Severn Valley Railway to launch £4,000,000 share issue.

I think you are a bit less cynical than I am!

Paul H.

 

I was merely reflecting on reality, not necessarily where I would want the movement to be. I agree about the newbuilds not one of which really excites me at all except the 84xxx. But, the thing is that it doesn't matter what I think, it is what money can be raised to do that matters, and any steam engine is better than none at all.

An example from recent experience. Money is arriving much more quickly for the 35005 appeal than the 75079 appeal. The latter is already under restoration and is an ideal locomotive for the MHR, but for some reason the other thing has more appeal to those coughing up money. People give to what they want to give to, and locos with names, and big flashy expensive express engines seem to be more popular. (I generalise hugely).

Also it isn't right to say that the heritage lines don't need any big locos. Yesterday it would have been handy to have a class 5 or 6 loco rather than the class 3/4 that we were using. I do tend to agree that the class 8s are a waste, but oddly the 9F is pretty economical despite being able to haul the sides of an entire street of houses.

I also think Tom has a very fair point. If you look at the order in which stuff came out of Barry, the best condition locos went first and the smaller locos before the larger, but there wasn't a limitless choice, and preservationists needed years to get the money together and very few scrapmen had the Dia Woodham business model (or access to a virtually limitless amount of land at peppercorn rents).

Going back to the newbuilds, I don't think that the money going into them would really be available to heritage lines to spend another way, so I say if that is how people want to spend their money, let them.

 

Time for a game of "fantasy loco director", I think:

Imagine a heritage line. Its platform length and passenger loadings mean loads are generally around the 175ton mark, and rarely exceed 210tons. Gradients are relatively modest, so a class 2/3 tank engine is ideal.

Three locos are sitting out of traffic, and a decision has to be made as to what goes into the works next.

Loco A is a small 2-6-2T. It is the ideal size for the traffic on offer and of a class that is historically appropriate to the line. However, three hard stints in preservation mean that the overhaul will be expensive: it definitely needs re-tyring; and is said to require a new inner firebox, quite apart from any other horrors that only become known on disassembly. As one of the first locos on the line back in the "old days", it is popular with the membership, particularly those of longer standing, though it has now been out of traffic for over ten years.

Loco B is a big 2-8-0 freight engine. As such it is way more powerful than is really needed. However, it is known to be in good condition with a sound boiler, and could be turned round quickly. The marketing department don't like it as it can only be painted drab liveries. However, the traffic department appreciate its sure-footed qualities, overhaul should be cheap but it has always been known a bit as the "miners' friend".

Loco C is a mid-size passenger loco. Like B, it is also really too powerful for what is needed, and like A it is also in poor repair. However, it has a dedicated owning group who have been beavering away in the background and already have a six figure sum set aside for its next overhaul, and a track record of successful fund raising in the past. The marketing department also like the fact that it has a name and can be painted in historic bright liveries.

So which loco should the railway restore next?

Tom

 

loco C (or, lets be honest, Hagley Hall!) sounds good to me

 

The decision would be even clearer if the average train loaded to 250t with an average gradient of 1 in 100

 

2-8-0 every time....from a completely unbiased viewpoint, of course!

 

So, a vote for B and a vote for C. Anyone care to vote for A? (PH, where are you!)

My point really was to show that such decisions aren't easy. "A" would probably be the most cost effective in traffic. "B" gives the lowest initial repair bill and is quickest back into traffic. "C" is neither, but unlocks funding that might not otherwise be available. Making such decisions is not simple, and involves juggling a complex set of future revenue and current capital costs; the complexities of external fundraising vs internal financing; and the human issues of keeping possibly disparate groups of volunteers and owners "on side", while always maintaining sufficient locos for the traffic on offer. Not an easy balance to strike.

Tom

 

Nothing displays the Byzantine structure of so much standard gauge activity more clearly. In my ideal world each line would own its own motive power and concentrate fund raising and repair activity on its own stuff. Needless to say it should be suitable for the purpose at hand which is (or should be) small to moderate loads at 25m.p.h. max.

Although I am all for unification of operating and owning groups I am not saying "no" to individuals or groups owning their own machinery. However the host organisation ought to be completely in charge as to what gets used, utilisation of railway funds etc. I am not certain this is always the case.

PH

 

An interesting approach but the reality (an uncanny parallel with the multitude of new builds on which we share the same view) is that you cannot totally determine where supporters will direct their money, efforts or even moral support. In fact it is becoming pretty clear that railways need to first concentrate their resources on the well being of their infrastructure whilst motive power can to a greater or lesser extent be hired from sympathetic in house groups or elsewhere. How many SG railways actually own their own active fleet and do not rely on separate if allied support?
Also I think it is becoming increasingly apparent that the overhaul of ex BR size SG locos may be most economically carried out at non HR railway connected works where it is possible to concentrate on the overhaul work without constant "running shed" type distracting issues.

