Best & Worst Locos to Drive

I do get a bit fed up of you being holier-than-thou over the way you perceive most folk in preservation are behaving; very childishly without a second thought and just wanting to play with big trains - you do everyone involved in preservation a great disservice.

 

Breathtakingly holier than thou there Paul. I wonder what exactly you would have them do? You have to make do with what you have, and sometimes you have an austerity instead of a 2MT, a Bulleid instead of a 2MT...

For the record, and because it is true, I always thought of 78019 as the perfect loco on the Great Central - nice thin firebox, easy to shovel, big airy cab, reliable. The standard and the Ivatt 2MTs are delightful engines. But the whole of preservation isn't made up of 2MTs: that's not what was preserved en masse.

So what would you have preservationists do? Scrap the ones which are preserved in favour of new build 2MTs? Sell up their railways and give up because their austerity or Bulleid doesn't match up to your incredibly exacting specifications for the perfect preserved railway?

I've said it once before - I'll say it again. There's no such thing as a blanket approach to railway preservation. They've all got different social and economic factors at work, including and not limited to what they actually have on the line, volunteers and their interests, local attractions and the demography of tourists, cost of fuels against use, length of trains against bums on seats and all the rest.

Your insistence that there is only one specific way for railway preservation to "grow up" is at odds with the facts and rather wearying, even if everyone and their mother might agree a 2MT or a 4MT are best suited economy wise: we're dealt the cards we have and we can't exactly change them at a whim.

So please, for the sake of railway preservation, get a grip Paul and accept we're not all here to adhere to a set standard. Pun intended.

 

I am a paid up member of the "wouldn't it be nice club" compared with an individual I met the other day who just happened to be a retired senior railwayman as well as an enthusiast. It wouldn't be fair even to hint as to which line he was particularly underwhelmed by. So if you think I am tough about railway preservationists, boy I am not!

 

See post 223. If that particular individual is right then it is not only volunteers dying off which are a potential problem for tourist railways but their customer base as well. I am not sure I agree totally but who can say. One thing is certain, it won't be the "foamers" (lovely Americanism that) obsessed with big chuffers who will determine but the market. If the product costs too much because of the said big chuffers and other extravagances, then the market will shrink.

PH

 

Have it as you will. Economics will play a greater and greater part in tourist railway affairs despite what we would wish.

PH

 

Saying that there's someone even more pessimistic than you doesn't really answer the point Paul.

Building on SAC's point, if all preserved railways had sheds full of 2mts, why would folk bother visiting other railways or indeed repeat visit a single railway either? The variety we have is our greatest asset, and makes people travel all over the country to visit different heritage railways.

 

The odd thing about the Drummond/Stirling reverser question is that Holcroft, who could be expected to be familiar with the SECR pattern, was very complimentary about the steam reverser he encountered on a Drummond D15, describing it as easier in operation than the SECR reverser, needing only one hand instead of two.

In fact, what he described (in Locomotive Adventure Vol 2) sounds very much like the American Ragonnet power reverse, where the driver sets the desired cut off on a miniature lever and the gear obediently (depending on state of repair) shifts to it. Since the Ragonnet gear was patented in 1909 and the first D15 was introduced in 1912, I wonder if they had a different pattern to earlier Drummond engines (like 53 and other M7s). Sadly, I doubt there are many left who remember driving D15s, but such a gear would surely have been preferable to what the Bulleids got.

 

I rather suspect the economics have been the single most critical factor from day one. But your economic argument seems to be a bit over simplistic. It appears to me, rightly or wrongly, that you make the assumption that vital factors like level of volunteer labour, financial support from enthusiasts and passenger loads will be essentially constant no matter what the locomotive policy. This seems to me unrealistic. And as JamesSquared has demonstrated with examples from the Bluebell, the running costs of the locomotives do not appear to be a dominating factor on the balance sheet.

