SVR Loco Newsy News / discussions

Are there economies of scale in overhauling two of the same class (allowing for differences in boiler and valve gear) at the same time?

 

What a great turn of phrase, never heard that one before.

 

Two things I find interesting about this.


1. It seems many people put little to no value on non-operational steam locomotives. So many are saying "well they weren't going to restore it in the near future so that's alright" like if a loco isn't running it isn't still a historical artifact and attraction. The railway spent 5.5 million pounds creating a building to store and display out of ticket locos so they obviously (used to?) believe dormant kettles were something worth showing off. 45110 has greater-than-most historical importance due to the fifteen guinea special, I always thought it was odd it wasn't seen as a jewel in the crown. Additionally a steamable locomotive is a depreciating asset, every run wearing out components and running down time on its boiler certificate, a stored one retains its value.

2. The SVR itself owns very few locomotives. Almost their entire fleet is owned by other organisations, some of whivh have either moved their locos away or implied they are considering as such. A class 5 is pretty much the perfect power classification for the SVR, and Black 5s stuck around so long because they were powerful, economical and easy to maintain. The Bluebell owns a 4MT in pretty much scrapyard condition as they know holding onto an asset you own is wise, especially when the wear and tear slowly erodes your other motive power.


The fact it has all been hidden from the membership, stockholders until both the sale has been completed and the locomotive tarped up and carted away is always going to feel underhand. If they had done a "six months to save the five" crowd fund I would have felt a lot fairer. The Darj B class was saved by similar tactics. If the money wasn't raised everyone could at least say they tried, similar to Didcot's new castle.

Personally I think it shows again that the SVR management are short sighted, along with this year's uneven timetable and lack of Bridgnorth starting services. A shame.

 

If you are thinking of interchanging boilers that won’t be possible with 5110 as it is a short firebox engine that won’t fit in the frames oc the other two Black 5s at 10A

 

Not particularly I don't think. There are advantages in keeping spares if you have multiple locos of the same (or similar) type; for example, if an injector fails on your "in traffic" loco, you can borrow one from the other to keep the first running while you repair the failed injector more gradually. There are also potentially cost advantages in making multiples of new components, particularly if they require initial work to prepare drawings, patterns etc.

Where you don't get an advantage of doing locos side by side, though, is in overhauls, because much of the work that absorbs time (and therefore money) is essentially one off, craft-driven. For example, if you need to machine an axle box, it takes a finite amount of time: you don't get any advantage from having an identical loco being restored on the adjacent road in your shed. Similarly, on a boiler overhaul - a lot of cost is in fitting stays, because it is time consuming and there are hundreds (or thousands) of them. So doing two boilers just doubles the work without much opportunity for economies of scale.

Tom

 

I was thinking more in production/refurbishment of parts and concentration of expertise, that sort of thing. And that's been answered in the post above.

 

Edit. Messed up my posts.

 

A lot of good points, although I would point out that part of the value of the engine house was providing under cover storage for our of ticket locos so that they were in better condition when their turn came in the overhaul queue, enabling faster and cheaper overhauls. And if you're going to build indoor storage for locos you might as well do it in a format where it adds value to passengers, both attracting more to come in the first place and coaxing more secondary spend out of those who would have come regardless.

Given that various comments have been made that suggest 45110 would have been an expensive overhaul it's possible a decision was made based on cold hard cash that the loco's overhaul prospects were not strong enough to retain it and fund the overhaul themselves

 

The Engine House isn’t short of potential exhibits. As a snapshot, 45110’s departure still leaves SVR-based 686, 5164, 7325, 2857 and 1501 as stored out of traffic locos that aren’t in there.

Traffic wise, 43106 will be coming out to join them, and 4150, 13268, 82045, 7802, 813 and 2047 are all making progress to meet traffic needs for the next decade-ish.

 

Maybe the buyer approached the SVR for the locomotive? There were thoughts of looking to sell off some stock but it didn't seem concrete, maybe the buyer just took a chance and asked?

As pointed out by @D1039, the Engine House isn't actually full of all the stored locomotives, and probably if it was designed later than it was would've had more capacity. 45110 wasn't even in there for the last 5 years!

As you say the SVR company itself owns few locomotives, but in over 50 years it has not been a problem, and majority of the other locos are all basically SVR anyway. 45110 has only been in traffic for 10 years since 1980, 4930 for a year since 1986 and 600 has never steamed under SVR ownership! It's unlikely to be an issue moving forward I would say! The railway is awash with suitable motive power, if anything a class 5 is a bit on the too powerful side for the day-to-day.

 

So why do I have an image of it passing Rifle Range on 17/08/1997 working a Kidderminster - Bridgnorth service ?

 

I don't know where you got all that from. Most SVR locos are privately owned and linked to the SVR only by their respective locomotive agreements. 5110 had some use when it first arrived at the SVR in the 1970s; I was one of the gang which changed the exhaust injector to get it into service. 600 has also been used in SVR traffic; I was firing The Lady A just after its arrival and this engine had to propel 600 through the station several times to get it to show anything on the pressure gauge, although it had been lit up about forty hours earlier. As it was the end of the day I had allowed Lady A's fire to burn right down, and had a lot of fun having to build it up again just prior to disposal. I never had the dubious pleasure of firing 600, but most who did weren't happy about it.

 

It was still military owned at that point wasn't it? Only after it came out of traffic did ownership transfer to the railway.

 

Re: 600. The OP said it have never run in SVR ownership , which is true, I think. When it did run it was owned by either the Army or the Transport Trust, not sure which.

 

If they need the cash to pay the next closed season’s bills, they would need a guarantee that it would be successful well before then. It would also have competed against its own fundraising efforts.

There’s bound to be other factors we don’t know. SVRH breached its covenants, what’s the bank’s position on assets v cash? Might the directors have been in the legal position of having to consider creditors' interests? All this reminds me to be thankful that the directors - all volunteers - do this and I don’t have to

 

Any confirmation as yet as to who the new owner is and where it's gone?

 

Just trying to remember which steam locos the SVR actually own... 4930, 7819, 43106 are the only possibilities I can think of. Is that correct? Are there others?

 

Only 4930 and 600 are SVR(H) owned now that 45110 had been sold. 7819 is owned by the charitable trust, 43106 is independently owned.

 

For reference, diesel wise the SVR(H) owns two ruston shunters, two 08s and two 09s.

Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk