Mid Hants Railway Operational Matters

As for when those are likely to Steam

3781, Aiming for Easter next year, However its still a Austerity Saddle tank
35005, Mainly Boiler work now, possibly late next year
75079, After CP but probably not that far behind relative
34007, 2026
499, Cant find a date but probably around 2024 I would guess

 

I agree Alan. 828 is at Ropley and work is progressing afaik.
80150 and Sir Fred are in the Alresford headshunt and the work on them is mainly conservation rather than restoration at the moment, though yes, parts are being made & bought for 80150 so that they are available for fitting.

 

828 is in the Top Yard at Ropley. Nothing constructive done to it since at least before Covid, sadly.
Unfortunately the world has changed to the point where a MNX like 35005 is about the last thing we need, but there it is. The question with any Repair / Overhaul of an ex-Barry loco has to be what money is set aside for it. Basically, no dowry, no chance.
Pat

 

Not knowing the loco, why is that?
Found on the main webpage an update.
"The mechanical work is almost finished. We hope to see the loco in steam again and hauling trains on the Watercress Line in the latter part of 2023."

 

It's too big - of course a big pacific looks impressive, but it also needs a lot of fuel and water. A class 4 or 5 would be just as capable for everyday heritage line use, but a lot cheaper to run.

 

Coal consumption

 

Indeed. That’s why so many MNs remain unrestored or not overhauled again for a very long time. The use of MNs on heritage lines is comparatively rare. That’s why 35027 and 35022 left Swanage, they were considered just too big and uneconomical for normal use on the line.

 

Thanks, so might only be used occasionally as a working spare loco, but might be popular for various galas.

 

I think it will get used as part of the normal fleet. Perhaps not what they would have chosen to start overhauling now, but the job is almost done and they are short of working locos.

 

The money put into an overhaul then gives a very high per mile cost if you only use it rarely (depending who funded that of course). If you spend £1m on an overhaul, it becomes a very expensive loco if you only do a twenty days / thousand miles per year … I think if you have sunk a large amount into an overhaul, you pretty well have to use it extensively.

Tom

 

As Alan has pointed out, it will have to be used as part of the fleet, otherwise it becomes even more expensive, but saying that, over a day's running, how much more expensive would 35005 be to operate, compared to say 506, lager engine yes, but you can drive and fire it quite economically, compared to a smaller engine, i have experienced firing all the bulleids that were on the line, and can pac, actually was more economic than Swanage, of all three, Bodmin was the best, on a par with the standard 5, for coal burnt,

 

How much cheaper? And what do those numbers do if you add overhaul costs to the daily costs to recoup investment?

 

You can't get away from basic physics - there's more mass of metal, and a greater mass of water in the boiler (MN v WC) to heat up at the start of the day and then leave to cool at the end of the day. I'm puzzled as to how the larger engine manages to use less coal.

 

Quite probably. But I'm still interested to know how material this is in the context of daily running costs for a railway - from what @Jamessquared has written in the past, my hunch is that the impact is marginal when compared to all of the other costs of running a service, and attempting to "right size" a fleet dangerously close to a distraction.

 

At the gala they had all locos taking it in turns on each train so it would be quite easy to compare the Ivatt with the Schools or 506 on a typical 4 coach train. The Ivatt will obviously be working harder but does that use less coal than the Schools working at say 50% capacity?

 

I certainly remember a comment when 34053 entered service on the Spa Valley that after lighting her up the difference was negligible between her and the smaller tanks as she was working nowhere near as hard.

The large loco will still be more of a draw if properly marketed so the cost difference in lighting up could also be made up.

Andrew

 

In terms of mass, it is whole train mass - so the difference between (say) a 140 ton loco pulling a 200 ton train; and a 100 ton loco pulling a 200 ton train, is about 12%, ie the lighter engine does 12% less work and so potentially needs to burn 12% less coal to do so.

Obviously, bigger grate / bigger water volume has an impact on wasted heat lighting up / cooling down, but that depends on rostering practice: the bigger loco stays hotter overnight so needs less fuel the next morning. But that is dependent on rostering practice: the very worst case is to use a large loco on short irregular duties.

That said, I’d come back to the point that the coal is only one component of the loco cost; and the loco is only one part of the whole train cost. It is whole train cost that matters, which includes overhauls and maintenance, coal, water, oil, carriage maintenance, infrastructure and S&T costs, business expenses etc. The coal is getting more significant, but is still nowhere near the largest cost.

That doesn’t mean I’m completely sanguine about coal costs, but I’d suggest the issue at the moment is that increased coal costs are coming at the same time as increased other costs and decreasing passenger numbers / disposable income. But if you have spent £1m on an overhaul of a coal guzzler, moving to a more efficient engine that you have to pay a daily hire fee for is likely to be more expensive.

Tom

 

Also poor crewing can have a huge impact a poor Driver and Fireman shows up very easily not just on coal consumption, they can add adverse wear and tear to a locomotive quite easily!

 

A fairly detailed study put the additional cost of a MN over a mid power engine at around £50k per year.

 

Would @Steve have any comments on WC / BB use on the Moors?