Motive Power

Acountants might take a different view but Engineers know that such people are wrong!

 

This accountant was considering replying on exactly that point! Not being an engineer, I have often mused on such key questions as what happens with the part of a machine most likely to wear out - I suspect that the "Christmas Tree" will do well to make it as far as being sold with such parts intact, depending on position of storage, of course, (more complete locos are those stored furthest from the depot, I am told!).

I look at some "vital spares" and wonder if the similar items in use can ever be so badly damaged as to be harder to repair than the strategic spares - especially when the once instance of the item I am thinking of being so badly damaged, none of several potential spares turned out to be the right design!

On a more serious point, if spares are worth keeping, in this day and age, for a number of reasons, leaving them strewn about either "on public display" or stored in rusting body-shells is not a wise means of storage - if they are worth keeping, this accountant can see the wisdom of paying the price of storing them securely and readily accessible by only the right people!

Steven

 

Indeed! This argument might even be extended to ask how much does it cost to store those larger "vital spares" v the cost of re-manufacture should they ever be needed again. E.g. Just how many spare bogie frames or engine blocks are ever likely to be needed?

 

An oft-overlooked aspect of the storage v manufacture discussion is that product specifications can change over time both in terms of material specifications and fittings so that decisions are made in blind sight rather than hind sight. Whilst referring to the jocular "Cadillac" song [ in which a factory worker builds his own Cadillac by "stealing" the parts from the factory where he works, only to find that design / specification changes over the years means that the parts no longer fit together] there have been concerns that some steam locomotive problems arise from such changes in material specifications over time resulting in "metal interface" concerns.

Sadly this latter problem has rarely been discussed at length but it is one that I feel needs some investigation - especially since manufacturing costs are both expensive for small scale production and time-consuming at the expense of operating the locomotive(s) to gain income for future maintenance / overhauls.

 

Some groups do indeed buy locos for spares, strip them and sell the body shell for scrap. Others don't.
What I was really referring to is small restoration projects that collapse. One person's pride & joy restoration prospect only becomes someone else`s spares when the owner gives up and recognise that they no longer have enough time/money/co-workers.

Jon

 

Assuming that locos are in in reasonable condition when purchased, not many. Given the kind of workload to be expected in preservation, with proper maintenance such big items should seldom be required and if they ever are, bogies and even engine blocks can, in extremis, be reconditioned. Moreover, such large items do not require sophisticated storage facilities. The "problem" spares are electrical items and the little ones, particularly control and small power unit components. These are much more likely to go wrong, are very expensive to re-manufacture (if you can find anyone capable of doing it), will deteriorate if not stored in suitable conditions and are more likely to "walk" if not secured. On the other hand, they don't take up much room. But they need to be kept in a secure, dry building or container, rather than in a rotting body shell.

 

My first car

 

The biggest problem i think is that to properly look after diesels and DMU'S you need different facilities and many preserved railways just do not have them, you can not service a deisel in a steam shed and not expect to have ash and dirt get into bits you dont want them to get in to, then you have another problem, shared facilities, if you only have one pit, and there is either a bogie less coach ,or an wheel less engine over it, that pit is not availible . then how many railways can afford to provide a deisel shed when most of the membership would scream spent it on the steam stock .
Deisels are an important part of most preserved railways, but are largely unloved, until the steam engine fails and you have to substitute a deisel to run the service, you can not run a timetabled service that is timed at 25mph with a 15mph 08, except if you have no other option of course ,

 

I think the SVR are getting a diesel shed built at Kidderminster aren't they? A lot of railways don't have steam sheds, let alone diesel ones.

 

The SVR are getting a diesel shed at Kidderminster. We also have a pitted road in the cariage shed for day to day maintenance of rolling stock in addition to the repair facilities at Kidderminster and Bewdley. Lucky or prudent - I will let you decide.

 

I don't think that anyone is arguing that railways which do not want to operate diesels should be forced to do so. My contention is that circumstances are changing in such a way that, for practical, economic and other reasons, most railways will want/need to make more use of them and that will secure the future of many preserved diesels.
Many railways have inadequate maintenance facilities of any sort, but this dos not prevent them from operating. Many heritage railways have operated diesels alongside steam for many years, yet this has not, AFAIK, caused serious problems. The issue of pits is, surely, a red herring. If your pit is occupied by wheel-less locos or bogie-less coaches, then it is not available for the use of steam locos either and, in my experience, most steam locos require access to a pit more frequently than most diesels.
Your second paragraph appears to contradict the first. Diesels are, indeed, an important part of most preserved railways, no doubt they are unloved by the more narrow-minded steam enthusiasts, who presumably see them, (wrongly) as a threat, but they are certainly loved by the growing community of diesel enthusiasts, who will, and in some cases already do, support the provision of dedicated diesel facilities.
Returning to the issue of changing circumstances, I mentioned earlier in this thread the situation at the Bluebell. Until very recently, that railway was considered the most holy shrine of steam; the very thought of diesels running on the hallowed track between SP and HK would have been considered heresy! But circumstances have changed and the management of the Bluebell have, very bravely and sensibly IMO, moved with the times.

