If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Mid Hants Railway Operational Matters

Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by NightRail, Jan 11, 2017.

  1. twr12

    twr12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    596
    I would also be very interested to read such a study that came out with a nice round number for the “extra” cost of running a MN over unspecified class(es) of locos.

    I’ve done a quick calculation myself based on £50k.

    Coal was approx £200/t pre Russia invading Ukraine.

    50000/200 = 250 tonnes of coal per year, extra than a mid sized loco.

    If a preserved steam loco does say, 90 days running per year; 250/90 = 2.77 tonnes of coal per day MORE than a mid sized loco.
    Really??????
     
    Andy B and flying scotsman123 like this.
  2. Fireline

    Fireline Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    607
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    What else were they going to say? "We'll be pleased to welcome 76017, whose owner has decided to raise two fingers to it's current base"? Any statement put out is only ever correct at the time of going to press. It's been weeks since they said that, and things may well have changed in the interim.
     
    ghost and flying scotsman123 like this.
  3. martin1656

    martin1656 Nat Pres stalwart Friend

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    16,208
    Likes Received:
    10,096
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St Leonards
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I'm puzzled by the lack of any statement by the management of the MHR, either confirming that 76017 has been sold, and its moving on, or that the engine will be returning, by not saying anything, it makes you wonder, did the management know that the engine was going to leave, but decided not to tell anyone, it was only once it had left to go to the Bluebell did the rumours start to circulate. either that, or they were in the dark themselves and it was only once the move off MHR metals happened, so the news broke, if that is the case, it really is a two fingered salute.
     
  4. 21B

    21B Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,251
    Likes Received:
    3,722
    It isn't a public document.
     
  5. 21B

    21B Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,251
    Likes Received:
    3,722
    Whilst I tend to agree that a statement would be desirable for the audience here and possibly for the railway staff as well, it it isn't a matter of very wide interest so a press release would be a surprise.

    We only have the rumour mill here to go on to know that there is perceived to be any problem at all, and I'd guess that the management aren't subscribed.

    Maybe there is a problem and it cannot be spoken about. Just as likely on the basis of the information available is that there is no problem. I think patience is required and I. Sure we will find out soon enough.
     
  6. twr12

    twr12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    596
    Oh.
     
  7. WesternRegionHampshireman

    WesternRegionHampshireman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2021
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hampshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Oh, so they still have 3 engines in service then?
    Fair enough. :)
     
  8. RichardSalmon

    RichardSalmon New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    151
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    75B
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    There's a lot more to running a loco than just coal. That the grate area is 27% larger than a light pacific, and 82% bigger than a 4MT tank, hence inevitably higher coal consumption. But in addition you've got the cost of water if you have to pay for it, and of lubricating oil.
    But are you also amortising the 10-year overhaul costs over the period? Even just the boiler tubes and superheater elements will be rather more, even without considering the larger cost of overhauling a larger engine. If CanPac is costing north of £1m to overhaul, and the overhaul of a 4MT is nearer half a million (80151 I think), then you get £50k a year immediately over 10 years.
     
    Steve likes this.
  9. RichardSalmon

    RichardSalmon New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    151
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    75B
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Ah, yes, of course. Tom. I'd failed to put 2 and 2 together.
     
  10. flying scotsman123

    flying scotsman123 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    10,131
    Likes Received:
    16,796
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It was noted in post #5065 that overhaul costs were not included. That being the case, and not seeing anything particularly wildly out on @twr12 's workings, I'm curious as to how that figure was arrived at, although it seems I shall have to remain curious as it's not for publication.
     
    Chris86, Swan Age and 35B like this.
  11. 73129

    73129 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,463
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Location:
    Winchester
    Any time scale to when 34058 would enter Ropley workshop.

    thanks
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2022
  12. twr12

    twr12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    596
    I used only coal cost as an example to question how the “extra” £50k pa cost of a MN could arise.

    As 21B, the originator of the £50k factor in this thread has declined to give any further indication as to how the source document resulted in that figure; I’ll assume it’s a case of someone deciding what they want the answer to be, and playing with figures until they get to that answer. Be that 21B or the confidential document’s author.
     
  13. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,604
    Likes Received:
    17,640
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Or, alternatively, that @21B was given the document in confidence and is not in a position to share the details. I don't leap to the conclusion of bad faith.
     
  14. twr12

    twr12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    596
    I’m not leaping to any conclusions except that a statement of costs of £50k per year more than x loco, is inconclusive!
     
  15. 21B

    21B Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,251
    Likes Received:
    3,722
    Honestly I don't care if you choose to believe the number or not. It is a number and despite the fact that it was arrived at from historical records over several decades of operating different loco types, it remains an estimate. I don't have the calculations and even if I did I wouldnt share them because they'd make little sense without the data, which is definitely not going to be made public. So there you are. The estimate was made by someone with the right background and access to the data for an extended period. I would regard the number as directionally correct rather than absolute. Whether you want to believe it or not.... that's up to you
     
    Gilesy68, DavidH, Chris86 and 5 others like this.
  16. 21B

    21B Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,251
    Likes Received:
    3,722
    Sometime before the next ice age. Possibly.
     
    John Petley, green five and Swan Age like this.
  17. RichardSalmon

    RichardSalmon New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    151
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    75B
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Comparing it to figures for operating costs of locos of different sizes (divided into small, medium and large) on the Bluebell, produced maybe 15 years ago in a very similar exercise (but which worked out cost per mile rather than per year), my gut reaction is that the figure seems entirely believable. And before anyone asks, no I don't have access to definitive Bluebell figures or background data, because I'm in C&W, not Loco/Commercial departments. ;-) All I remember is that I used £25 per mile at that time to work out the loco costs for showing what the likely return on investment of the Pullman Dining Train was (I already had reliable carriage running/maintenance costs that I'd calculated as part of our HLF bid to show the financial benefit of keeping carriages under cover for our then proposed carriage shed at Sheffield Park).
     
    GOPOT, 21B, Swan Age and 3 others like this.
  18. Andy B

    Andy B Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    512
    Location:
    Bristol
    What everyone seems to be assuming is that the railways are paying for the overhauls.
    a lot of the bigger railways in the past overhaul the locos at there own expense using full time staff and then have the 10 years running agreement with the owners. Obviously if said railway own that loco then that’s the way it’ll be. But we’ve seen instances say at the Svr who have a huge overhaul queue and I’ll argue some of those owning groups will not see there engine steam again.
    At the gwsr where I’m involved, all locos are owned by individuals or private groups who have a running contract with the railway. The railway pay an agreed steaming fee per day and have no obligation on overhauling the engine. That being said, the groups have access to all facilities and can and do undertake all maintenance required. Although we do not have a single full time member of staff in the loco dept, we have over 180 people registered in the dept and that includes some very competent time served engineers. We have some very decent facilities and the Current system still works for us so we’ll carry on. Re 35006, it’s mainly just extra coal costs and washouts, there are no historical overhaul costs involved for the gwsr.
     
    RichardSalmon likes this.
  19. 61624

    61624 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,750
    Likes Received:
    2,914
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That's all fine and dandy for the GWSR, but we all know that we're not talking "one size fits all" arrangements here, so I'm not sure what your point is. Not all railways are the same: even on lines where locos are hired in and a mileage fee is paid, the level of payment may be adjusted to acknowledge the fact that the railway's paid staff may have to undertake scheduled (such as washouts) or unscheduled works to keep the loco in service for the benefit of both the loco owners and the railway.
     
  20. Cuckoo Line

    Cuckoo Line New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2020
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    160
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I guess as the big railways found out there is always an optimum size loco for the daily requirements if a line which depend on many circumstances. This will take into account both non-recurring and recurring costs. Certainly the GWR for one found certain lines needed more powerful locos than you might expect due to the undulations of the line, others have been limited by other hurdles. So definitely one size doesn,t fit all.
     

Share This Page