 

I am afraid you still don't appear to get it. It's not assorted individual gricers, gunzils or foamers that fill the seats. These are occupied by Shearings excursionists, general holidaymakers and young families attracted by special children's events. Just like the scene I witnessed today in fact. There will be enthusiasts among them but an extreme minority.

They are more likely to be interested in how good the views are through the windows (and whether you can actually see through said windows) and can someone in light coloured clothing use the seats without needing to go to the dry cleaners afterwards. They may well recognise that a train is steam hauled but don't bet on it. Preferably the food should be edible and served in hygenic premises. Ideally there should be something to occupy train hating family members whilst the rest go off on their trip. A good souvenir shop is vital.

All this has to be done at a reasonable price or, at least, seem good value for money. This will be increasingly hard to do.

PH

 

That is a reasonable point Paul, although I think you underestimate the public a touch. Most seem to at least be able to make the distinction between industrial and mainline locos, even if they don't know they have.

However, it is emphatically not the general public who donates large sums of money and time to the railway. That is by far an away an enthusiast majority, without which, we'd have no heritage railways at all.

 

Remember what Disraeli said about there being lies, damn lies and statistics! Any deferred expenditure makes a balance sheet deceptively healthy. Whether we are dealing with buildings, structures, permanent way or rolling stock most will tend to be elderly and need the (expensive) skills of the past to maintain. The individual I referred to before (whom I don't necessarily agree with 100%) cited civil engineering issues on one line in particular.

PH

 

Just three words. "Dartmouth Steam Railway".

PH

 

I still don't see what this has to do with the respective difficulties of driving or firing different loco types.

 

And they are in a unique situation. Their model works for them, but it will not work elsewhere.

 

I'll have to go and re-read what Holcroft says.

I'm not sure I agree that the Stirling reverser requires two hands to operate. It does have two levers, but in practice you can set the steam valve lever to the direction for the next movement of the reverser, and then just use the control lever (which opens the hydraulic valve, and allows steam to flow to the steam valve and thus to one side or the other of the steam cylinder) to move the reverser by increments. With practice, it becomes quite easy to operate single handed. It is also possible, by using a very small movement, to just open the hydraulic valve but not admit steam. That has the effect of causing the valve gear to fall whichever way it is weighted - towards forward gear on the H class, for instance - which makes a small adjustment in that direction very controllable.

The Drummond reverser had a single control lever, which operated both steam and hydraulic valves simultaneously. However, relative to the Stirling pattern, it had two problems. The first was that the design of hydraulic valve wasn't as good and was more prone to leaks, which is a fundamental problem on a steam reverser. The second was that there was always steam pressure in the valve chest, meaning that any leaks would admit steam, which would exacerbate any tendency to move if there were hydraulic leaks.

In the Bulleid design, the Ashford drawing office took the basic Drummond steam reverser body, but incorporated a hydraulic valve based on Stirling practice, which was quicker-acting and less prone to leaks. They also arranged the steam and hydraulic valves to be operated from a single control lever (albeit moving in two planes - forwards / back to control the direction, and up / down to turn it on / off). The result was a reverser that basically had the Drummond geometry and a single control lever, but the more reliable valve gear of the Stirling reverser. That design was first used in the Q1s, and fitted retrospectively to the Qs (which had previously had pure Drummond reversers). The WC/BBs and the last twenty MNs then had the same design fitted, but with the addition of the pilot valve to further enhance the controllability.

Tom

 

Many railways have already relaid track, overhauled bridges and embankments, on the most part without any need for external donations, except where it has been a complete disaster, for example GWSR. But since then we've spent more on drainage etc. and reaped the rewards. So not a case of not having the money or anything, and as soon as it was appreciated what was needed, the switch was flicked on so to speak, no problem.

 

I think you are underestimating the interest of the average passenger, they have come to a steam railway so of course they will know it's a steam loco on the front. The railways can add interest, perhaps by posting pictures and a brief history of the locomotives working that day at each station. People visit museums to learn about certain aspects of our past and as well as being a pleasant journey a steam railway is a working museum, it's information on site where some of our railways are lacking.