SVR General Discussion

What’s wrong with setting up a fund to get Gordon, the big blue engine back in action though?
It might not be this year, it might not be next year.
I’m up for messaging some friends in Worcestershire and seeing what could happen.

 

It’s not just money, it’s workshop space and manpower. Any benefactor would probably need to fund an overhaul off site

 

Maybe, but if there’s x amount in the bank I’m sure things could maybe be how shall we say ‘rearranged’?

 

Sorry I was having a brain fade senior moment, thinking that 7 figures was 10 million.. Obviously it is impossible to build two large full sized locos for just one million. My apologies.

 

Matt you are quite right - if the money was there it could be done, but you are missing the point here mate. However or whoever you get to overhaul it it will still mean that something else will not be overhauled while it is being done. As @Johnb says there is finite workshop capacity within the industry and believe me it is being used to capacity as it is. I'm sure the SVR has many equally deserving locos awaiting overhaul. I'm just glad that I dont have to make the decision as to what gets done and by default what gets left behind.

Peter

 

You’ve been checking out your wine cellar haven’t you?

 

And if, somehow an overhaul could be both funded and secure engineering resource .............there is no work for it!

 

whilst I agree overall with the point that HR in general are in real trouble, what is the specific event or events you’re expecting to see over the coming weeks

 

Martin, you are not wrong. All will become clear in the coming weeks for many. Railways we hold very dear to us are going to face their toughest challenges to date. Without the support of everybody within the movement and the wider public. We are all going to see a very different landscape.

 

The days of 9 coach trains on the NYMR are long gone and Standard Cl.4’s are well able to cope with the standard 7 coach sets. The occasional 8 coach train is also within their capabilities if track conditions are suitable, otherwise there’s a Black 5, S15 or Q6 on hand besides the 9F so the WD is more of a nice to have.

 

This sounds like the plot of ‘Don’t Look Up’…

 

i think many would agree that change, some very unwelcome, is coming. I am curious why you think this will become widely apparent in the next few weeks? Is this because of the coming AGM season? Or the publication of 2023 calendars or….???

 

I'm curious Steve - we've seen reports from places like the Spa Valley and Swanage on Nat Pres that adequate crew training means that fuel consumption of big locos (in these cases Bulleid Pacifics) are comparable to smaller locos like Industrial 0-6-0s, the M7, T9 etc. Of course, fuel consumption is just one component of the cost of running a loco (wear and tear, the amount of time and fuel needed to get them into steam etc), but am I to take it from your comment that the 9F uses noticeably more fuel than the Standard 4s or Black 5s? If so, do you have a theory as to why this difference is more noticeable at the Moors than it is in the South?

 

Comparing large & small locos on the same work, apart from the increased self weight, there is no real reason why coal consumption should be markedly different for large locos over smaller ones. There is a big difference though in the amount of fuel required to cover the grate, heat a larger quantity of water and metal to bring a loco into steam at the start of a working day with a large, wide firebox loco over say a cl4/5 mixed traffic one.

That was less significant as part of the daily cost when BR used large locos for several hundred miles per day.

It has a much larger effect on the daily fuel bill for heritage line use which might typically be between 40 & 80 miles per day only.

 

I think @Steve's comment was more about the reduced passenger numbers and fixed rakes of stock the Moors use these days to allow for Whitby running, hence there's no need for the 8/9 coach sets that were used in the past.

 

We’ve been over this many times and in many different ways, but I agree with the conclusion that the effect for a heritage railway is significant. Use the smallest engine you can get away with I think is the basic motto

 

I’ve not made any comment about the economics of any locos, merely suggested that locos such as the 9F aren’t needed as train loads are within the capacity of smaller locos. 9 coach trains aren’t practical for regular operations as the loops aren’t long enough and require special arrangements.
In terms of economics, in my experience there is little difference in the amount of coal used to haul what is essentially the same 7 coach train whatever the loco. The difference lies in the coal used to get the loco up to working pressure; the bigger the boiler, the greater the amount of coal needed. It’s a simple calculation; if a boiler holds 2000 gallons, it requires twice as much fuel to raise steam as one holding only 1000 gallons. In terms of actually working the train the difference in coal used will be largely be due to the difference in weight of the two locos. Footplate crew variation will probably make more difference. .

 

You could argue that the the standard 4's are being flogged to death V's what a class 8 and 9 will be worked on the same job.

Maintenance costs on the bigger locos could be lower and out weigh the additional coal costs.

 

My bad, I read an inference to fuel consumption when there wasn't one!