Heritage Line Loco Power Requirements

There is much less of a problem in regularly running large locomotives on heritage railways that were originally constructed to main line standards such as the GCR and NYMR. It is a different matter on former branch lines where the formation and structures were built to a much lower specification. These lines throughout their working lives were severely restricted both in terms of overall locomotive weight and axle loading. In the preservation era, track has been upgraded, certain bridges have been replaced, and the original weight restrictions for the route reviewed or removed altogether. The use of large locomotives now becomes a possibility, on a restricted basis at first, but then with the passage of time, on a regular basis. Meanwhile, the lightly built formation is taking a pounding that it was never designed for, and infrastructure maintenance costs increase in proportion.

I am not advocating the removal of large locomotives from heritage railways, but just want people to have a sense of reality with regard to their frequency of usage and the extra costs entailed both in their proven higher running costs and in increased track/infrastructure maintenance costs.

Andy

 

Which people need educating about the costs?

There are visitors, who know the cost of a ticket. As long as they're happy to pay for a ride, why do they need to know infrastructure maintenance costs?

There are enthusiasts, supporters & shareholders, donating more than visitors. Some of them will read the budget, accounts and annual report, keeping the decision-makers accountable. Is this the group that's in the dark?

Finally, there are those decision-makers. Boards, General Managers, Heads of Department etc. These are the ones who need a good grasp on the detailed costs of maintenance and renewal... and guess what. They already have it.

The interesting thing to me is that these decision-makers, having the clearest view of costs, are the ones who choose to invest in increasing a line's axle loading (SVR, WSR, SDR, etc.) and running larger locomotives than the traffic demands. Why is this? Whatever the reason, it can't be ignorance of the costs incurred. They're the ones paying the bills!

 

I personally would doubt counterbalancing inaccuracies would result in a bad ride for the punters (As most reciprocating force goes up and down). More likely caused be Valve Events being uneven, in my experience this phenomenon is more common on Locomotives that have Stephenson valve gear and 2 cylinders although other valve gears are not immune. The result being that One piston stroke (or 2) are doing more work than the rest, causing the train to stretch and bunch repeatedly, like it is surging.

In my experience there is 2 schools of though with regard to setting the Valves on a Steam Locomotive in order to get equal 'work' out of each piston stroke. Some say you set the valves (there are a few ways to adjust them which I won't go into here) one school of thought says: set them to give equal Lead. The other says Equal Cut Off. Personally I would set to Cut Off as in my experience the results are much better, improving things you wouldn't have thought of, like improved firebed stability, less spark throwing, more economical, to name a few, and the problem described above should go away.

 

I was referring to some of the people on this forum who seem to think that large locos are as economical as small ones. I can't speak for any other railway company, but do know that the SVR with which I have been actively involved for the last fifty years has started to realise the implications of the continuous use of large passenger locos such as Bulleid pacifics, and is now actively pursuing a policy of increasing the use of smaller locos whenever the traffic patterns permit. The cost savings are quite considerable. The railway needs to remain economically viable in order to survive, and anything that can be done to make the operation more cost-effective without reducing the quality of the product on offer helps to ensure its long-term survival.

The decision makers have looked at the costs and have quite rightly made their decision.

Andy

 

The GWR 56xx 0-6-2s are recorded as generating significant fore and aft oscillation when given the Stroudley crank setting (eg Durrant - Swindon Apprentice)

 

Been watching this discussion for a while and after visiting a number of preserved lines (NVR, KWVR, NYMR, SVR, BB, EOR, MHR & WSR to name a few) in the past 6 weeks, I have made a number of observations:
Post #22 Mentions how a 4MT can cope with up to 7 (and even 8) Cars on the NYMR which has grade up to 1 in 49.
Post #79 comments on the DSR, their Std4 and Manor can run with up to 10 Cars which has a gradient of up to 1 in 55? (open to correction)
Post #61 & #112 comment on the Coal consumption of Bulleid Pacific's being much higher than smaller locomotives, so I will use this a general example of the economies of using large locomotive on preserved Lines.

From this you can conclude that ideally the Biggest Locomotive any Preserved Railway needs is something Class 4 or Maybe 5, based on that if a Std4 can cope on the NYMR (& DSR) that has the steepest gradient of any preserved line, how can any other justify having anything bigger when their railway is far less demanding. Unless that's all they have or just for a bit of Fun.

I have read many comments of larger locomotives being more economical than smaller Ones on the same load (refer to Post #61 & #112 again), I find these interesting as you would have to be burning allot more Coal to make a difference in the long run as I have read many articles over the years of Large Locomotives being much more expensive to overhaul figures of up to 1,000,000 quid or more I have seen on a number of occasions.

 

Can you elaborate a bit further for someone who doesn't quite know what you mean by stroudley crank setting?

 

I don't think anyone has been saying that. Some people may have said that it is not that simple and there are other considerations at play. Speaking for myself, I expunge the theory that loosing any engine type from working public display - be it big or small, risks taking variety away from the heritage railway scene and could well be detrimental regardless of short term running costs.

I also acknowledge, commend and support those who have the drive and determination to restore and maintain any loco, or coach, or wagon, or station, or whole railway - even the 'unpractical' ones. Without them, the heritage scene would be a shadow of its former self and this forum would not be National Preservation, it would be National Pastiche!

 

Connecting and coupling cranks in phase AIUI. Supposed to make for longer lived wheel bearings etc. Requires much larger balance weights on the wheels. I couldn't tell you all the implications and the whys and wherefores.

