Heritage Line Loco Power Requirements

I think - and I hope Paul will agree me on this one point - we argue because we care. If we didn't, the world would be boring and probably devoid of creative industries and the heritage movement.

 

Many thanks to @paulhitch for his kind words but @Sawdust is very accurate to say that being an accountant alone does not give me any instant or automatic insight into any type of business, and perhaps the bad reputation accountants sadly 'enjoy' is due to those of us who may give the impression it does! Asking questions and listening to answers is what gives the insight, and I, like many volunteers, can claim to have been been a volunteer before I was an accountant!

What I do know of railways and their finances and my views as a result come from years of listening, being involved with and learning about the various aspects of their maintenance and operation, some areas in greater detail and involvement than others.

I hope this thread can get away from personal mud-slinging as it merely devalues some very valid arguments. @Platform 3 appears to have come on here to listen, learn and comment and perhaps has found what many organisations do - that an 'external' eye can see what those too close to things miss - sometimes, it is this 'external eye' that is listened to when internal ones have said exactly the same thing and been ignored, others their comments, while valid, are unwelcome.

Open mindedness is what is needed - somebody coming afresh to a situation may see what those up to their necks in 'mud and bullets' miss, whilst sometimes they may suggest the solution tried unsuccessfully some years ago - but all concerned should have the good grace to consider, listen, explain and be willing to be consider new ideas and even perhaps be won over - and no, I don't claim to have been very good at following my own advice at times but experience and in my case returning to the life of the Church have enabled me to see my own mistakes and try to gently point out where I know I have gone wrong in the past myself to others!

@paulhitch makes some valid points which are very worthy of consideration. Nobody like having difficult truths pointed out to them and one reason why external voices may be better heard than internal is there can be considerable 'peer pressure' not to rock the boat and speak against what seems to be the general consensus - a dangerous position for any organisation, as often disquiet is not as solitary as individuals experiencing it may feel, and it is likely there are others who have similar concerns. Certainly I know I have found questioning about what looks like wasteful practice or how potentially costly decisions were arrived at is sometimes far from welcome, and I suspect most of us prefer to 'get on with the job' rather than explain why we are doing 'the job' the way we are doing but it should be second nature to mentally check options and be in a position to explain choices made, even if not recorded formally or subject to any external approval. It called having matters under control and one thing I have learnt in over 30 years actively involved in railway preservation is that often there is a reason for something that may look an odd decision, but equally often, many assume some ulterior motive or lack of capability of as the reason!

Steven

 

If You have say three locomotives one can make a one hour trip and the two others are charging at either end.
Six is just double up.Two more or less constant power stationary boilers and 6 different locomotives making live noise and smell with no boiler problems or tickets.
Just big pressure vessels being fed distilled water.

 

Have any of the preserved fireless locos ever been restored to working order? I've never heard of a single one being used ln a heritage line, even for demonstrations or for shunting.

 

If tubes still fail using RO treatment plants then chemically treating the water is still necessary and very worthwhile.
You state a boiler can remain in service beyond 10 years based on condition, using treatment (there was a youtube video about the treatment regime of a very well known Australia tourist railway that I have linked on a number of occasions which has now been removed) the condition could be as good as the day it entered service, so how many extensions would be possible?

 

I have some experience of minding stationery boilers. I once had to oversee 4 colliery winding boilers during a little industrial problem in 70s. They had to be kept in light steam 24/7. Boilers were chain grate with manual ash removal with long shovels. It was not a job I ewould cherish as a volunteer esp when the weir pump, boiler feed, packed up with the water low in the glass

 

Um, I think you'll find that even fireless locomotives' steam receivers require certification. OK, they're not as complicated as traditional boilers, but they're still potentially lethal.

Cost of boiler installation and locomotives would be a big factor - plus potential NIMBY issues would have to be dealt with.

