Replica builds for heritage lines.

Both.

I strongly suspect that the "enthusiast" population considerably underestimates the level of knowledge in the general population. Any reasonably bright kid who's developed an interest in Thomas the Tank Engine is going to have a passing knowledge of different classes, wheel arrangements and the like, and is certainly going to be happy to see locomotives in varying liveries. With the net providing access to information previously only available in books the level of knowledge in those kids is going to increase rather than reduce. And those who haven't developed the interest will *still* expect a variety of locomotives in different liveries.

 

Which is an argument for using lots of different liveries, regardless of authenticity. I hasten to add that I am also well aware of the desire and reasons for authenticity. You can't please everyone.

 

Who's going to pay for them though? I can't think of a single newbuild project that is funded by operating income alone, they all rely on donations, which involves making it an attractive prospect. How is another 2MT going to be attractive?

I've just realised - why are you advocating newbuilds at all Paul!? Wouldn't it be cheaper and more cost effective to restore what we have anyway? It doesn't matter how much more economic a 2MT is, if you haven't got one, it's going to cost a lot more to build one from new than restore something slightly less suitable.

 

I agree with both, which is why I would always support having locos in their earliest possible livery, as I think that would provide the greatest spread of colour. The flag for BR can be flown by BR built engines.

 

I was absolutely astonished once to find quite a "sophisticated" couple who had no idea if a locomotive in front of them was propelled by steam or diesel. Similarly there are enthusiasts whose approach to their interest is strongly akin to that of the sort of football supporter whose interest extends to the favoured club and no further. Most "general" passengers are aware if they are being hauled by steam but it would be unwise to assume much more.

PH

 

Tbey would have to be financed by the various railways concerned, or rather their supporters. It is going to be interesting in a few years time when people realise how much money has literally gone up in smoke.

PH

 

I think I'm right in saying that so far not a single railway has attempted a new build (minus possibly didcot for the broad gauge which in not including as thats a different subject). And there is a reason for this, being that running a railway it's not your number one concern. As long as you have steam your a happy person. The variety then comes from the volunteers and few enthusiasts who wish to see more of this and that etc.

So in terms of new build I seriously don't see any for a long long time even considering building one, more they are happy to see a group build one and then hire it off them for a season or two. And when it comes to funding again you will struggle to find people actually willing to pay for another new xx loco. This is where variety comes into play and people will donate more to something different. I can tell you from personal experience that now matter how much we wish Joe public to donate towards a loco they pretty much won't and that most of the money for locos comes from the enthusiasts. Joe public pay for the upkeep and enthusiasts pay for the variety.

 

And for the longer lines, the 3MT 77xxx class, now the only missing BR Standard design

 

I think you are very likely right for "what has been the case". But for "what needs to be the case in the future"? IMHO this includes amalgamations of groups within a given railway plus co joint ordering of supplies and components. There has been some progress in joint ordering of components already.

Paul H

 

Paul I 100% agree with you. We in the heritage railway waste so much money by not working together. But the big problem is while I can sit here and see sense there is always the case of down on the ground the people don't agree and have different ideas on how to run each organisation.

For instance I can't for the life of me understand why the GWR loco groups down at Llangollen are not simply one group. They could have a Manor, Grange, Hall, Gwr 2-8-0, Large prairie , small prairie and Pannier in their group. They could reduce the cost of sending out multiple news letters, reduce admin etc and have a great set up. I know many people who like GWR locos and would be very interested in being part of such a good group. If you could get 500 people from the mixture of those previous groups to donate £10 per month then you would have an income of £60,000 per year minimum, and I'm sure once income of other donations etc come in you would have well over £100,000 per year income. If a loco needs say £300,000 on an overhaul it would be done in 3 years. And then the next loco rolls out. Add to this the income of steaming fees which could go into a pot for each individual loco (donations then top it up when overhaul comes along) and you would find the locos back in service much quicker. Plus if currently one group has say a good volunteer machinist then suddenly when the next loco is in the line for restoration your pool of volunteers is larger adding skills and saving costs of the paid contract work required.

But while I think things like these are a great idea... unfortunately I just can't see it happening.

