Heritage Line Loco Power Requirements

I recall reading of an attempt to set up a single preservation society because ad hoc attempts to preserve lines, locos, etc. were never going to take off if done ad hoc. If memory serves right, it achieved the limited success of preserving what is now the Chasewater Railway.

Not a bad thing, but rather less than the other ad-hoc attempts have achieved.

 

I'm pretty certain that I'm correct about the Folkestone-bound 57xx panniers being the only GWR engines to visit Sussex prior to the Dukedog's arrival, but if we forget about the Bluebell being in Sussex or an LB&SCR Line and talk instead about it being a Southern line, then double-framed GWR 4-4-0s did run down the DN&SR line through to Southampton, so this reduces the inauthenticity factor slightly - although in my opinion, not enormously.

Having said that, I'd hate to give anyone the impression that I'm anti-Dukedog. Far from it. In my teens, I volunteered in the loco department at the Bluebell and 3217, coupled to the C Class tender, was a stalwart of the fleet at the time. I have some happy memories of it and will be delighted if it does find itself put through the works for an overhaul before too long - which I understand is a distinct possibility.

 

That is unfair Simon

There are many dedicated volunteers and paid staff at the IWSR who put hours of dedicated effort into producing the best heritage experience that is possible in today's circumstances. Please do visit and I am sure you will enjoy what you see and do.

 

There was certainly cross-border traffic between West London and Sussex. LBSC locos routinely worked freight transfer traffic to/from (among others) the GW (Lawson Billinton's K class found regular employment on these). Whether any GW loco trod pre-grouping Brighton metals with such services, I don't know (though there's photographic evidence that one inside cylindered LNWR 4-6-0 at least made it to Lewes with a through passenger service*) ... but if it did, these transfers seem the most likely candidate.

* in this instance, it was a cock-up by the traffic department rather than intentional!

 

For this I do humbly apologise. You are quite right of course.

I would ask, however, if you feel that Mr Hitch is presenting your line in the best possible manner.

Presenting a point for debate only, for Mr Hitch to again present an hypocrisy and an aside at the Atlantic group again (why? This has happened before) leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.

I have throughout this thread praised the efforts of the IOSWR across a range of points.

I will continue to do so and I will of course visit.

Tin hat on and all!

 

1940's Weekend ?

 

Steady on with all the accusations of hypocrisy and so on folks.
We might greatly disagree with people, we may think they have a huge bee in their bonnet that they ought to let out, we may think their priorities are very peculiar, lack clear thinking or even are highly inconsistent, but accusations of hyprocrisy seem unjustified and excessively divisive.

 

Is it possible to see a decline in heritage line income due to steam ban?
The livery and autencity of steam locomotives is maybe not so important as debate here indicates.

 

What steam ban?

Tom

 

If I may beg to differ Jim. There is a clear hypocrisy of justifying Ivatts on the IOSWR (that never ran there) and then in the same breath decrying the Atlantic project at the Bluebell (a recreation of a class which actually ran there).

The bottom line for me is that I’d like some consistency of viewpoint. Critiquing or criticising others on the basis of accuracy of presentation but ignoring ones own issues is hypocrisy.

 

Thank you Simon, particularly for your praise - we do try hard to get most things right although there is always room for improvement.

@paulhitch presents his personal opinions on this forum, as do I; they are not necessarily shared by all or any of the other IWSR members and officers.

Only he can decide if his postings are likely to be read as being IWSR policy or supportive of the IWSR. He is of course free to hold views that are contrary to IWSR policy as there is reasonable free speech on this forum.

 

And you are quite right to point out the freedom of expression that we enjoy (within reason).

On that note I think it best if I do not comment further, I have made my point, Mr Hitch and myself do not agree, perhaps that should be an end to it.

 

OK .
I thougth it was banned all over England and could thus indicate how much of public came for fun and how much for accurate ,preserved steam.

 

Far from universal - individual lines are making their own assessments. We had four in steam last weekend and three this next one.

Probably more germane to this thread in terms of "ideal" motive power, and how much authenticity might be a nice to have rather than an essential, is the issue of overhaul capacity, and to what extent lines are, to a degree, running on fumes with regard the ability to field sufficient operational motive power to run the service.