Smell? Some steam/hot oil whiffs, certainly, but no coal smoke aroma - BIG omission. No fires simmering away either - part of the soul of a steam locomotive is to experience the sight and smell, plus feel the heat coming off the fire.

Sorry, but this really is weapons-grade dreaming - it's not WIBN, preservation or heritage either. In my opinion, of course

 

Its not all about tubes though & regular thorough internal inspection of the boiler plates is a sensible requirement in the UK so extensions beyond 10 yrs are limited & on a short duration case by case basis. Once expired, the tubes have to come out whatever their state to enable the internal exam to take place. I recall a multiple fatal incident with a traction engine boiler in the US where the boiler shell gave out. It had not been inspected in a long time due to lax legislative requirements IIRC.

 

Wonder how long the boiler charge lasted? They've got some very interesting kit. I'd put my hand in my pocket to see the Egyptian Sentinel railcar in service, which would mean one weld on one boiler tube has a sponsor!

 

But not a spiteful one.

Paul H

 

Not disputing the fact that Inspections are necessary, however the scale of Boiler repairs (every case is different but aren't there 5 complete fireboxes being made at the moment for Bulleid Pacific's? just to use 1 example) at the end of 10 years at the time of a through inspection indicate there is significant deterioration (corrosion) during those 10 years. The solution to this is simple, Treat the Water then your 10 year inspection is just that an inspection, no repairs being necessary.

 

Making synthetic coal smell is done for model railways and is more healhy than the real thing
Part of my patent is to have a small coalfire that just superheat the steam needed for traction.

 

I dont like the phrase "toy train" either, except when applied lovingly to the RHDR for example.

We should recognise though that there are different approaches. The P&D is clearly a tourist railway (not a criticism, just observation). There is not much more than a passing attempt to acknowledge the railway's history. Some lines are definitely heritage .. i.e. making an attempt to consistently tell a story. There are lines that do this very consistently such as the IOW, and others that do this less consistently, but are improving with the years such as the MHR. Different stories. Some lines (WSR perhaps) are a bit of mix of the two. Personally I find that the things that "jar" are were the consistency is missed. So for example the Tallyllyn is wonderful, except for the enormously overscale museum. The MHR has a really good 1955 to 1965 appearance, but 925 is in Southern livery, and whilst I love the livery I have to admit it doesnt "fit". Perhaps it is consistency we should discuss and focus on rather than anything else? If you have a secondary mainline railway setting (e.g. MHR) then maybe running some larger locomotives is fitting. At our recent gala virtually all the train formations were examples of what actually ran over the line (including the std4 tank on the front of the MN). albeit we can no longer accommodate 13 bogies on one train.

The Rev Peter Denny (Buckingham Great Central) said that the important thing in creating a convincing model railway (and he produced what I would consider is still one of the most convincing) is for no one thing to be significantly better than anything else....so he didnt strive for the best loco, or the finest wagon or most gorgeous buildings, or indeed an operating regime that was stellar, he sought to make everything to the same standard so that no one thing "stood out". Is there a parallel with heritage railways? And if there is, is it the absence of consistency that marks out the less good?

 

A swiss 50 tons locomotive did 4000 tonkm shunting on one charge.That is 8000 tkm for passenger traffic.
NNR is 8 km long. One trip of a 1000 tons train.
North Yourkshire is 16 km and SVR 24

 

Steven - you make some interesting comments many of which I agree. Standing back and reappraising what we do is essential. However having looked at what we do and giving valid reasons for said methods. Like most organisations heritage railways have to work to the constraints of a budget. I have no problems it being suggested there is another path. What is galling is having given valid reasons for what we do is constantly being "told" we are all wrong.

It is a bit like what car you drive. we could all drive around in smart cars / micras etc. I drive a Volvo XC90 because I tow a large caravan. However being retired I do low mileage so the cost of running it when not towing is acceptable. I have in the past been "told" by the green loby I am wrong. Well its my choice not a third parties

 

*wanders off to check the date*