 

Not strictly true, firstly, as I outlines earlier, an 8F will be normally far more economical than an 8P, as I'm sure Andy will verify, 2857, which is a class 8 freight loco is one of the SVR's more economical machines, and is only 10 cwt heavier than a Hall, but at 25 mph, the loco is working at the kind of speeds it was designed for so will natrually be more efficient (Every machine has an optimal speed where they are at their most efficient and steam locos are no different)
Secondly, there is a difference between coping and being the right tool for the job, a 4MT on the Moors can take 8 up their banks but its hard pushed, and it does the loco no good at all, same as taking 8 over the valley with 46443 or 4566, they'll do it, but it will give the frames, axle boxes and motion a bit of a pasting.
Likewise, for lines like the South Devon, the KESR or even arguably the GC with their loadings, even a Manor or a BR class 4 is far bigger than they need.

 

The K&ESR does have quite a hefty bank about 1 1/2 miles in length, most of which is 1 in 50 or steeper and also featuring some quite sharp curves. Mind you, I've just looked up the BR power classification of the 16xx panniers, as 1638 is trusted with the main set, five carriages long, on a regular basis. It turns out to be 2F, so yes, you have a point as long as you are talking about a loco with small wheels (4' 1 1/2" on a 16xx). However, any big-wheeled engine rated less than class 4 would struggle to make it up the hill to Tenterden. I think there were some fun and games when City of Truro paid a visit!

 

That perfectly proves my point though! I'm sure we'd both agree, its hourses for courses, there's no one class of loco that woulds suit all lines equally.

 

Yes I agree with you absolutely, Olly. As you say, even the supposedly "ideal" 80xxx 4MT tank isn't actually ideal for every line, only able to cope with 8 on the NYMR by being pushed hard, just about right on the SVR or the recently-extended Bluebell but realistically a far larger engine than, say the MRC or Bo'ness (which both have such engines based there) actually need.

 

That said..... those 80 tanks are bloody good machines, almost up to the standards of the GWR!

 

I always find it a bit dispiriting to see an express passenger loco working on a 25mph heritage line - a bit like watching an eagle in a cage. It's much more rewarding to see them operating on the main line at something approaching the speeds they were designed for. However, the cost of equipping and maintaining any loco to main line standards is such that some of the preserved big 'uns are unlikely to ever get out on the main line, or at least not many of them in the same year. The options we have are to see them working in inappropriate settings or stuffed and mounted. Be careful what you wish for.

 

What some people seem to ignore is the fact that the heritage railways movement has what it has regarding motive power - big, small and in between. All very well saying we should have lots of Class 3 motive power running the lines but part from a few examples awaiting restoration or overhaul, it ain't there. Always the new build approach of course but this would take time to realise and given the cost of a new build, it'll take a long, long while to recoup the constructions costs out of savings on the coal budget. As many have said before on here, we've got what we've got loco wise and the various railways make best use of the hand they've been dealt. Strangely one poster who is anti "big engines on small railway" has also decried new builds so I'm wondering just where he thinks all these smaller locos are going to come from.

 

One point that has not really been addressed is that, with so many heritage lines dependent on Barry Scrapyard for motive power, it was a case of getting whatever was available. The later a given project started acquiring engines, the less choice was available. I wonder if a relative latecomer like the GWSR would have ended up with five GWR engines of class 5 or above if the project had started in the 1960s when small prairies or pannier tanks were available.

Your post is especially relevant to Bulleid Pacifics. Even if one day, the British Pullman is bought by Jeremy Hosking and most of the workings turned over to steam (my ultimate WIBN!), there still wouldn't be enough work for all the Bulleids which have survived, even discounting 35029 and 34051. So what are the alternatives? None that make optimal use of what is a far larger and more expensive loco, both to operate and to maintain, than any heritage line needs.

MNs are a particular problem as their appetite for coal apparently considerably surpasses that of their smaller WC/BB cousins and with a rebuilt WC/BB looking so similar and all the classes having names, running an MN on any heritage line at 25mph is going to be overkill even compared with a WC/BB for no additional benefit and greater cost. I'm pleased, however, that 35006 does run on the GWSR and I must admit, when I travelled behind it last month, it made more noise than I was expecting on the uphill sections. Nonetheless, not even the most ardent Bulleid fan can deny that it's still far more powerful than necessary, even if eight-coach trains become the norm next year when Broadway is opened. A small prairie could do the job comfortably.

One a completely different subject......

DMMUs were used on Basingstoke-Woking stopping trains for a short period during the Bournemouth line electrification. Not sure where they were allocated. In post-steam days, DMMUs worked from Reading right through to Tonbridge via Redhill but these units were based on the WR.

 

No Cl 3's around?? - there are plenty if you look.

Take just one class of loco which is arguably a class 3 (or 4 at a push) but would fit pretty well any line including sharply curved/steepish ones - the ex GW 45xxx with the following still around in various states:

4555,4561,4566,4588,5521,5526,5532,5538,5539,5541,5542,5552,5553,5572

A total of 14 of which 3 are currently working so plenty of scope to find work for those not currently running in the fullness of time. Enough still existing to make future repairs more economical and already new cylinder blocks have been cast for a couple as an example.

Similarly other classes GW & non GW are around, but too many are not in working order. OK some owners may be happy with that but most would much prefer to see their loco active.

 

If it were a nationalised pool then yes. But I imagine, I don't know, that many of those will be privately owned and drawing up agreements that everyone are happy with for restoration can be difficult.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Nationalised? - no - whatever for!!

Take a look at your own line. The rly itself doesn't own any of its own steam locos, it doesn't need to.

It does though have running and restoration agreements in place with a number of locomotive owning groups, some of which started at Toddington, others having gravitated there because work/facilities are available for their locomotives which they are clearly attracted to.

Over time if lines are short of power and their offering is made sufficiently attractive, some locos owners will want to negotiate future agreements with them.

Such deals though have to be both attractive and financially sustainable to both parties.