In that context "any" operational motive power is a marked advance on "authentic" motive power. The most desirable property is to get reliable high mileage between overhauls, because that is what has a really big bottom line impact on operational cost per mile (in comparison, variations in coal usage between locos has a very minor impact on cost per mile - pence rather than pounds). A significant part of an overhaul -- notably the time, and therefore expense, of stripping down and building back up again -- has to happen regardless of the mileage run, so a loco that can comfortably do 60,000 miles between overhauls without significant deterioration in reliability when nearing the end of its ticket will be considerably cheaper to run than a loco that only manages 30,000 between overhauls. Most of the major lines seem to be arriving at a situation of a smaller operational fleet worked harder, I suspect because the alternative (large operational fleet running low individual annual mileages) is increasingly unsustainable in maintenance and overhaul terms. Of course, there is limit - if you run too lean, you are only one unplanned failure away from cancelling trains, or diesel substitution, as has been seen on various railways at various times in recent years.

Tom

 

Simon - I thought your post was quite offensive - and unworthy of your usual thoughtful posts

 

Four live steam locomotives sounds like hard work and a lot of planning to keep many customers entertained.Kind of big buisness

How many of these four locomoives can be say WD 0-6-0 saddle tanks without spoiling the fun and future of Your railway?

 

I rather thought I was being restrained, given the circumstances.

I find it difficult to reconcile that I was offensive in being offended by Mr Hitch’s continued hypocrisy and hostility to the Atlantic project specifically.

I don’t think we should have to continue to take barbs rooted in such a blatant hypocrisy. I have explained why I feel this is - Mr Hitch has refused to address that, preferring instead to literally ignore my response.

I cannot apologise for defending a hard working group who, in reviving said locomotive, are recreating in locomotive and location a genuine portion of our past.

 

I think having a large fleet and running it lightly was probably a more appealing option when overhauls were using up remaining BR-life in many cases. Now, a lot of overhauls require a lot of work, so the asset needs to be worked to make at least some of its keep. If good long term covered storage isn't available, an out-of-ticket engine is just sitting there rusting, making more work to be done when it finally is overhauled. Just look at the MHR website updates on 34105, which seems to have had as much new platework as many a Barry wreck. Much easier to take a tired-but-working engine straight out of service and get stuck into the overhaul before corrosion has its insidious way, unchecked by lubrication or regular attention.

 

We could set up a national organisation to do so. Maybe give it a catchy name like ‘British Railways

I’ve seen photos of GWR locos on Reading-Redhill, mostly moguls (but I think during BR days) whether any GWR locos ever turned up on cross country services to Brighton I have no idea or during war time troop movements.

It is hypocrisy and it is perfectly fair to call it that. I don’t mind if someone has a view that things should be authentic as possible and if that means they reject loco x or carriages as being inauthentic then fair enough. I don’t mind if someone says ‘we will do anything to bring in the punters, if that means naming locos after gods, dmu carriages because they have big windows, tie ins with children’s stories.’ That is someone having a point of view. But if you invoke authenticity to criticise others at least have the decency to hold your hands up when your railway chooses to use inauthentic locos or rolling stock.

It is hypocritical to attack one railway for using an MN or Castle, while lauding another railway for bringing in a King or an S160.

When someone says ‘well they would have used ivatts’ it is a bit like announcing that if their granny had balls she’d be their grandad.

Tbh, I think it is more trolling as attention seeking more than anything else. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so lacking in self-awareness that they could not see the logical flaws, contradictions in what they were saying. Plus, that so many threads are derailed in exactly the same way - project/idea attacked with an ad hominem epithet and the discussion ends up being about the poster not the subject in hand (and here I plead guilty to doing this here)

To go back to your oringal point, in an ideal world, i’d Like to ride behind authentic locos and authentic rolling stock but at the same time, I recognise that this can’t always be possible, also sometimes visiting locos give me the chance to see and ride behind locos I might not have the chance to ride behind otherwise. And to be fair, austerities have grown on me and having become so familiar with them they remind me of childhood visits to then recently established lines (so my own heritage rather than a heritage of an era before I was born)

One of the really interesting things reading the accident reports on the railways archive website is when the guard gives the make up of the train involved in the accident - luggage vans, multiple brake vans (more if the train was splitting or had been made of splits). One accident I was reading about from 1939,the ‘express’ (the accident report) was being hauled by a 4f, another from 1940 involving a branchline train involved black 5s on a handful of coaches

I find that these documents are often better at showing ordinary train formations better than the typical 3/4 photo (not that there is anything wrong with photos).