LSL Ltd / Icons of Steam fleet

At the moment they have Blue peter under overhaul, and Nunney Castle due back soon, so potentially thats 3 engines if you count Nunney, the black 5 i'm not sure about the status, but isnt that in working condition,?
So the 2018 season should hopefully see 4 engines , possibly 5, if Britannia is repaired in time , and there is 6024 in the wings, and 60523 hopefully towards the end of 2018/ 2019 in theory they should have enough engines allowing for washouts and maintenance, but i dare say, there will be other locos that are not owned by IOS, that may operate under its safety case.

 

Britannia won't be back for a while as the latest update on her page on the IOS website says this:
"An unfortunate series of setbacks in 2013 and 2015 have meant Britannia's recent mainline career has been somewhat curtailed and she is now awaiting an overhaul before being returned to steam".

I think they have also suffered a manpower problem recently as a number of people have left/retired from Crewe.
Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

 

Nunney not due back soon, but there will be 4 by sometime next year. The article in SR states the Scot will be the main engine for their trips with Braunton as spare.

 

Availability of competent engineering staff is the major limiting factor affecting not just LSL but the industry. Recruitment and retention are critical to acheiving the fleet levels being aspired too and I think collaboration or failure are the two choices in the long term.

 

Have they acquired Riviera? I know they acquired Statesman and Railfilms stock.

Sawdust.

Sidmouth admin notes . I've amended my post above and edited the quote , Riviera as a business is still a separate entity looking on companies house . It was reported the business was subject to discussion for sale

 

Are Riviera DBC's coaching provider , or am i getting confussed with Arriva?

 

Yes Riviera provide coaches for DBCargo operated tours. They provide the Torbay Express rake for example.

 

Am i alone in thinking that this could impact on the amount of steam work DBS will get in the future, which could impact on on the A1 trust and MNLPS ,

 

The A1ST are looking to form their own set of Mark 3's.

 

At the risk of derailing the thread tangentially, what's the big problem with vacuum brakes, aside from most modern diesels not being geared up to it? Why is air so superior? It seemed like there was a time, post-Grouping, when air brake pumps were being ripped off locos that were then converted to vacuum...

 

I think its the speed with which the brakes apply, there is a delay with vacuum, im sure someone like steve can confirm.

 

I also believe its the time in which the brakes apply to stop a train and the speed in which full application can be made. Interestingly, the NER pre-grouping preferred air, but switched to group standard LNER vacuum. Id think standardisation would be the reason many switched from air.

 

I doubt that it would effect the operation of the A1 Trust or MNLPS, as I would think they would be very interested in keeping the relationship going to provide stock. Yes some might be used to build up a rake for IOS, but that looks to be a project that will add to what is available. Most of the issues with Tornado come from the DBC ability to crew it, but this has greatly improved recently. I had heard that Riveria was sold to Hoskings operation, but like many I expect even if they have to keep the ability to supply DBC and other TOCs with stock for charters or additional services.

 

Air systems required a royalty to be paid to Westinghouse, and the system was by comparison more complicated than a vacuum system. The big advantages of air brakes is that they are far more powerful than vacuum systems, and can therefore stop trains in shorter distances. Also easier to find leaks too! There is an upper limit on how much vacuum can be created (21 inches on all except GWR which was 24 inches) - not sure on steam but modern train air systems typically have 100-120psi in the reservoirs. The downside of older train air systems is that you only get about 3 brake applications on older stock before the air is gone.... User and maintainer knowledge of vacuum brake systems on the mainline are pretty much non-existent nowadays, outside of charter operators.

 

With a steam locomotive, creating a vacuum is dead easy and the whole vacuum system is simple and fundamentally fail safe. Although vacuum brake cylinders are much larger than air brake cylinders this offers little in the way of advantage except where space is at a premium as the maximum brake force that can be applied is a function of the vehicles weight and is achievable with vacuum brakecylinders. It's big disadvantage of vacuum is that it is relatively slow to apply and release as a result of both the larger cylinders and the larger train pipe. An air brake system, on the other hand is quick to apply and release because the volume of air that has to be moved is much smaller. With an air brake system it is also not necessary to wholly vent the train ppe to get a full brake application. It is because the maximum brake force that can be applied is limited that application time becomes significant when you are looking at minimising stopping distances. If you are travelling at 60 mph (that's 88 ft/s) and it takes 10 seconds to get a full application you have travelled some 880 ft. Reduce that application time to 2 seconds and you will stop in a distance 704 ft shorter. OK, those figures aren't going to stand up to any form of serious scrutiny but they illustrate the point.

 

With vacuum systems the maximum pressure differential available to drive your system is (rather less than) atmospheric pressure., i.e. 1 bar , 14.5psi or 30 inches of mercury. In reality you can't generate full vacuum so you are looking at 21-25 inches, i.e. about -0.7bar. With (air) pressure systems you aren't limited, you can use higher pressures (120 psi is about 8bar or 250 inches of mercury), hence smaller cylinders, faster air flows, etc.

 

It's interesting to note that of the pre-grouping companies that standardised on air brakes, several (LB&SCR, LCDR, GER etc.) had significantly heavy suburban passenger traffic in which braking performance was an advantage, and presumably - even for an impecunious company like the Chatham - the extra performance of air brakes (quick application / quick release) more than compensated the additional cost in equipment and royalties.

Tom