.

PH

 

Thanks for clarifying that

 

and surely the point / problem is that most people remember a point in time that they try to recreate without realising or appreciating that once the specific "point in time" had passed the railway would continue progressing ands creating further (and different) "points in time"; in recreating a particular "point in time" the heritage movement has to allow the recreated model model(s) their own opportunities to progress and create further "points in time" whether by virtue of motive power (e.g. diesel locomotives) or by new buildings designed to meet current standards of construction and access (e.g for disabled visitors).

 

Fair call Fred, which brings the whole thing full circle, are we not now just preserving preservation? if you get my drift. That "point in time" that you mention is, probably, to most of us, somewhere between 1955 to 1968 and for a few more years until modernisation wiped away the "traditional" railway. Generally speaking, we wanted to save and perpetuate what we were familiar with and didn't want to say goodbye to. The younger - and increasingly important - younger generation of "preservationists" will have their own vision of what constitutes true preservation and how it should be portrayed; "that's the wrong shade of black!!" - I can hear it now!!

As I said, change is inevitable, ergo, true preservation becomes even harder to achieve. A main line without a semaphore, with CWR, bus shelter stations, "green tunnels", over preserved heritage line stations that are but a silhouette of the "real thing" - whatever that ever was. There are exceptions to the forgoing and they do provide a real flavour of the past, some have been mentioned on this thread and I'm sure there are plenty more out there; but, it is a slow and sure accretion of excess. This, of course, is what the paying "public" want to see, if so, well, we just have to accept that as the true cost of our fix of nostalgia.

This is not decry the unbelievable achievements of the railway preservationists and heritage railways, it is after all an evolutionary process that must accommodate many criteria for satisfying the general (paying) public at one end and the dyed in the wool rivet counter at the other.

The reality is probably, we all see "true preservation" every day, it may be compromised from your "vision" but, it's the only one that we have - in this moment of time. My advice, relish it while you can - it will all change sooner than you think!!

Cheers

Alan

 

I shall go (briefly) back on thread: You cannot recreate a picture-perfect bit of the past. We tried at Mangapps and got quite close, but it cannot be perfect.
Let me explain; we acquired the station building from Laxfield, Mid-Suffolk Light Railway. We had a location, near the outer end of our line, which in topographical terms resembled the original site in North Suffolk. We added the few items of infrastructure necessary to recreate a reasonable impression of the original, but then came the problem- the original platform face was a vertical brick wall, whearas current railway standards for new construction demand proper surfacing of the platform edge and a substantial oversail.
Nevertheless, we had something which, though imperfect, looked tolerably like the original- but we had no suitable loco with which to create an "original" train. We overcame this, for just one month in the early 2000s, by hiring the North Norfolk Railway's J15, and it looked fantastic. Trouble was, the cost of hire and, more especially, transport, left us barely breaking even. Indeed, without photo charters we would have made a thumping loss.
Still, we (and, I hope, our customers) enjoyed it so much that we would like to have had another go, but by the time we were ready the loco was out of ticket as, I believe, it still is and is subject to an appeal to finance it's overhaul. Which raises the question, what happened to the substantial sum raised in fees from us and several subsequent hirers? Anyway, I gather that the J15's owners intend to restore it to it's original GER appearance, which rules it out for us.
However, we have a station which is a very close approximation of the original and that, I think, is important. It is inevitable that we must drift away from the ideal of "true" preservation in many areas, but should remain faithful to that principle wherever possible, otherwise we become mere theme parks.

Moving completely off topic (well, almost everyone else has!), I have no doubt at all about the desirability of railways owning their own locos. After 15 years of expensive hiring and nearly being left without a steam loco, we bought our own and have never regretted it. In it's first ten years in our ownership it has paid for it's first 10 year overhaul and almost repaid it's capital cost. And we can be confident that we've always got it!

 

photo please Falman