West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I'm researching

Michael. Very useful. Thanks for your response.

 

I remember the GWR 150 special from Swansea to Camarthen.

Raveningham Hall was the loco, and we were going a bit quick on the way back, someone suggested the other side of 90

Basically you were holding on to anything that came to hand as the coaches surged and leapt around

 

The notion of 'large' engine seems to be something of a movable feast. An engine is large when Paul says it is and it is not large when Paul says it isn't.

Like Schrödinger's cat can be dead and alive, Hitch's engine can be both small and large at the same time. It's size is dependent upon the variable of 'who Paul is hectoring today'.

 

Paul - do you have differential coal costs per mile to back up your notions of greater "efficiency"? I doubt you will find more than a few pence per mile difference in coal between an Ivatt and the O2 on comparable loads - differences in rostering and crew capability will give a bigger variation.

The key point in loco economics is that coal is cheap and repair / overhaul costs are expensive. So the Ivatt will be cheaper to operate, but the reason is a higher mileage between overhauls, meaning a lower cost per mile over the lifetime of an overhaul. By contrast, the coal costs, and even more the difference in coal costs, are pretty negligible.

The two keys to economical loco performance:

(1) Get the biggest mileage you can between overhauls (but without tipping over to the point that you start doing significant damage - there is a sweet spot). If the Ivatt runs 50k miles between overhauls and the O2 runs 35k, the Ivatt will be cheaper to operate for that reason alone - end of story.
(2) Get the biggest possible external fundraising capability associated with the loco, because that is in effect a direct subsidy of the per mile operating cost.

Tom

 

Far too early to say although the very low water consumption is likely to reduce certain aspects of boiler maintenance costs. Fuel is never "cheap" and as with all things brought across to the Island the extra transport costs have to be added. I understand the fuel consumption is comparable to that of an A1x and the water consumption, if anything, rather less.

PH

 

Why should there be any embarrassment about this being a pleasure trip? That's what it is. To pretend otherwise is taking romanticism too far.

PH

 

As an enthusiast I actually prefer smaller, more prototypical branch line engines. However non trips to preserved lines, I regularly observe family groups etc taking much more interest in the larger express locos than the little tank engines.

I’ve also seen trip advisor comments from ‘normals’ saying that it would be better if the line had bigger locos.

And let’s not dismiss enthusiasts in this, they make up a substantial part of a railways customer base, and a lot of them like big locos.

So to a large extent, using big locos is just giving the paying customers what they want - which makes sense in any business.

 

Although I don't quite go along with this I can see it is a reasoned argument. However it is difficult to square with the "heritage railway" description.

PH

 

Depends if you see it as a heritage railway or a tourist railway. I’d suggest most lines are a mixture of the two, but it’s a very fine balancing act.

 

If a line somehow built a fleet of 5AT locos and used them to operate its services then maybe so. However that's not the case; nearly all steam locos operating in Britain (with a few exceptions like the Baldwin on the Brecon Mountain) are part of British railway heritage.

 

3 sets in use - but not packed. 2017 passenger bookings were 36k - in the 1970's the figure was 3 times that.

 

Many trips on the NR network will be for "pleasure" so the whole discussion is a tad pointless.

 

The last point is an important one often overlooked by those suggesting that particular railways should move towards owning their own fleet ( a PH model as well).

External fundraising for locos is arguably more successful if the loco is owned by a seperate active group , aligned with the interests of the host railway, who see the loco(s) as their way of inputting support and going the extra mile to see that "their" loco is kept in service and looked after for the long term. Putting a little clear blue water between the host railway and the owning groups also provides a check on those tempted to raid finances which should kept available for locomotive purposes to solve short term cash issues (which never get replenished).

 

No one's saying the trip isn't pleasurable, merely that it is serving a purpose beyond that as well. To pretend otherwise is taking obtrusiveness too far.

 

Exactly. People can be travelling both for the ride and to get to the destination, on a "preserved"/"tourist"/"heritage" (whatever you choose to call it) railway just as they can on the national network. But that applies to the lines that go from somewhere with a significant catchment (either inherently or by virtue of a park and ride facility like BL) to somewhere else. The more numerous and/or more interesting the destination(s) the more reason to use the line other than for the ride. Hence the substantial increase in custom on the GWSR when Broadway station opened.

 

I hesitate to reply to one of your posts, because you often seem to epitomise "My mind is made up: please don't cloud the issue with facts". And the horse that you like to flog has been dead for some time. But I will reply to this one. A slight reduction is very plausible, but the bet offered was whether the level of custom falls to less than 25% above the pre-Broadway level. Not willing to put your money where your mouth is?

 

To me that sounds to be a perfect day .

 

From 2008 to 2011 it did many thousands of miles at WSR.

 

Always knew that Ravingham Hall had plenty of power but speed as well , what a treat !