Heritage Line Loco Power Requirements

13% increase in passenger numbers the year P&O re-entered service....

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Utter co-incidence IMHO.

PH

 

I wasn't being *completely* serious, but when I was on as a TTI there were definitely some people who had only visited because of P&O, although I grant you, probably not enough to account for a 13% increase...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

I don't buy it. Let's say Dad takes little Jimmy to his local railway that has for example an austerity tank....little Jimmy has a great time and asks Dad on the way home if they can do it again sometime. Dad, if he is half a good-un, makes a mental note to try and blow his sons mind next time so he finds what else is out there that can better his son's experience....

As a dad of young kids, that's the way I try to do outings, and not just railway related - national parks, holidays, museum, etc.

 

Not many I suspect, with the exception of Flying Scotsman.

Named locomotives, on the other hand, do seem to be a bit of a draw - at least in as much as people who have previously visited seem more likely to ask on return "where is such and such a loco?" or post on social media "we travelled behind [name]" rather than "where is xxx?". One of the advantages that the Swindon crowd have is that the GWR seemed to continue naming down to relatively modest locomotives. In that regard, a Manor will always have more pulling power (punters, not carriages) than, say, a broadly similar sized 43xx or 51xx, but I don't believe a Castle or King would be significantly more attractive just on account of being considerably bigger.

On the question of water: we have a 22 mile round trip with significant gradients, and with the exception of Baxter (hardly typical motive power anywhere, let alone on a long line), I've done a complete round trip on all our current tank engines with their maximum allowable loads returning with a comfortable margin to spare. (i.e. P Tank with two coaches and 550gallons; or a the H class with four coaches and 1200 gallons available). Most crew however prefer to take water at East Grinstead simply for reassurance in case of any untoward delay on the return journey, and our time tables are designed with an allowance in mind for that. (Typically 19 minute run round at EG, which allows time to take water). During the carriage warming season, you obviously use more water. Most tank engines normally need coal after two trips (the H has one ton capacity; the P tank 1/2 ton) and our timetables are designed to allow that at Sheffield Park, where there is about 40 minutes available to come in for coal if necessary, run round and take water.

When 80151 returns, it will be an interesting case study for a larger loco. From memory, it used to use about 1100 - 1200 gallons to Kingscote and back with a six coach train (2000 gallons available). My feeling is that with a similar load, it should still be able to do the extra four miles (nearly half of which is uphill at 1:75 / 1:60 / 1:55) on one tank with a reasonable margin, but it will be interesting whether the preference is still to take water at East Grinstead or not. I suspect it will need coal after two trips like the other tank engines when used on a full load.

Tom

 

80135 (and 80136) will just do a round trip Grosmont-Pickering on a full tank with 5/6 coaches but there is absolutely no margin and everything has to be right.
I reckon of a tender loco using 2,500 for the same trip with 7 coaches. That's about 70 gal/mile but, as I've said before, our locos are loaded far more than in BR days.
On the subject of water usage, an increasing number of locos are being fitted with ashpan sprinklers to combat the possibility of fires and for other reasons and these can use significant amounts of water.

 

You might like to think this but it just isn't so. My information comes from someone who is in a position to know and we are talking about the general public not enthusiasts.

PH

 

I'm quite surprised at the way this thread belittles those who do things 'just for fun'. Without the involvement of volunteers who give their time and money purely for the enjoyment it brings, how many preserved railways would we have? How many visitors visit for reasons other than the fun of it? If it's an industry, it's a leisure industry.

Nor do I understand the idea that those who do things for fun must be ignorant of the costs. Isn't the reality the opposite? Take those who restored P & O for example. No-one will be more painfully aware of the cost involved (in time, effort and hard cash) in restoring this 'big chuffer'. Yet they're willing to do it because of the enjoyment it gives, and I imagine seeing her steam again gave an awful lot of pleasure.

I wonder how many people get involved in our hobby because they want a break from a world where efficiency is the only consideration, a bit of enjoyment amidst the dullness. To point out that the activity could be done more efficiently is to spectacularly miss the point.