 

This needs considerable thought. The structures of many tourist railways seem designed to fragment control. This and that locomotive group; one or another rolling stock trust and so on. A bit like main line railways in fact! Visiting one of these fragmented railways can seem like entering a cathedral where there are a multiplicity of collecting boxes for different purposes. To my mind structural reform is the first priority for the next generation. Ensure income and expenditure is channelled through one board of directors/trustees who can make the decisions as to priorities. If they get it wrong there will be no shortage of proffered swords for them to fall upon! However the lines of responsibility will be clear.

Yes I think it is faintly absurd that many lines seem to think that they have to develop the facilities to give major repairs to 4-6-2s. It is equally absurd to have the 4-6-2 in the first place.

By the way I don't think it is should be any surprise that the standard gauge setup, which seems to punch above its weight the most, has a unified structure.

PH

 

how do you intend on unifying all the stuff on a railway? coaches and locos, as you point out, are often owned by their own groups, would the railway simply buy them out? how? you're not going to get many charitable donations to buy an engine that is in no danger of being scrapped whatsoever, people won't care, as long as it is in steam propelling them through countryside etc.

the issue I do agree with you though is the point about all railways developing facilities to overhaul 4-6-2s. the amount of money spent buying all machinery etc is huge, I remember this being discussed in a number of threads before, but if there was some sort of grouping of HRs, they could between them own a low loader and move their stock about to railways wherever they can be fitted in or wherever makes the best use of resources.

On the other hand, whilst this is more practical, you may well end up repairing something that disappears once its finished, rather than you being able to watch it chuff up and down whilst you are busy doing something else. would this affect things? I think it would to a certain extent, but could probably be got around. perhaps if something similar which is employed in some railways, where a work permit permits free unlimited travel on a number of railways could be introduced, with the railways sharing facilities on the list.

I do disagree about having large engines in the first place, I really think they are needed to put more glamour into the whole affair. std tanks just don't excite me as much as an A4 for example. on many trains, a std tank would certainly be adequate, but I'll often visit railways in the knowledge that they have a good line of locos. people come back with; "well, joe public are surprised that there is a fire in the boiler," but this really is a minority, it's just that these are the people that get notice and remembered. how many people come up and explicitely say that they were expecting a fire in the boiler? you only get the ones with surprise showing it.

that'll do for now, I've lost track of what I've said...
Alex

 

But how much more does it cost to have a workshop able to maintain a Pacific than one for nothing bigger than a 4MT? The machinery needed is the same. Split from its tender a Pacific takes up no more room in a workshop than a 2-6-4T so where exactly would the cost savings be?

 

with my idea of certain railways having certain resources, so not all railways would need a workshop at all apart from very basic day to day maintenance

 

I think it's a non-starter.

Firstly, if you concentrated workshops in perhaps half a dozen or so big regional repair / overhaul shops, the distance many volunteers had to travel would increase to the point it would be unsustainable. So many people would slowly drift away from the hobby - hardly the desired outcome! (For example, if the Bluebell, Swanage, MHR, Spa Valley and KESR combined their facilities in a "Southern Railways" group - where would you site a workshop that would be convenient for a volunteer on the KESR probably based in Kent, but which would also work for a Swanage volunteer in living in Dorset or maybe even Devon?)

Secondly, who would decide priorities? Restorations never go to schedule at the best of times. So what happens when it is getting close to Christmas and the Bluebell are turning the screws to get their S15 finished before the Santa season starts, while the MHR are similarly wanting to get their loco out for their peak season? Who decides priorities? It's a recipe for arguments. You also probably couldn't even organise such a beast without setting up another over-arching organisation to manage it, which is just another layer of bureaucracy (and unwanted cost, such as audit costs etc), and also would be complex when the underlying structural models, and ability and mechanisms to finance projects, vary so much. (For example, to take my earlier example, the Bluebell is a PLC whereas the KESR is an Educational Trust - very different models that require different accountabilities).

I can see some workshops specialising in key skills that wouldn't be cost-effective for all railways to maintain (for example, the specialism of the South Devon Railway in wheel turning and related crafts). There is also already a thriving network of skills and expertise sharing, joint procurement of parts, sharing of patterns etc. But it's a non starter for a general overhaul facility.

