SVR Loco Newsy News / discussions

Yes, I remember a mid week timetable operated by number 9 and Taw Valley with the smaller loco being 45110..
The summer Sundays used to see 5 in steam with additional obbo saloon or other specials seeing potentially another 1 or 2 extra in service.
Fun days, glad I saw them, but not likely to be repeated now outside a steam gala. However steam is still available, running regularly and as our Canadian NatPres member reminded us all on another thread, the UK is blessed with the number of steam locos and railways we have running.

 

If it's a 40s weekend, surely D306 should be out

 

The 40's event is not really about the actual trains, it's more about the feel of the period.

 

Deleted because this can of worms isnt worth opening again.

 

BR Mk1 coaches were not around in the 1940s. Does that invalidate around 80% of these events on other railways who have no alternative passenger stock?

 

The cost of coal is not quite the issue which it was a while ago. Prices per tonne are now around half those quoted at the peak. The depressed passenger figures and the actual, rather mininmal steam offering are not entirely unrelated.

 

I cannot disagree with the minimal offering of steam. We have seen a shift that has gone too far in one direction away from steam. We are far too quick to put a diesel service on over steam. (I am well aware of the short notice difficulties). You only have to look at our services during the day to see which type of loco people want/ choose to travel behind.

 

I am sure there is an element of cost control going on at the moment - the loss of Bridgnorth has got to be affecting passenger numbers.
You can't get away from the fact that even with a coal price reduction, diesels are cheaper to run than steam.
I was on the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Rly yesterday, 2 steam service. It wasn't exactly busy.

 

OK we have a one day subjective survey taken yesterday on the GWSR and the near daily observations of Southernman99. The point is not which is cheaper to run (all heritage workings would be by DMU if that was the sole consideration) but which produces the best experience, most satisfied visitors and a financial surplus to reinvest in the railway.

 

But often 2/3 steam on a normal Wednesday at the SVR doesn’t produce that surplus. If we ran 2/3 steam we’d raise the cost, and likely not actually bring that much more in revenue. When we are full line we run B timetables on a Saturday 2 Steam/1 Diesel because the passenger figures show we can. They don’t always show that on a midweek day. Half term was an exception to the rule, but likely only because we offered Kids for a Quid.

And then you’ve got to consider things like -
- Heritage Diesels earning enough in mileage fees to keep them going. If it was more and more steam, less and less diesel they don’t earn the money so a different part of the heritage sector suffers.
- Fleet size - We aren’t currently blessed with a large fleet, even with a full lines the more we run, the more maintenance is required, the less we have actually available for traffic on average.
- Offers like Kids for a Quid - This is a fine balance. It looks really good on the one hand because passenger numbers are up. But then actually the revenue doesn’t always balance. So even with a really busy day off the back of this, it’s sometimes still difficult to increase the costs of operating running more steam.

 

So much assumption and confused thinking there!

Where are the figures mentioned in the first sentence?
How many folk are NOT now visiting because they find the current offering (disregarding the landslip) is no longer sufficiently attractive?
(Remember the peak passenger figures on the SVR topped 250,000pa. Currently they struggle to get to half that)
Nothing wrong with kids for a quid with appropriate conditions. Young parents are probably the most cash strapped part of the market. We need them too!
Unsurprisingly steam locos also need sufficient use/steaming fee earnings to justify repairs & overhauls. The size of the diesel fleet has ballooned way beyond what is needed operationally in more recent times but that cannot place any obligation on the railway to provide sufficient use for each and every type/individual loco solely to reach some level of fee earning or to maintain traction knowledge.
We have a better steam fleet than many with more to come available soon. Others manage with fewer serviceable locos & greater levels of use.

As others have noted here there is a marked difference in the number of passengers choosing steam over diesel haulage. Yes there is a place for steam, diesel & DMU use but that needs to be based on a more market related approach.

 

To be fair it wasnt a brilliant weekend weather wise and maybe also a dip in visitors following the recent 'festival of steam' ?

 

I appreciate that is fairly different but the Snowdon Mountain Railway charge a premium for their steam operated services. The Ffestiniog used to do the same for their "early bird" trains. I wonder whether this is something that lines that operate a mix of steam and diesel hauled services might consider.

If diesel hauled services are much cheaper to operate why should I pay the same fare as somebody else who is using the more expensive, and what might many might consider premium service?

 

Has been trialled before, or a very similar style and it doesn’t work quite so well, particularly not for a line that doesn’t have that wow factor. Our little SVR is lovely, but it’s not like Snowdon where it climbs the mountain, or Ffes where it travels though an amazing wonder of the world. So people don’t want to pay a premium.

Same as pre-booking select services - Just ends up with one service being rammed.

 

It's an interesting thought, though an obvious immediate concern is that you might then have an awkward PR situation on your hands if a steam loco failed and you had to substitute a diesel at short notice, after many people had paid the premium fare.

The more substantive thought is that I don't think diesel is necessarily significantly cheaper to operate. Many of the costs (for example, the contribution to infrastructure repairs, carriage maintenance, S&T and routine business overheads) are the same whatever the traction. At which point you are just down to an understanding of traction daily costs (fuel, lubricants, water) and maintenance. I'm not convinced that the long-term maintenance costs of diesels are well understood: in particular, while I think anything on a steam locomotive is probably repairable indefinitely given funds, I am less sure if that is the case on a diesel - many diesel groups seem to be basing their future longevity on holding a large stock of spares, rather than the ability to repair literally anything.

My hunch is that diesel preservation is in the same place that steam was 25 - 30 years ago: underestimating the real cost of operation because there is still residual life remaining in the assets.

Tom

 

Spot on there Tom!

 

The SVR does have one of the best, if not the best, diesel fleet in the country. I'm sure there's room to use that to their advantage.

I know a number of blokes in their late 50s, early 60s who were spotters as kids and still interested in trains. What's their main interest? 37s, 40s, 47s, 50s... BR diesels from around the 70s/80s beacuse that's where their nostalgia is. Surely the SVR could play on that a bit?

 

They do. If you go on the diesel hauled trains they run, those interested in the specific traction regularly populate the first couple of coaches. Those that know what they like will find it, I suspect the issue is those that know what they don't like then stumble across it!

 

I almost agree. I think diesel preservationists are well aware of this, and finding the bills coming in for their increasingly delicate steeds. I'm less sure that all of the railways that host them have adapted to that reality. But then I think that there's a strong tendency to look only at marginal costs of operation, and not really address whole life costs.

 

Yes, it’s a fair challenge. Of course, even the most switched-on diesel owning group may find themselves in a bind in that if they persist with comparatively low daily operating charges, they aren’t covering their real costs; but if they up the daily rate to a more realistic level, railways may be significantly less keen to choose diesel, reasoning that any marginal cost reduction doesn’t compensate for lost revenue or customer disappointment of those who want steam.

The wider point though is I think still valid: of all the costs of running a train, traction is but one component - and fuel is but one part of that one component. Most of the costs are elsewhere. About ten years ago, I calculated that coal amounted to about 7% of the cost of running the Bluebell. Ten years, one pandemic and one European war later it is still about 7%. (*)

(*). Edit to add: one fag packet was consumed in doing this calculation. You could be more nuanced in the analysis, look at costs rather than income etc. but the basic point is that railways of that scale cost millions, while coal costs hundreds of thousands.

Tom