SVR General Discussion

The 40 and 46 are big engines - how does their fuel consumption compare with a 20 or 25. It seems a bit like using Taw Valley in place of a pannier!

 

Bit of an unfair comparison - a Class 20 or 25 compared to a Class 40 or 46 is more like a Class 4 (say 75069) to a light Pacific. The Pannier is somewhere between a Class 08 and a Class 14.

 

Semantics! Do you not get the general drift f the argument? Namely, that I presume not all diesels have the same fuel consumption rate - but I would like to be enlightened!!

 

You'd think they would run 3 steam as a bit of a kick off weekend?

 

Sensible dog.

 

I don't have exact figures but 5 years ago my railway was rather short of resident diesel traction (25, 31 etc) and based on what was available to hire at the time we ran a 45 & 46 instead. The increased fuel cost was very significant. Don't get me wrong, I'm a diesel man, but if a railway uses a 46 it will cost quite a bit more to do the same diagram that, say, a 25 could equally do.

Most of us like big engines but the reality of preservation is that the smart thing to do during hard times is to operate all of one's non-steam work with DMU's and Type 1/2's.

Sent from my moto g(8) power using Tapatalk

 

A few years ago (2013?) when we ran the first diesel gala at the MHR after a break we budgeted for (and turned out reasonably accurately) that for a 66mile day the consumption was about 50 gallons on the 20 and the 33 and 80 to 100 gallons on the 47, 50 and 55. Mind you the last one also used about the same amount of engine oil

 

Deleted

 

What would the bulk buy price of rail use diesel be currently per gallon?

 

In the region of 90p a litre ex VAT I think.

 

The new timetable could be the start of getting the fleet to a size they can afford as there are no new over halls to be started. We all assume there is a large pool of volunteers who are available to crew the steam locos mid week if you are having to use paid staff to cover these turns if becomes a lot more expensive.

 

At the moment.

 

The report:
https://www.svrlive.com/_files/ugd/acbe94_8c20f68951f645e786351ba0ebae565c.pdf
The action plan:
https://www.svrlive.com/_files/ugd/acbe94_1bd1981a8865439aa1a4290318ba276b.pdf

 

There is something ironic when comparing the report's call for better communications and the railway's desire to bury the reports behind an obscure URL. Had they been true to their word, the SVR would have actually circulated this report to shareholders.

Thanks for your insight to the address.

 

There may be something in a shareholder's letter which apparently will be being sent out in the next few weeks. It will have the relevant passes and is stated that the passes will arrive in good time before the railway starts running.

 

A simple A4 mailing costs many thousands, adding in reports and action plans would put up that cost (particularly postage) considerably. I can see the sense in not doing a separate ppstal mailing. In the next couple of weeks, SVR shareholders who own qualifying numbers of shares will receive their passes or complimentary tickets before the Railway reopens on 4th March.

There's also an item in the monthly Branch Lines newsletter, with the links to that page, going by email today. Its distribution (under compliant data protection) is to 17,000 people including all those shareholders who have registered an email address, and presumably some who haven't but are registered as members, supporters, CT donors and the like. It's a mite dispiriting to be involved in the newsletter giving regular communication to read this portrayed as "the railway's desire to bury the reports behind an obscure URL" when it's emailing it to many thousands of people.

(Interests declared: volunteer newsletter co-editor, member, ex-shareholder and passholder)

 

Is English their first language ?

 

Seems perfectly understandable to me? I actually think that is a very positive report that concisely gets to the route cause of recent issues. The report makes a number of sensible recommendations, the SVR has accepted these and has outlined how and who will be taking these forward.

Hopefully this marks a positive turning point in relations, change is a constant - but how it is managed can be the difference in taking people with you or alienating them.

 

Keep up the good work Patrick. I think some would like info hand delivered in person by SVR management!

Quite frightening that the SVR only holds 4000 email addresses from 17000 shareholders, that really has to change in this day and age.

The Branchlines newsletter has revolutionised communications from the railway and it is good to see this being recognised within the report.
(Shareholder and scarily, member of 30 years this year! )

 

It's not a novel comment but there are a lot of small longstanding shareholders (extract of old public record as an example). My guess is they will disproportionately be represented.