Heritage Line Loco Power Requirements

Well, that's the theory.... Mentioning Ivan Lendl at this point would be going well off piste, as well as showing my age!

Can we all please bear in mind our moderators are as human as the rest of us? There must be times when keeping our polemics reasonably civil and mostly on topic is like herding cats.

Now what was it were we talking about?

 

Its not the views that I have a problem with, its the fact they are being expressed by someone with the role of an arbitrator.
Time for both of us to withdraw from this thread I think

PH

 

Possibly, but only if (a) the cost of the new build were similar to the cost of repair of the loco you have to hand and (b) it was not possible to acquire a locomotive in better condition than the one you would otherwise overhaul.

The difference in running costs between different classes is relatively small compared to overhaul costs so a tired but complete West Country will probably be a cheaper proposition over 10 years than a new build class 3 tank. If we assume that the WC uses 1.5x the fuel of the class 3 (say 1 tons extra per steaming day)and both run 100 days a year, and coal is £180 / ton, then the cost over 10 years would be £180,000. The overhaul of the WC is probably £350,000 to £500,000, and the cost of the new class 3? £800,000?? So the WC is £120,000 to £270,000 cheaper, AND the running costs accrue over time, whereas the capital investment is required up front, so the cashflow profiles are hugely different.

IF it were possible to arrange to build a batch of 6 locomotives for different customers, then the situation could be different. Then I could see them being priced closer to cost of an overhaul, and the difference might be small enough to tempt. I suspect that it would not be possible to gather together that many customers though whilst there are so many locomotives complete but out of traffic, and some that are incomplete awaiting restoration. Emotion has a play here as well as business logic.

 

My post 1045 is the only reason I won't be refuting this.

PH

 

Agreed, but the last line is key, and why I think we will never see batch builds of new build locos - whatever the commercial logic of standardisation, as soon as one of a class is running, the incentive for a possibly different railway to commission a second of the same type decreases.

The one slight exception I could see is to pick a group of locos that share related components but are different in outline - plenty of pre-grouping examples where there were 4-4-0 / 0-4-4T / 0-6-0s with substantial commonality of components but each retaining distinctly different outlines. But even that idea requires a considerable investment up front to design and build the first of them, and it is hard to see how you would (a) correctly apportion design and development costs if doing it spread between different participating groups / railways and (b) how you would structure such a project in the first place.

Tom

 

On paper, a heritage railway may seem to have plenty of steam motive power. However, in day to day running, things may not always work out that way. Let me take one example with which I'm personally familiar and have personal experience. On 9th July, our 2807 Supporters' group held its annual supporters' day, when the plan, as you might expect, is to have 2807 hauling at least some of the service trains! On the preceding day, the loco dept & some of our volunteers were working feverishly to cure a couple of mudhole door steam leaks which had resulted in the failure of 2807 the previous Wednesday. They did it but only just in time for the Sunday services, which were shared with 7903 Foremarke Hall. (2 train steam timetable). We were b****y lucky. No 4270 was very close to its boiler washout, 35006 was away at the MHR and 7820 Dinmore Manor was away at the WSR. No good relying on 3850, 3845 or 2874 as all were either under heavy overhaul or being prodded after their "Barry Sleep." There is a fine stock of diesel traction on the GWSR but, well, you know what I mean!

Would a BR Class 3MT have been useful that weekend? Yes. Would it have looked out of place? No. (A large Prairie would be just as good in some respects but I can't afford one!) Once Broadway is open then pressure to run more trains for a longer distance could even exacerbate the situation.

What I'm saying is, that given the right holes lining up in the "Swiss cheese", a "loco rich" line on paper, could quickly become a "fire up the Class 47" line (nothing wrong with them either mind, the last train on the 8th and the 9th was a class 47 diagram).
Smaller lines are even more at risk. A BR Class 3MT tank loco would be ideal for the Aln Valley, the Wensleydale, the NYMR (on some trains), the SVR (where else?), the Swanage Railway etc. I'm sure we will see considerable interest in 82045 once its running.

