Llangollen Railway

It’s not all one way though. Yes, loco owners are subsidising railways by providing a loco at less than the full maintenance cost. OTOH, the railways are providing - well, a railway. That has value to the loco owner, since without a railway there would be nowhere to run, and hence no income at all. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

Tom

 

Are the HRA talking to the Government regarding possible HR lines which could be part of its"build back better" initiative?? Your post is prescient!!

 

Yes, though it is slightly ironic to make that point in a thread about a line that has failed financially! Lines also have their looming financial pressures: the difference is probably just that while a worn-out firebox that has finally got to the end of residual life left by BR will stop a loco dead, the p/way equivalent may be disguiseable to a degree by imposition of speed restrictions, or maybe (largely unseen by casual observers) increased spring failures, tyre wear etc. But the big bills are looming for railways just as surely as they are for locos.

Tom

 

It's simple economics, railways don't have to pay what an engine requires to survive while there is an oversupply of engines. Additionally railways most definitely take advantage of affiliated groups who want their engine to run at that railway. There are a great many examples of problem caused when the relationship has become too close. When Foxcote first ran at Llangollen, it ran for a steaming fee of £50 a day, no great wonder 7822 has run out of money every overhaul, with nothing set aside for the inevitable new firebox.

The oversupply of engines will however inevitably come to an end, the question is, what will be left? New builds and recent restorations? Engines with owners willing to inject mountains of their own cash such as Jeremy Hoskins. As the saying goes, the only way to make a small fortune from a steam engine is to start with a large fortune!

 

The fore going points are all true, which is why people continue to advocate hiring out engines that are temporarily or permanently surplus to their needs whe effectively the owners are gifting a portion of any residual ex BR life to another user. They would be better off storing it out of use and not having the nuisance of having to support it way from home.









i'll

 

Which is the biggest money drainer - running the loco and getting steaming fees in which don't quite cover the wear and tear that will need replacing at the next overhaul, or having a loco stored, earning nothing and gradually deteriorating that way?

 

Deterioration would depend on how the loco is stored, I would have thought!

 

True. But to create an example - Railway A has a need for 3 operable steam locos throughout the summer, and so decides one of their locos is surplus. Railway B doesn't currently have any operable locos, and so enquires as to whether they could borrow the surplus loco from Railway B so they can also run a steam locomotive. Is it right / fair / sporting / insert other adjective for Railway A to deny Railway B the opportunity to have an operable steam locomotive because Railway A is wanting to get all of the remaining life out of their currently spare loco, and as such would rather keep it stored out of use for a summer than supporting a fellow heritage railway?

 

Did you read my previous point about the fixed costs an engine incurs every 10 years, due to both statutory requirements and inevitable deterioration, and the need to maximize earnings while the ticket is running?

It is wise for locos to not necessarily rush their overhauls, but to time their return to coincide with something else coming out of traffic, slotting in to keep the railway supplied with motive power, but not over supplied. A small amount of overlap with the outgoing engine is wise, allowing for sorting out teething problems, the premature stopping of the outgoing engine due to failure, or all being well, a better gala billing at low cost to the railway with both locomotives available.

 

In my view, yes, unless railway B is prepared to pay a hire rate that is commensurate with the true cost of maintaining it long term. Why should Railway B expect to be subsidised by Railway A in that respect?

 

Usually outside, with water in the boiler, water in the tanks, coal in the bunker, smokebox full, old fire on the grate, ash in the ashpan, boiler internals covered in soot. Every day stood awaiting a turn is a day not earning, but a day of deterioration.

 

The point really is that it is better to not use a loco at all than try to recoup future costs by hiring it out an an uneconomic rate - unless the owners are prepared to subsidise the deficit - but they can't always. For an example of that I give you 44767 where the engine made far less in its last tor of duty than was needed for its 10yr rebuild. Great for everyone who had use of it in that time, not so good for the owner who ended up having to sell it

 

Is that how you would keep a loco in long term storage, which is what I'm talking about, then? If nothing else you would surely drain it down over winter, wouldn't you? I#

 

Of course not, but that's the reality of how engines are stored while in ticket.

 

Is that an "of course not, I wouldn't drain it down"??? But how engines stand idle for prolonged periods out in the open whilst in ticket? Very few railways have anything other than a small excess of what they actually need and because of the need for washouts and so forth engines are rotated - and quite a high percentage of lines - although by no means all - can keep serviceable but oou engines under cover. I think that sometimes the rate at which engines rust is overexaggerated, too. There are obvious things not to do - leaving boiler insulation on is an obvious example, but prolonged storage in an open salt-air environment wasn't that catastrophic for the survivors of Barry.

 

A Nat Pres block booking at some point to show some support...??