 

The problem is that railway preservation isnt a one size fits all world, , a 2mt may do ok on some lines, but when you are hauling round 7 or 8 mk 1's, its beyond them, to get the maximum amount of common user use, the only way any thing involving multiple orders , has to be as a kit of common parts ie cylinders, boiler with anything else being done to That railways specification, for instance if 6 replica builds needed the same size cylinder and boiler, then batch construction could very well make sence. but saying to any preseved railway, here is an 2MT,then d you have to half your coach lengths, add extra watering facilities because it wont do a round trip on a tank of water, its a non starter,

 

A well reasoned post, I agree. But there are pros and cons, if you are only interested in a specific loco a one loco organisation can focus on its one loco and potentially be more effective, It really depends. Potentially a compromise of some sort of federalisation, where separate loco groups are brought under an umbrella organisation, still retaining some degree of autonomy?

 

Ah, I see... Would this be more or less important than bridge/track renewals, overhaul of existing vehicles, etc? And more or less popular than something that's different, provokes more interest, but slightly less practical?

 

Firstly I said much earlier in this thread that a 2MT would be enough for most but not all tourist railways. If it genuinely isn't big enough, a 4MT would not be excessive. A 3MT is on the stocks. Just repeat it.

Secondly. I fear you have blown the gaff over large locomotives. Yes they are nice but they cost a lot to overhaul, maintain and fuel. Having one trundling about at 25mph on five bogies is to invite derision from such as me so you will see them on longer rakes with much spare seating. This can include a buffet car often made redundant by refreshment facilities at the termini and some intermediate stations. As for water consumption and tank size, well!!! According to what I understand, even more impressive than the coal consumption of a 2MT is the low water usage. We are not talking about running non-stop London to Bournemouth. Use big machinery if you must and are prepared to meet the cost but don't pretend that it is for any reason other than you like big choo-choos.

You need to read Gav 106's perceptive post above about how money gets wasted.

PH

 

On a railway with a properly unified structure the relative priorities would be determined by the board of direcrors/trustees.

PH

 

But how many people support more than one group, and would therefore be paying less in subscriptions rather than more? Seems to me income could reduce. And all those newsletters and so on probably served to promote and enthuse: if you reduce the number then do you reduce enthusiasm? Not only from the subscribers, but also the volunteers doing that admin. So if you end up with 500 people from the previous groups paying 500 subscriptions instead of say 650, just to stay in the same place you have to find an extra 150 people... Or do you put the price up, and then find out of the 350 people paying one subscription 150 drop out? Sure there are cost savings to be made from co-operative purchasing of spares, parts etc, but from what I can make out the practical people in the societies are pretty good at doing that stuff anyway. I think its rather easy to over simplify what are actually quite complex issues.

 

In the greater scheme of things Paul its how a locomotive is utilised that counts.

You've noted a larger locomotive can pull a longer train - and have a buffet car or restaurant car. How many of our heritage railways run real ale trains, or lunchtime specials, or fish and chip specials where a longer train equals more bums on seats equalling more revenue, with a modest outlay in higher fuel consumption by comparison. Would you prefer a larger engine pulling a longer train, giving more seats to sell or a smaller engine hauling a shorter train?

Larger engines aren't just about "because we like them " - and it's disingenuous to say that it is. It's nowhere near that simple. That's before we've even got onto the question of profile - is an austerity going to have the day out draw that a larger engine, such as a castle or similar, might have?

The wonderful thing about preserved railways is that no one is exactly alike - there are hundreds of different factors at work that means a Bulleid Pacific works well at the Mid Hants but would be over powered and under utilised at say the KESR (if of course one could get round it!)

 

The "reductio ad absurdam" remark about austerities justifies my thoughts about enthusiasts seeking excuses to run big machinery entirely.

PH

 

You will find it very hard to find enough railway supporters to be inspired to fund yet another 2MT and if as someone has suggested paint it in a spurious livery you will find even less.

 

I think variety of trains, locomotives and liveries is one reason why the movement has been so successful to date.

A casual visitor can spot the difference in appearance between a small tank engine and a large express engine without knowing anything about them from an historical or technical point of view. But they can still derive pleasure from experiencing that variety.

Those who advocate a one size fits all homogenised generic steam train ride of set length and time are unwittingly encouraging the decline of railway preservation.

It is only by offering the widest variety of experience that the movement will generate the maximum appeal to the non enthusiast.

It would be dangerous to assume that the run of the mill customer lacks the sophistication to enjoy the wide variety offered up and down the country (and even just by their local lines) and would put at risk the large amount of repeat business that the movement enjoys.

Sawdust.