 

Good grief fellas. Haven't we got enough to argue about in the outside world without resorting to verbal fisticuffs on a thread, ostensibly, about the trials, tribulations and successes of building a new locomotive?

I was expecting a few more "well dones" and "how can we help next", "whens the next event" for 82045 than three pages of circular debate on the merits of otherwise of large steam locomotive collections!

If it's been said once, it's been said a dozen times - no one preserved railway is the same. They have different aims, different people, different ideas, different ways of working. What will work between two groups or more may not work for others. An out of ticket locomotive is still an asset and if displayed well still a draw to any railway. There is more than one way to skin a cat, or steam a locomotive...

 

You mean like the Barry Railway A 0-6-0 T, B/B1 0-6-2 T & F 0-6-0 ST classes where the boiler/firebox/smokebox is the same, and so is the cylinder block/valve gear/connecting rods, driving wheels, coupling rods and many other fittings, also most of the frames as well. The J 2-4-2 T and G 0-4-4 T classes only have different driving wheels, coupling rods than the other three classes, but these two share the same driving wheels, and the leading and trailing wheels on the J class are the same ones as the trailing one on the B/B1 class. So you could have five different classes, all of a useful size for many railways but all look different with many patterns/former's been used on all of them.

 

Interesting thoughts, and the maths bears some serious consideration.... but.... the example of the 5AT project comes to mind. Whatever answers the ongoing debate produces, it isn't going to be one single answer.

Discussions about running costs on the 'loco requirements' thread got me thinking about modifications to large locos like MNs and 9Fs. Please understand, the following isn't a suggestion, merely an example of how I mull things over to myself. I wouldn't normally dream of posting something like this. Here goes...

"The requirements of heritage lines aren't those of BR mainines of over 50 years ago (No sh*t, Sherlock!), so could steam demand be satisfactorily met by, say, taking a leaf from the technology of fireless locos and utilising a reservoir of heat at the expense of grate size? I've no idea if this is even vaguely workable, but the issue is more one of 'would locos modified to better suit their current role still be sufficiently representative of what once existed to justify heading down such a route'?"
[That's the end of your wander though my mind... back to the substantive theme]

It all comes down to the thorny issue of what it is the heritage sector is really about. Again, I'd argue that there is no single answer. If it's a loco unaltered since steam days, you're talking "Caerphilly Castle" or "City of Birmingham". If it's keeping steam on the mainline for the decades to come, "Tornado". Everything else falls somewhere between these examples, and that's before carriages come into the equation.

Short version... it's all a balancing act. Some restorations which occurred in the past (e.g. Talyllyn's rebuild) probably wouldn't take place today. Some things currently considered either undesireable or impossible won't necessarily be seen the same way a few decades down the line.

 

Bloody good post that.

 

At the end of the day it all comes down to emotion. Anything is possible if you have the money, but that will only be available if the motivation (emotion) is there. It would have been perfectly possible to have built 6 class 3s by now and for half of them to be tender and half tank versions. It hasnt happened because the money has not coalesced around such a project, and IMHO probably won't at least not in the near future. The motivation of most people donating or contributing their hard earned cash is towards restorations and overhauls. There are a few very welcome new builds as well that "fill in" gaps, but if the P2 company was the Tornado 2 company we all know that the progress would have been much slower. For this reason the 5AT project and ideas to modify locomotives are pretty much doomed from the start. They create insufficient emotional attachment in the audience of people that contribute to steam projects, and dont have a fully commercial business case to attract funding either.