 

Most preserved diesels exist only because of the steam locos.
They can never take their place as the lines ,facilities and volunteers are there almost totally because of Steam and they will always be in a secondary role or as a standby or shunter.
If steam ,lets imagine, god forbid, got banned by the EU, diesel preservation would go down the plug-hole with it.
It's a fact of life and it does mean there is little future for a lot of the preserved diesel locos.
That's a realistic view from someone who never knew steam on BR and was and is a die-hard diesel fan.

 

Quite agree, Martin. In the late '50s and early 6os it was widely believed that attempting to maintain diesels alongside steam was the cause of widespread problems and you only had to visit places such as Stratford MPD at that time, as I was lucky enough to do on several occaisions, to see that there might be some basis for that belief. However, I have been told since, by people who were actually involved, that it was often a cover story to mask other problems, such as staff trying to adapt to new and wholly unfamiliar work practices, not always successfully!
I see that Reading General is on his hobby horse again! I suppose that , with a name like that, it is natural that he should be inclined to generalise, but I can tell him that there is at least one large and growing HR which successfully operates most of its services with diesels, including, currently, one of ours. Perhaps he should get out more-try going west, young man, to America, where he would see that, in spite of a severe shortage of steam, railway preservation still survives, thanks to diesels.

 

Ignore the point and attack the poster!
I think you'd find that the heritage scene would be a shadow of itself if there was no steam .

 

No, I'm not attacking you, just trying to get you to see my point of view! We are involved in a debate in public and in that situation you must accept mild (hopefully!) criticism. Remember the old adage- "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"
Anyway, we appear to be getting near common ground. I absolutely agree that railway preservation would be much poorer without steam, though I am certain that it would survive. Of course it's purely hypothetical, because I don't think that the EU, even at its maddest, would impose an outright ban on steam, but we need to watch them constantly, as also our homegrown environmental zealots.

 

YOUR Railway may be an exception , but in general if it wasn't for steam there would be little diesel preservation. It would not be the case that most railways would just continue with diesel were there no steam. Most operations would need to be severely curtailed.
In other words, diesel preservation flourishes because of steam preservation and would suffer badly were steam not available in most cases.

(calling my opinion a "hobby horse" IS an attack whether you meant it or not)

 

If the heritage railway referred is one of the two I'm thinking of, aren't they far more successful when they occasionally bring in steam locos, and aren't they both in the position of not actually having any working steam locos based on them? Success can be a relative term but I suspect both have a fraction of the passenger numbers enjoyed by nearby lines that are essentially 100% steam.

I don't believe that the fact that relatively few people nowadays can remember steam in everyday service is actually that important - its attraction is that it is so different to diesels and much more demonstrably elemental. That is not to say that diesels don't have a part to play on heritage railways, they do, but they are the tail and should not be wagging the dog!

 

I seem to remember that the question was "what use do diesels have on heritage railways?", not what part of a dog's anatomy they represent. Some people think that they are the dog's bo+++++ks, but I wouldn't go that far! Seriously, I get the impression that what really gets some contributors to this thread worked-up (inflamed?) is fear that the use of diesels presents a threat to steam. I don't see the logic in that. In a growing and changing market, they can complement steam operations and that is why they will be used increasingly to provide services on heritage railways. Not to the same extent on all railways and not necessarily to the exclusion of steam, but that's the way it is moving and will continue.
As to which railway I was talking about, if it's in East Anglia then the answer is yes. I don't doubt that their passenger numbers are higher on the few days that they run steam, or that longer-established neighbouring railways achieve higher passenger numbers. That, however, is only part of the story. I do know that one of their neighbours, in spite of its higher passenger numbers, is experiencing serious financial problems, a fact which I gleaned from that railway's most recent journal. Sheer passenger numbers are not the only, or the most important, measure of success or failure. It might also be worth considering why the railways that you alluded to, operate so little steam. Perhaps it is because the cost and availability of steam locos is such that steam cannot be financially justified. If that is so, then the steady enlargement of the HR sector will only make steam a less viable option and oblige railways to consider the alternative.