Heritage Line Loco Power Requirements

There is no reason why a good Boiler water treatment regime cannot be applied to Locomotive Boilers as well, that significantly extend overhaul intervals.
There are 2 railways that I work for (Volunteer & paid) and on both treatment is added every time the tanks are filled, Boiler Water samples taken and analysed Weekly (Running 7 Days a week) and Monthly on the other (only runs weekends). On the railway that only runs weekends the treatment was stopped for reasons unknown and it was worked that it took only 3 months of running days before tubes started to fail (with Corrosion holes), analysis of the water in the Boiler at the time revealed it was acidic! prior to this there had been no problems for over 20 years. On the other there is 1 locomotives that it now in it's 22nd year of operation (runs just about daily between mechanical attention) and has had no tubes or stay replacement during this time, and there has been no other deterioration during this time (it is an all steel Boiler). The last boiler that had tubes removed at this particular railway only had to be removed to repair cracks in the firebox tubeplate caused by how they had been attached to the tube plate when first built, this had long since been rectified. Once these tubes were removed they were cleaned and the original branding could still be read on the tube, they were subsequently reused in a shorter Boiler.

 

Thanks for your thoughts. Actually, I don't think we are very far apart at all.

I have made the point that tourist railways are in direct competition with other tourist attractions and ought to take steps to ensure their quality levels are comparable at least. This includes seeking professional evaluation and not relying on the amateur, sometimes capricious (but free) TripAdvisor. Of course gift shops and refreshment facilities will be necessary and their income is a vital part of the operation. Similarly, special events are part of running a visitor attraction

It's a sanitised version of the past but that is no problem. What does make the description "heritage" inappropriate to me is where a rural branch line is turned into a facsimile main line. If your railway was a main line then fair enough. If not please don't or, at least don't call it a heritage railway.

PH

 

Out of interest Paul, what do you think 'heritage' means?

 

There are umpteen dictionary definitions which vary from "objects from the past" to "techniques of doing things in the past" (I paraphrase) My own version is "a glimpse of how it was in the past."

Depending on which definition is used all preserved railways could qualify or none do.

PH

 

In which case, why be so didactic that seemingly most don't, except those you favour? Nothing wrong with having an opinion, provided you realise it is just that - an opinion - and others may have a different view about what is important to them.

(As an example - I'm not especially keen on certain aspects of Swanage, but unlike many other preserved railways, it is undoubtedly still doing/ preserving what it was designed to do: take people by train to the beach).

Tom

 

Wow - I didn't expect a comprehension lesson!

 

Several UK railways use reverse osmosis water which, where adopted, has demonstrated considerable benefits in tube longevity. Not all water supplies are "bad" though so its adoption is not universal. I can think of several locos (mainly using RO water) where tubes withdrawn after 10 yrs use were almost as good as new apart from minor abrasion and perhaps eroded firebox ends. These locos had achieved 80,000 miles + on the same tubes. Conversely some tubes have failed prematurely due to very heavy but localised pitting where 99% of the surface area of the tube was as new but locally the corrosion was severe even with RO water.

Our regulations would not allow a boiler to remain in service beyond 10yrs (sometimes slightly extended based on condition). Before being certified for further use a boiler would need to receive a full external and internal examination together with the necessary repairs.

 

I am sorry to say, I feel the same way about the Bluebell!

"Heritage" might sound better than "tourist" on applications for lottery grants I suppose.

PH

 

That completely failed to answer the question I'm afraid...

Tom

 

I'm beginning to notice a habit....

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

What is now part of the GWSR was not a rural byway. It was built as a main line so most GWR (not "Kings") and many LMS large locos used the line over the years, as did BR Britannias and 9Fs. There is photographic and movie evidence of Merchant Navies using at least part of the "Honeybourne Line" on Shakespeare specials, 35011 being one that springs to mind. So, for some Heritage Railways, the use of some very large preserved locos (preserved because they just happened, by fate, to end up at Barry Scrapyard) is very representative of heritage. The GCR at Loughborough is another example of a heritage ex-main line and I'm sure many people can cite other examples. Let us just rejoice at what fate and hard work by dedicated railway enthusiasts has given us.

 

Me too!

 

It was not a question but rather a finger wag.

 

Strange then that your previous posting is a reply to a posting of mine which says, inter alia, "To answer your question directly." which I did. Funny people these big chufferites!

PH (Sorry)

 

So you accept that it is merely your definition of heritage that makes most railways not heritage. So why can't you accept that virtually everyone else's definition of heritage makes most railways heritage?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Paul I'm afraid you're starting to sound rather repetitive and quite honestly missing the point.

You keep going on about how xx line never had xx loco in its working life. Quite honestly what does that matter?!?!! If a railway says it's trying to have a theme, aka the SDR in being a rural branch line then great, but if it doesn't have that theme and says its ambition is to show how railways worked in the 19xx, which includes larger locos as well as smaller ones, then I seriously don't see the problem. If having a mixture of locos large and small pulls the crowds for a mixture of events then great. It has already been mentioned that if you say need 4 locos in service a day you need 7 working examples. That means you need about another 3 or 4 in overhaul at that time as well. The SVR wouldn't be able to have 11 small locos that are able to do every role possible to keep things ticking over. So obviously it has a mixture. Which includes tender locos. If the people paying to overhaul the locos, and no that is NOT Joe public as they are the ones who keep things ticking over, want to see a variety then as they are paying for it then great. If the variety of locos is what draws the volunteers to the railway then great again as you wouldn't survive without them.

Now having a dig at the GCR. How is it the GCRs fault that it has big locos. Sir Lamiel was obviously restored to work on the mainline but has seen out the end of its ticket on preserved lines to earn extra income. Why would the GCR turn that down when it's already on site? Again they need a variety of locos to keep the service going and actually possibly have the biggest amount of available locos to hire out helping other railways in need. Jinty to wirksworth this summer for instance. And as far as I know they only have the Jinty and the Austerity based there ,now that the N2 is doing the cromer trips, that are tank engines. So they don't have any to call from. It has greater ambitions of being a much longer heritage railway which again the extra water capacity helps with.

Another thing you don't seem to think about is driver experience, photo charters, footplate passes and other special events that want to hire xx loco for its theme. If you need a larger loco to fulfill this role that give an income to the railway then fantastic.

List all of the locos currently in steam in the UK that are none mainline registered and I bet that what you'll find is a good variety. Even in the newbuild world it is again a whole variety, with 6 tank engines planned so far.

I really struggle with your inability to look outside the box and see the bigger picture

 

Who says anything about "turning down " Sir Lamiel" The point was being made that something with its water capacity was needed for the job concerned. Patently this is not so. The G.C.R. was a main line so it is not so OTT for the end of the boiler certificate to be used up there as it would be in other places. The civil engineering should be able to cope as well.

For my part I "struggle with the "inability" of the big locomotive fan club to realise that motive power expenses should not be permitted to consume so much of available income that things such as civil engineering and buildings get starved of funds. Or perhaps they do which is why we hear such strange justifications.

PH

 

Name one railway that has neglected civil engineering and buildings at the expense of running bigger engines than necessary, preferably with some numbers of how much they could have spent if they used a smaller engine.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

I will reply off post.

PH