 

I think there are 2 other key factors:

1. As has already been discussed as a barrier to 'deals' being done with out of traffic locos and lines needing more motive power (i.e. most of them!), ownership is complex ('byzantine' (C) @paulhitch and accurate too!), and this can also be a barrier to restoring what is available being an option - as is absolutely the owners' right.
2. You need to look beyond a single Overhaul. A very well respected, very experienced and skilled engineer, sadly no longer with us, put forward the basis of the business planning work I did with locomotive overhauls a good few years ago, assisted by an accountant who I am pleased to say is still with us but in retirement (not me!) His proposition was that a steam locomotive boiler had an effective life of 40 years. You could either keep trying to patch it (if your insurers would let you), or you could undertaken very extensive repairs and renewals of metal, effectively 'resetting' that life, and then, in his professional view, enjoy significantly lower costs for boiler works the next 3 times it needed a full internal and external examination. For business planning purposes, 20 years was used instead of 40 to be prudent, but in effect, using figures then considered relevant, you spent £600k over 20 years, transforming the financial viability but requiring greater spend at the start (Probably £750k instead of the oft quoted 2 x £500k for an overhaul now).

The second point could make the figures @21B proposes look very different - and potentially assist either case. £500k should see a WC boiler returned to 'as new' (and probably large parts of it would be!), although steel fireboxes do seem to wear out quicker than copper for a variety of reasons. However, the 'brand new' loco being compared with should need less spending on everything at 10 years (in reality, looking at a 21 year cycle of full overhaul/new build followed by 2 intermediates at 7 and 14 years is more realistic for hard working locos and the way insurers are currently viewing things - this is already becoming a requirement in mainland Europe).

Forming a 'general' view is almost impossible as each part of the existing loco will be at a different stage of needing major renewal from loco to loco - I have often said 'there is no such thing as a 'standard cost of an overhaul'! Hence, if the existing WC will need new tyres in about 10 years time, or a replacement cylinder, or major work to the frames, then that will throw its viability compared with a loco where everything is new.

I suspect what will happen is that 'hybrids' - existing locos with increasing use of brand new parts - new frames (4561 already I believe, 60103 major renewals), moving to a new boiler (probably easier than repair engineering wise but loss of 'grandfather rights' means documentation is more complex and deters many), new wheelsets have already been cast (45699 and 6023 probably best known). Locos are already 'Trigger's Brush'/'Granddad's Axe' anyway and that will just become more so.

Probably the biggest barrier to production of a batch is co-ordinating the necessary number of owners with the funding available to buy them - and, as already noted, having the money available up front to build new even if it is cheaper over 20 years, the cash requirement for overhauling and existing loco will be a more phased spend.

As I have noted already, a new way of looking at finance (or a more widespread use of methods of funding already used by some) would be essential - and banks can be convinced - indeed, quite warm to the idea of a time limited pay-back period linked to internal and external exams - of the viability of providing funding for locomotives.

Steven

 

His proposition was that a steam locomotive boiler had an effective life of 40 years. You could either keep trying to patch it (if your insurers would let you), or you could undertaken very extensive repairs and renewals of metal, effectively 'resetting' that life, and then, in his professional view, enjoy significantly lower costs for boiler works the next 3 times it needed a full internal and external examination.

Steven is too modest to say it, but that proposition was tested on 45428's boiler and after 10 years its current overhaul has required little more than replacement of some stays and a re-tube, so that the loco is on course to be overhauled and returned to traffic in around 12 months. This is a remarkable achievement for a loco that has consistently run high mileages and gives lie to the suggestion that the NYMR overworks its engines - at least in terms of the boiler.

 

Steven's post (#1058) is an excellent example of the very necessary debate about "Playing Trains" vs "How Do We Afford To Play Trains?". The points he raises are real and they're not going to go away, any more than Paul's oft raised sometimes uncomfortable yet equally relevant points about the effects of increased axle loads on infrastructure.

We're getting ever so slightly off track, 82045 wise, but the points raised are vital to the future of heritage railways. Perhaps a new thread? Dare I suggest "Cosa Nostra" might be an appropriate title?

 

That says all that needs to said about how you approach attempts to calm things down. However others have made any comments I would have made on the thread topic.

PH

 

Not sure I agree with you re Talyllyn. For the period in which No 3 was languishing in the shed at Pendre, the council minutes (available online) were dominated by discussion of No3's overhaul. Now that No3 has gone to the VoR, who have presumably been told by the adults not to rush it, that agenda item has gone away. Further north, Welsh Pony, not without history, is effectively being rebuilt as an entirely new loco.