Tom

 

the idea is volunteers wouldn't have to travel miles away tow work on their own rolling stock, volunteers at one railway would do something, and volunteers at another would do something else depending on their specialities then move stuff around, rather than volunteers. if this group owned a low loader for instance, cost would go down as they wouldn't have to rent one each time (having said that, I have no idea how much these things cost...). priorities could be determined at a board level of each railway and perhaps a "higher power" of somesort, a board over all railways which only decide major things and don't get involved in day to day running of individual railways. Having said that, this whole idea was really only a compromise to pull hitch's idealism, which would be effective, but slightly boring in my view. I agree, many railways already share parts and buying of them and patterns etc, so I suppose I was suggesting an extension of that, but, thinking about it, I really only came up with it was because of paul's views, so perhaps just more sharing out to be encouraged...
Alex

 

It will come to the fore as people age or, indeed, kick the bucket. The possibility of inheritors having an exaggerated idea of the value of stuff is self-evident.

To my mind there are three possible steps forward. Firstly the owners give the item(s) to a suitable host railway. Very generous but not impossible to envisage as witness the Ivatt Trust and the IOWSR.

Secondly the railway buys the equipment. As you say, raising the cash will be difficult but it should be seriously considered in the interests of long term stability.

Third, exchange the equipment for a number of shares in the host railway where there is a share capital. True the nominal value of tourist railway shares bears little relationship to the actual value unless payment of dividends is possible. (Something buzzes at the back of my mind about "they threatened his life with a railway share"; Lewis Carroll I think!) However getting some pieces of paper in exchange, however nominal their value, may be psychologically easier to accept than outright gift.

My cynical mind suggests a fourth possibility is most likely i.e. do nothing and wake up one day to find you have a legal obligation to repair other peoples unserviceable motive power. Sounds rather familiar doesn't it?

My position is the very reverse of idealistic (pace Tom and Alex)

Paul H.

 

Flying Scotsman123 proposed heritage railways have their own low loader. In addition to the capital cost, probably unbelievable (half a million pounds?) the movement would need to retain Heavy Haul trained drivers and shunters. Having watched Alleys deliver Cheltenham the skill of the shunter steering the trailer between parked cars was impressive. The contact and empaty between the tractor driver and the shunter is only achieved by regularly working as a team. I think this is a clear case of leave it to the experts.

 

fair enough, I clearly underestimated all the low loader costs, I stand down

 

I don't think I ever called you idealistic!

With regards ownership, I wonder if it is a bit of a red herring? For example, the SVR owns only 3 locos out of an available fleet of 30 or so. The Bluebell owns 20 locos from its equivalent available fleet of 30 or so. So two very different ownership models on two lines of comparable size and traffic, but give or take, both railways are finding it equally hard to provide for their loco requirement without hiring in. If ownership was the key determinant of success in restoring locos, the Bluebell would be laughing.

The key issue to me is, as always, money, and whether your structure maximises your ability to raise money (on the sad, but realistic, assumption that passenger revenues probably won't cover overhaul costs). In that sense, having dedicated loco-owning groups who are often adept at fundraising, could be seen to be an advantage, even if the owning groups effectively share members with the parent railway. (For example, I'd bet that most Maunsell Loco Soc members are also members of the Bluebell - but I'd also bet that if the Bluebell owned 541, 847, 928 and 1618, those members wouldn't collectively raise as much money for the Bluebell as they do for the MLS, since their "favoured" locos would just be a small drop in a big ocean, rather than the main raison d'être of the society).

Tom

 

I did suggest on another thread, albeit tongue-in-cheek, that it was about time that heritage railways were nationalised or, at least, combined into a 'Big four'. Motive power (and rolling stock) would be overhauled at central workshops and sent to wherever they were needed most, generally being swapped for another demic in need of overhaul. There would always be the arguments from the Fat & Thin Controllers that their need is most pressing but that is the case the world over and wouldn't be unique to heritage railways. It would probably mean that the many smaller and more useful locos would be overhauled in preference to the larger ones, rather than waiting forlornly so I'm sure that it would get Paulhitch's vote.
Pipe dreaming, or not, I don't share your concerns about people volunteering to work in a workshops. There are many volunteers who enjoy simply doing that. They don't have to be a member of the Bluebell, KESR, Swanage, etc., and, whilst distance will play some part, there are very many people who will travel hundreds of miles to do what they enjoy doing. As for the many volunteers, Footplate skills, for example, are transferable and, subject to route knowledge, there is no reason why a Bluebell driver & fireman couldn't have a week away at the NYMR , Strathspey or any other similar standard gauge railway. S & T guys could also be sent to a line with a big signalling project taking place.
It does have its merits but it will never happen!