SVR Loco Newsy News / discussions

Given that it’s possible to manufacture a replacement for almost any part of a steam locomotive (and tyres aside, we can do it all in the UK) and it’s all mechanical, and looking at the fact that many heritage diesels rely on electrical components which are effectively obsolete, could we one day see a situation where it’s more expensive to maintain a 1960s/70s diesel than a steam loco?

 

I'd agree that the owners definitely know how much things cost to put right when they go wrong - see @andy50027's posts about 50027's main, aux and ETH generators repair and overhaul. But I think the problem is they're generally seen as cheaper to run than steam locos because they don't need a full strip down overhaul every 10 years, so there's no massive rush to build up a decent sum of money in the bank account. And are the railways willing to pay a reasonable and realistic hire fee?

A lot of bits can be done piecemeal - to have a previously working loco withdrawn from traffic for a considerable length of time for overhaul is comparatively rare. A couple of years out for a planned component overhaul is common, but to take a loco out of traffic for a complete overhaul less so. 24081 at GWSR was withdrawn last year for an engine overhaul, it previously had its bogies done. At the opposite end of the scale, D9015 is nearly ready after 28 years undergoing overhaul, but the DPS have had two other locos to keep running in that time.

Getting spares will be the problem in the future, and overhauling components will be more expensive. 31123/D5541 ran at the GWSR for a decade before being sold for component recovery and scrapping - it was worth more as a donor than working loco. The Class 56 Group initially bought and operated 56040 but it had two defective traction motors and an alternator fault. It was significantly cheaper to buy 56301 in full working order than carry out the repairs! Dozens of DMU vehicles and plenty of nominally preserved diesel locos have scrapped over the years, I doubt it'll be too long before the next one sadly.

 

I absolutely agree your wider point - my comment was reinforcing rather than challenging that.

 

I, with a group of friends bought 25244 with the SLL model of selling £250 shares. We originally were after 25027 at Swindon. Got it started, boiler was extant, last of the first. The asbestos thing got in the way. Went to Vic Berry's to buy it from him. Wanted ridiculous money because he said he was going to mainline it. So we ended up with 244 (D75094) Mr Berry could not believe we had paid £4000 including asbestos removal and VAT for said loco. When we took the loco on, not one nut, not one clip had been undone to removed residual asbestos. The whole thing was a scam which cost us £1500. Heritage lost 25027. 25244 is now a basket case at KESR. A number of people invested many hundreds of pounds to eventually end up with vague shares in DMU's.

 

I'm so sorry to see that. Do you (and the others) still own 25244?

 

They do play on that and attendance at diesel galas is significant. Those "blokes" though are still mostly of working age and are cannot be there in significant number on midweek workings. Regular use of a particular type leads to a fall off in those paying specifically for that type of traction by enthusiasts. This also occurs with steam and whilst initially a pacific up front may bring in an extra few, after a few weeks of regular use the effect goes.

There is a difference though and diesel followers can be very tribal to one particular type. Steam enthusiasts tend to be more broadly interested.

The point is that most visitors are not avid enthusiasts, they are members of the general public looking for a day out. That is the main market.

 

isn’t the coal thing now just a myth used to hide behind? Here is a five year commodity market graph…

 

25244 is owned by TREATS, who also own the 03's, an 08, a class 14 and the 108 DMU.

 

Is there any form of certification needed for obsolete rail parts or can they be made by anyone with the skill?
I know from experience how limited the sources are and the cost of aircraft parts for obsolete aircraft, but that is in apart of course because the supplier need to be CAA or some other regulatory body approved, which severely impacts the potential source base.

 

Thank you.

 

Firstly when I referred to rising costs coal wasn’t the only thing in my mind.

But let’s start with coal - On the face of it your graph presents such a pretty picture but it’s not really the full tale. Coal currently is coming in anywhere between £300-400 a ton. Because unfortunately the actual cost of the coal isn’t the only factor. Hauliers for it are now few and far between and suppliers for it are similar. As with anything if the suppliers are limited they can charge a handsome fee for that supply, and as these steam engines need it well they know they’ll get paid.

But there’s other factors too. Oils for locos have gone up, water isn’t cheap, and the maintenance of them has gone up so all that is added in. The costs of running these things isn’t as simple as the graph suggests sadly.

The days of £90 a ton, oil at relatively good prices, water being cheap, etc have gone. If you add maintenance costs in it soon becomes wholly unfeasible to run big steam services on normal days.

 

Best to use small engines then?

 

Is it? Economically something like 2857 comes in very much the same as something like 1501 or 7714 really. Perhaps a little more costly on coal to get going in a morning, but really it’s so economical hauling 300 tons of coaches round the railway. Barely breaks a sweat, rarely needs the big valve, etc.

It’s all about workload and making sure there right engine is on the right job.
Something like 34027 should perhaps be considered more high days and holidays for example.

 

"If you add maintenance costs in it soon becomes wholly unfeasible to run big steam services on normal days"

So what argument are you making? Unless the loco-owning group or the railway has a sugar daddy to fund overhauls a loco has to earn its keep ( for steam engines within the ten-year period) and therefore has to be used. If it can't do that then stuff it in a museum.

 

I think you’re confusing “Big steam services” and big steam locos. A big steam service would be 4/5 locos on a normal day. A big steam engine could just be one large loco in steam.

 

Of course running an extensive service is expensive - but swapping steam for diesel isn't the panacea that some make out, because most of the costs of running the service aren't due to the traction. How much does your C&W bill decrease if you substitute steam for diesel? So the real question is what intensity of service do you want to run - at which point it makes a rather small difference whether that is steam or diesel if you genuinely costed it on total cost of operations.

I suspect a more significant constraint on running a busy steam operation is obtaining sufficient volunteers, particularly mid week, particularly if the longer prep and disposal times mean some duties have to be split into early and late turns. My hunch is that for many railways, keeping duties to a level where they can be done by a single crew on all but a few gala days is one of the most significant constraints on how long the operating day can be.

On coal: there was a big price shock with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but prices have fallen since then. I think coal was something like £250 / ton delivered back in around 2012 which, inflation adjusted, isn't far removed from what it is now at about £350.

Tom

 

I mean volunteer loco crews wise you won’t find many turns that we struggle to cover. We’ve a good abundance of those! We used to have full 5 day, 10 round trip, mid weeks. They were great fun to do. 7-7 every day. But I’m sure nowadays that would be frowned on.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying running more diesels is the answer all the time. I’m a steam man, and the more steam turns the better as far as I’m concerned! But it’s neither feasible or realistic to run what we used to run. The diesel services do come at a cheaper cost overall. There is no hiding from that. And that’s as much to do with their running agreements, as it is the cheaper fuel, etc. And I don’t believe swapping that midweek diesel for a 2nd steam engine would do anything for passenger numbers compared with costs.