 

I was more talking from the standpoint of being a Dad (trying very hard to keep my enthusiast hat off!) and how the family outing can very quickly get skewed towards what is on offer.

But...since you brought up enthusiasts....why discount them from the equation? Are they not bums on seats too? And, by the gist of your own post, they clearly do care what engine they sit behind and I would bet a penny to a pound they would be leaning towards seeking out big chufferism.

Another demographic I can see being affected by big engine pull factor is the generation that has memory of working steam. Do I need to remind anyone how many times you have heard "ooh, that takes me back" when a steam train is in action. Enthusiast or not there is a whole lot of people out there that remember what a fine thing a big engine is...."Merle, you know Frank from down the Kings Head? Well, he says this railway up north a bit has one of those steam engines I used to ride behind when we went on holidays as a boy. Fancy taking a day out to see one?"

So there are three examples I can see making a difference to where people go to ride a "steam train". Would it be an extra (mythical) 13%? Who knows, but I wouldn't discount "wow" factor for being able to pay for itself.

If you flipped it on its head and everyone started running standard 2's or 4's or their ilk then I think you would see visitor numbers drop harking back to the roots of my joking "beige" comment earlier.

I'm not pro big engine over little engine by any means or trying to make a case for more big engines. What I am pro of is variety - be careful what you wish for.

 

Having large passenger locomotives of Class 6 and above appearing at heritage railway galas or other special occasions is very nice for all concerned, but to have them running day in, day out, on the normal service trains places an un-necessary financial burden on the railways concerned. It is not just coal consumption that needs to be considered, but also the costs of water, lubricating oil and the wear and tear on the railway's infrastructure.

The SVR has been closely monitoring coal consumption for its fleet over the past few years, and as 1472 has already stated upthread, the two Bulleid pacifics are the largest consumers of coal per mile by quite a hefty margin. The consumption figures, taken over such a long period, even out any inconsistencies with coal quality, turn length or crew competency. There is now a policy in place of encouraging the rostering of smaller engines where possible to do so.

For lines such as the SVR which were originally secondary branch lines (The SVR was originally a dotted blue route) and thus were not so heavily engineered as main lines, the cumulative effect of using large locomotive on a regular basis cannot be understated. Whilst track and some structures may have been upgraded to take higher axle loadings, any problems with the formation, of which the SVR has many, can be exacerbated by the continual use of large and heavy locomotives. When considering structures, axle-loading becomes less important than the all-up weight, hence the imposition of reduced speed limits over some bridges or viaducts for certain large locomotives.

Andy

 

Most of the bills for revenue expenses are met by the general public. For instance, in the U.K. organisations such as Shearings Holidays, who organise package coach holidays aimed very much at the elderly. Some of their clients would be no-where near a tourist railway if they had not been brought there.

PH

 

I think you are trying to put the entire population into two pigeon holes.

 

This is true, but we know that heritage railways in general are not profitable businesses (apart from the P&D obviously). So whilst enthusiasts might make up a small number of passengers, they make up a much larger proportion of supporters who donate money and time and without whom, we wouldn't have any railways or steam engines to discuss.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Many more than two.

PH

 

Well Shearings wouldn't take their customers for stream train rides if they didn't get good feedback from doing so. So to say their customers wouldn't go near a preserved railway otherwise is being disingenuous.

The average punter may not care how big the chuffer is at the front but if every train on every railway looked exactly the same as the one they saw last week/month/year did they might not visit as often. Railways are a popular attraction because of the rich experience that they offer.

Ignore that at your peril.

Sawdust.

 

A round of applause for that man. You are quite right that loco owners are only too aware of the costs of owning, restoring and maintaining a loco - big or small - and that's why we're out there fund raising to
the money coming in on top of steaming fees with the aim of being able to afford the next overhaul. We also do it because we love it and have immense pride in our loco.

 

Hey Up Pete! I just clocked this is still the "Loco Requirements" thread. We're all getting a bit coachy. Thread split time?

 

So why does this not apply to locos, when in your world the majority would be Ivatt 2mts? I simply don't believe that the loco on the front can matter so little to the same people that variety of coaches matters to so much.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk