recreating the past or enjoying preservation

I must admit I don't quite follow the logic of Paul's position. On the one hand wanting prototype fidelity, on the other economic competency. Sadly, if most current heritage lines tried to be prototypically faithful to, say, the 1950s, it would mean running a train every couple of hours with half a dozen passengers - not very effective for economic competence!

On the subject of over-provisioning motive power: on the Bluebell at least, photos of a Fairburn or Standard 4MT on a load of about 2-3 pre-group coaches are common - a trailing load that is less than the weight of the engine. In the later years, a single 25ton birdcage brake sufficed, behind a Marsh C2x goods engine. I don't suppose the number if passengers, or milk churns, much troubled the scorers, nor added much to the load!

Tom

 

The absurdity lay in building so many of them in the first place when the available jobs were often far below their capacity. Bulleid did this sort of thing. The operators wanted a modern general purpose tank locomotive to replace assorted I3's, M7's and so on. They got the Leader.

P.H.

 

This is one of the most sensible comments I have read. Absolute authenticity is impossible and I have no problems with improved facilities for passengers. My real concern is that the cost implications of over elaborate operation have not been acknowledged yet alone addressed.

Paul H.

 

Whilst some people strive to preserve the image of the railway pre '68. All of us involved are not necessarily preserving it as it was. We are presenting an image of steam railways. IF the SVR were to be run as it was 60 years ago. It would be 4 trains a day, 4 coaches and about 4 people on the train.

 

The Leader aside, SR board considered they got their money's worth out of OVS but this is going way OT so I won't go any further. I find your views of preservation rather Utopian and we all know that Utopia doesn't exist. Heritage railways by and large do a damn fine job with the tools at their disposal. Much of the operational fleet is a result of the Barry phenomenon, we have what we have. If Barry had been full of Jinties rather than Bulleids and 9Fs then the preservation scene would have been a lot different. If Barry hadn't happened, then the movement would have been much smaller than it is now. All very well sitting at a keyboard and bleating on about how this is wrong and that's not authentic but that doesn't run trains and get bums on seats. To achieve what would seem to be your ideal would mean turning the clock back and sending a different selection of locos to Barry. That ain't gonna happen so the world of preservation has to use what it has, not what it possibly would like to have.

 

And it wasn't just the Southern. There was a GC working that was four plus a tank loco. This went to V2 haulage as there was also a booked light engine working on the same route. This saved a path and the cost of the tank engine and crew. Efficient rather than absurd IMO. There will be examples of big locos on short trains all over the network due to operational requirements or necessity.

 

Quite right. To show things exactly how they were is almost impossible in this day and age.

 

And leaner and fitter with a better chance of long term survival when the present generation of supporters have died off and the boilers have run out.

PH

 

Well that's a position that's been spouted since the days of Michael Draper and earlier but the doom mongers are still awaiting their steam Armageddon. No idea how old you are but I'll wager the movement in whatever form it takes as time goes on will outlive you, me and most others on this forum. Are you actively involved in preservation at all by the way?

 

Yes

PH

 

How would less locos preserved improve the boiler situation? The life of the boilers wouldn't be any different as any surviving locos would have still been steamed and working for a living. I don't buy the supporters angle entirely. There will always be exceptions but I suspect the success of many lines is due to a relatively local supply of volunteers so less railways could possibly mean no more volunteers for any individual line as people are less likely to travel long distances to volunteer regularly.

 

We will have to agree to disagree. Welsh narrow gauge lines ( who have managed new rail and new boilers incidentally) have many volunteers from all over the country, indeed some from all over the world.

I suspect by the way that the F.R. and WHR (which I am not connected with) are the only railways who can really justify machinery capable of handling 12 bogies at line speeds!

PH

 

It's not just about justifying though is it? It's about what inspires people to do daft things like get involved in heritage railways and being a broad church, it takes all manner of things to do the inspiration. There's no logic to this game and trying to apply said logic will probably be a pointless exercise.

 

IMHO this is just another variation on "wouldn't it be nice". We have to be brutal sometimes and say "No it would not be"!

PH

 

...but a lot more coal trains!

The twee and 'pretty' trees at Country Park would have to be ripped up to put back the sidings for Aveley Colliery, and the questionable visual appearance of the Engine House wouldn't matter as it gets bulldozed to be replaced by the much more in keeping coal sidings there as well. Also have to find some way of running empty freight trains in one direction and full ones in the other!

 

You seem to miss the important point once again. We have what we have simply because that's all that was in the "shop." Many classes you would consider ideal for heritage railway operations had been scrapped by the time the standard gauge heritage movement really got going. No amount of hindsight can change what was saved. As for the Barry phenomenon being a case of "wouldn't it be nice," thank the stars it was. For forty years it more we've seen the SG scene go from strength to strength and even if some are doomed ultimately to fail, what a ride it's been so far. Anyone who cannot rejoice in the achievements so far must lack a soul IMO.

 

I would "rejoice" a bit more if "the movement" had shown a bit more in the way of learning from experience. Instead of preserving the wrong type of machine possibly (I am not sure this was actually the case) because there was nothing else, we are now, with one or two exceptions, producing new builds also of the wrong type!
Enough of this topic from me.

PH

 

Funnily enough, there is an article in the current issue of the "Brighton Circular" discussing the financial crash of the 1860s.

It seems, at the time, that the LBSCR had (taking 31/12/1865 as a census point) 213 locos, but of those, 100 were unserviceable - 29 in the works, 23 stored at Horley, 37 stored unserviceable on shed awaiting call to the works, 11 laid aside for scrap. Of those laid aside for scrap, some apparently weren't scrapped and eventually came back into service. That's not actually very far from the proportions of what is running, under overhaul, stored etc amongst the 213 Barry survivors.

On the matter of financial control and strategy, they nonetheless ordered 12 new build locos from Stephensons as a matter of urgency - but them promptly sold four, and built four new ones themselves costing as much as they had paid Stephensons! They were engaged on a number of somewhat speculative extension projects (120 miles, of which 70 were abandoned and only 50 built).

Yet they carried on paying 5% dividend, somewhat foolishly, and seem to have paid for it by halting a lot of discretionary expenditure (aka maintenance - which explains why so many locos were stored pending overhaul).

Not a pretty picture, but whatever one might say about how today's heritage railways are run, financially they are hardly doing anything much worse than the companies they are choosing to preserve!

Tom

 

Paul, You go on relentlessly about efficiency and the use of oversize locos to do a job which can be done by a smaller loco but this is not necessarily being the most efficient. Take a BR std 4 4-6-0; According to BR test data, it is at its most efficient (a heady 8%) when trundling around at about 23mph and utilising about 12,000lbf of tractive effort. That probably means it is a bit small for a lot of standard gauge lines. Running at peak efficiency does a lot for coal and water usage. It also has a significant affect on maintenance costs to operate well below the maximum power output and one reason why BR were quite happy with them (and Bulleid pacifics) trundling around with short trains. Working a loco at or near its grate limit simply means that you are throwing coal/money up the chimney.
At the end of the day, the most important figure is the cost to do the job and that is a far more complex thing where size is not the most important consideration, be it large or small..