Relaying is going to become very expensive!

This was so.

PH

 

Well, our heaviest train is only six coaches, so a four coach set is effectively two thirds of the capacity of our biggest train already. Or, more accurately, since we run two trains on a normal weekend day (one of which is generally 4 vintage coaches anyway), I'm suggesting changing a "nine carriage" off peak service to an "eight carriage" off peak service; or five coaches to four coaches mid-week when we run one train. Both trains get strengtheners at peak times, to five / six vehicles. Obviously, a more detailed analysis would also take into account the actual seating capacity: the vintage sets have much greater seats for a given size of train than the Mark 1s.

As for passenger numbers - about 175,000 per year as far as I am aware, spread over something like 250-275 operating days.

Tom

 

Is that passenger bookings - or passenger journeys (where return tickets count as 2) - just trying to get an idea of bums on seats!

 

A practical limitation on the size of trains is the length of platforms; most tourist railways being branches rather than former main lines. It is no use providing 100% corridor stock and assuming that passengers will walk along the train until they see a platform outside the window. Sooner or later some idiot will fall out! Cynical me thinks people want to find an excuse to run large locos. rather than have a genuine need to do so.

Heavier equipment has an effect beyond the rails themselves. Underline structures are affected by the loads they bear and in the "old days" this cramped the style of loco departments considerably. When the Cambrian was taken over by the GWR and the latter had taken a good look at their inheritance many locomotive types were prohibited from lines they had worked over previously. If you think the cost of new rail is considerable, try replacing a girder bridge!

Paul H.

 

Bookings I think, but I wouldn't swear to it. But bearing in mind our annual revenue, and our normal ticket price, I don't think we could meet that revenue if we only had 90,000 or so bums on seats, even with shop sales, catering sales etc. (There will also be a number of life members making journeys who won't be counted in those numbers, as they get free travel and therefore don't buy tickets and don't get counted through the Edmondson system...)

Edit: I'm sure it must be bookings, since we don't have a reliable method of counting journeys. (We run a lot of non-corridor stock, so don't routinely roster TTIs who can do accurate passenger counts across all our services). So the only accurate count we have is ticket sales.

Tom

 

Some railways flatter their figures by quoting PJ's - I think that harks back to Railway Clearing House reconciliation's, but I don't think the principal Standard Gauge lines resort to that. I maybe feel a new thread coming on..............

 

All very well saying that more use should be made of smaller locomotives but take all the class 5 locos and larger out of the equation and there will be a shortage of motive power across the industry. Barring the occasional new build, the locomotive pool is what it is and I would like to know where these extra small locos are going to come from.

 

It could become like the American model... 1 working steam loco, 1 being overhauled, if it fails.. It's a diesel.
in reality it's quite ambitious what we have in the UK with some lines running 5 a day in steam...that's more than some countries working fleet.

 

There are other things that need to be taken into account. On most railways, the loadings aren't consistent throughout the day and some trains will load far more heavily than others. Shunting coaches on/off take a significant time that is often not available in the timetable so the set is usually marshalled for peak loading. Another problem affecting some railways (the NYMR certainly suffers this) is where to put the unwanted stock when not required. You will usually find coaching sets are stabled in platforms at the end of the day and there isn't any spare convenient siding space to leave extra coaches.

 

It has been talked about within the HRA many times but no one has yet been able to come up with a practical and workable solution. For a start, a 'highly professional central purchasing organisation' is going to require a highly professional staff who would have to be full time (paid) and who is going to be the both employer and the funder? I might want some boiler tubes and be able to broker a good deal for my railway and one or two others that also want some at the same time but I aren't going to do it for every other railway whenever they want some; I'm doing it to help my railway get a better deal, no other reason. The heritage railway market place is considerably different from the commercial world and even buying simple things like nuts & bolts won't work. If you negotiate a 25% off deal with Joe Bloggs fasteners, Fred Smith Fixings will probably offer some sizes at a cheaper price, depending on stock and quantity required.

 

Again on this.
What would be preferable, A small loco flogging its guts out at the limit of its capability or have a large engine working comfortably and not wrecking itself?

 

The latter, obviously. But has anyone proposed the first option? I am sure the load limits for smaller locos in regular use are calculated with reliability & future maintenance in mind as well as the ability to keep to the timetable, frequency of watering/coaling etc.

 

To Spamcan: - in my original post, I did make the point that to a certain extent railways now are using what exists, not what would be ideal.

To Ploughman: My suggestion was that the ideal for most lines was between a class 2 and 5, not just a small loco flogging itself. A class 5 is hardly a small loco.

Tom

 

My remark was aimed more at the OP than your good self.

 

Tom IMHO has got it about right. We are talking about hauling 5 or 6 carriages at 25m.p.h. maximum and Power Class 4 or 5 is more than big enough for the purpose without any sort of thrashing. There is a difference between "we would like" to operate big motive and "we can afford" to operate such things.

 

Or a cheap freight engine..

a 4 or 5 MT or P is indicative of Power @ Speed ?? where as an F is about Haulage at low speed ?
As were talking about low speed short distance.. freight locos are probably more suitable / economical ?

 

Again, please say where these extra smaller locos will come from if the larger ones are stood down?

 

The heritage movement could only save what didn't get scrapped and the lack of a fleet of these class 2 tanks is down to the fact that large numbers didn't reach Barry.

 

24 smaller locos yet to steam in preservation.. thats a start.. if there was an economic over passion desire

4100, 4121, 5528, 5538, 5539, 5668, 6638, 6686, 9629, 46428, 46447, 41298, 41313, 44123, 47445, 47564, 76077, 75079, 78018, 80097, 80100, 80150, 82045, 84030

there are others of course which havent steams for some time..

 

Assuming Wiki is right, four of the Ivatt class 2 tanks were preserved, though only one is currently in running order (the KWVR one). None of the BR standard variant was preserved, though the Bluebell is recreating one.

For preserved line use, I think the tank engine variants are better than the tender engine ones. (Again, talking about what is optimal, not what is necessarily available). Firstly, they have more adhesion by virtue of carrying their own coal and water. (I once spent a very long ten minutes in the tunnel on the Bluebell with a Standard class 2 tender engine and poor railhead condition!). Secondly, for an engine likely to spend half its time running backwards, having a truck at each end helps lead it into corners, which should have a beneficial impact on the track.

Tom