Mid Hants Railway Operational Matters

Exactly. Resources are finite; and TANSTAAFL.

 

Mate, you can have both steam and diesel. You can have both 1960s and 1990s...

The science museum didn't chuck out the victorian stuff when they got the space stuff in...

 

Will the 150 be used until the hampshire unit is done then duties shared with it, or is the plan to have it as a standby after that, to be reliable the unit will need to be used, The best use, will be if every now and then, the railways has a DMU running day, when its just the DMU's If the idea is to run a one deisel, ( DMU) and 1 steam service as the default offering, early, and late season, when its not finacially viable to have a second steam loco in traffic, that makes sence, then the deisel service could alternate between the two DMU's,

 

They did have to expand their buildings to hold it all (see here), which obviously required money.

 

Good heavens. We are talking about 150ft of siding space, in the last 20 years we have acquired about net about 50ft! The departures have more or less matched the arrivals, and we have 500ft more space than we used to have at least. (Ropley Top Yard).

 

Museums generally have disposal and deaccession policies to ensure they’re sustainable, reflecting the finite resources they have. And that’s without the same pressures heritage railways have to maintain working and financially viable railways.

@green five ’s post with the MHR’s policy on use of the 150 is reassuring… ‘backup only’ makes similar sense to the Bluebell’s shift on ‘no diesels’, and so long as the thumper is available and reliable, it's potentially a win all around. 'Preservaation with purpose' makes far more sense to me than 'EVERYTHING MUST BE SAVED!'…

Simon

 

There's a few here should heed the wisdom of Oddball: "stop hitting me with those negative waves, Moriarty!"
Pat

 

Well, the 150 can live outside; it's not the issue. I suspect those of us who were voicing cautious notes were thinking more in general, in response to the 'save everything one can' note we heard from some posters (I certainly was). Look, e.g. at the massive shed the Bluebell built to hold un-restored stock. They did collect a lot of stuff - but they were willing to pay the very substantial cost of storing it properly.

 

I find it deeply sad that a piece of good news has to be picked apart to such an extent that even I am left wondering why anyone bothers to try to the hard work of preserving any of our railway heritage. I think perhaps it’s time to stop reading National Preservation at all.

 

If you have such an inability to accommodate the less positive views of others then perhaps your conclusion is right!

 

And therein lies an interesting tangent to the historical relevance of a 150 to a railway in Hampshire celebrating the former LSWR & SR. The 150 is the diesel twin of the class 455s that have provided commuter services on Herbert Walker’s electrification these last 40+ years. All of the objections (IMHO, railway heritage NIMBYism) raised to a 150 are doubled up with a 455 given their inability to work off the juice.

I hope that, with the interpretation that comes with the 150, there will be some mention of the electric members of the MK3 multiple unit family.

 

Many MK3 EMUs and DMUs are being scrapped.
Not sure if this 150 is the only 150 to be preserved in working condition as an early train until the "Thumper" is repaired, then becomes a "backup" or runs at some Diesel galas?
Think one MK3 Mersey line EMU and one 422 EMU driving car as part of a 125 train has been preserved.

So far no firm preservation plans for the MK3 455 EMUs which are not so easy to run on preserved lines and keep in good order? One unit 455868 is in blue earmarked for preservation, but no one has offered to take it on

 

This is an interesting debate and clearly not specific to the MHR.

my own line has turned down the offer of a Pacer at least twice: we looked at it but there were a number of issues including compatibility with other stock in the event of failure, practicality and unsuitability to the sharper curves on our line.

that said we did accept a HST power car which doesn’t have any obvious operational use but is certainly an important part of our local heritage.

I expect that more 15xxxx units will enter preservation. How the second generation scene will evolve remains to be seen but as I think has been stated elsewhere in this forum the issue of keeping first generation diesels in use will become more problematic over time with residual life exhausted and availability of spares etc. New second generation entering preservation offers (for now) a fairly simple operational solution. I wouldn't mind betting that other lines will view things the same way.

regards

Matt

 

I suppose a lot depends on what the purpose is, behind accepting the 150, It does give you an immediate way to have a better service from Alton, whilst the more historically accurate Hampshire unit is overhauled, but does historically accurate put bums on seats, put money in the coffers? For some no doubt it does, but for the greater market, any unit, even a to them modern unit, is better than having to wait till nearly mid day for a train, and of course the view out of the window will be the same, My own view is , I'm OK with it, but, if its a service thats intended to be deisel hauled, then show it as such in the timetable, with an explanation, as to what's likely to haul it, IE, the Southern Region classic Hampshire unit, or the train that replaced them, the second generation DMU,150,

 

I also find it amusing that since this announcement it appears (at least from some of the posts on here) that first gen DMU's which were "unacceptable" when replacing steam due to coal costs, volunteer shortage etc are now seen as "good diesels" with the suggestion of the arrival of a 150.
But then of course if you like BR Black, as some of us do we are some sort of weirdo to many.

 

After hearing news of the 150 sprinter coming to the MHR, I have to say I welcome it.

Having lived in Exeter for nearly 40 years i have observed these units have been running in the South West for many years and still regularly work ex LSWR routes to Barnstaple, Okehampton and Gunnislake as well as the wider South West and I have travelled on them regularly over the years.

They are generally reliable, capable units and certainly won't be a problem on the MHR gradients. If they can get up to Gunnislake on the Bere Alston branch and the bank from Exeter St Davids to Exeter Central which is 1 in 37 I have no concerns.

As for suitability to the MHR, well they have worked a lot of their lives on Ex. LSWR territory so they deserve a place in the story of Southern railway history.

Looking forward to 150231 arriving at the MHR and I'll certainly look forward to a round trip on it.

 

Is Porterbrook planning on donating any more 150's once off lease, Would one be accepted by the Swanage Railway if one were offered, plus already equipped with the various fittings, if operating to Wareham ever again raised it head, such a unit might be easier to operate than an 108

 

I don't think it gets past the main issue with the Wareham service - it doesn't make economic sense.

 

There's a really good photo of the 144 in a nice location on the KWVR and it does look good. As soon as an equally photogenic shot of the 150 on the Mid Hants turns up, people will start liking it.

Me, I like a bit of a mixture, from pre grouping to privatisation, although very recent stuff doesn't interest me

 

Indeed, having a Hampshire unit and a 150 just extends the DMU story that the Watercress Line can tell. From an operational point of view it allows for a reliable non-steam solution to moving people around, particularly from Alton, with its mainline connection, to Ropley where most educational exhibits are, or to Alresford for a non-railway tourist experience. Hammy will return, but if there is an economical way of keeping passenger numbers up until it is back in service, I don't mind that at all.