West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Churchward's logic still holds true now every bit as much it did over 110 years ago. He certainly can't be blamed for any later laurel sitting by the Swindon D.O

 

You may have misunderstood the trust of the comment.

9351 is able to provide the same power in its current form as it did as 5193, same boiler, same cylinders, same wheels.

However as it now has a tender to pull around with more water, more coal, framing and wheels than in its 2-6-2 T form it going to be using some of that power to move the tender, thus it is likely to be down rated by one coach.

I look forward to its return.

Enjoy Enya !!

Jeff

 

Historical inaccuracy aside, does the success (or otherwise) of 9351 justify considering converting 4110 to a tender loco when restoration begins?

 

The concept of not owning locomotives (thereby reducing the need for capital tied up in the home fleet) is great as long as the cash is available to pay the hire fees.

Should cash get tight due to some major infrastructure expenditure, the great thing about running WSR owned locomotives will be that the cash for loco mileage etc can be directed to the infrastructure project, the home fleet an build up an on paper credit and next year or whenever the cash can be diverted to locomotive when required.

There will always be a need to hire in motive power, the WSR offer's a good return in available days compared to other railways thus one would hope that the hired in locomotives will be ever changing thus attracting return custom.

It is a balance.

Your comments about GWR 2-6-2 T being idea for the WSR belong, I feel, to the 1950's with 3 or 4 coaches so even 3 GWR 2-6-2T at once might be too many.

The WSR has a need to run 7,8 or 9 coach trains for most of the high season and thus may well need to have appropriate locomotives for these loads.

I would expect that the need to enter into a long term hire for another GWR 2 -6-2 T is now a thing of the past.

Jeff

 

Has anyone assessed what it will cost to Restore 7821, what 4110 will need and the cost to finish 4561, and what use it wil be? you have only one engineering department, or i should say, should have only one engineering department, it should not matter who owns what loco, all that should matter is that the most suitabe engine is done first, and that there is a funding program in place to support it, for instance, if 7821, is in best condition, needing less work it makes sence to reclaim it from Swindon , and overhaul it, 4561 may possibly be ok in early, or late season, but a decision has to be made, if the standard of work done is questionable, moth ball it, than throw much needed funds at it until you have 7821 done, and earning hire fees

 

Those are (some of) the RIGHT questions.

I look forward to seeing answers, and evidence-based decision making thereafter.

Robin

 

Don't want to get into a yah boo exercise but....

51xx 2-6-2 tanks under BR permitted TN-MD 360 tons tare unassisted. MD-WD 310 tons WD-TN 360 tons.
45xx 2-6-2 tanks 260 tons.
I have observed 4160 (which with its two row s/h is arguably marginally the most powerful of the 51xx 2-6-2 tanks) maintain 27mph on the 1/65 to Washford ( agreed a short stretch and there may be some mortgaging of the boiler) with eight on.
Over the years maximum EDHP whether 9351, 4160, 5199, 5164 etc has been 825-850, more than sufficient to maintain our schedules with eight coach trains. (Indeed sufficient to time nine coaches, 300-310 tons tare with Mark 1s although the WSR load book specifies eight) It's getting in and out the stations that's the secret to good timekeeping and the Prairies are 'good on their feet'.

Regarding the smaller 45xx they can put out c600 EDHP. During the Summer of 2002 when motive power was in short supply Nos. 5542 & 5553 bore the brunt (with 80136) of the August traffic and kept time with seven coach consists. No doubt it was harder on footplate crews, less margin for error but ...It may be that the EDHP/lb coal burnt was lower than for a larger loco but then that has to be traded off against other issues resulting from running larger locomotives.

You are of course correct that 9351 as a 2-6-0 effectively has an extra coach (actually not quite if we wish to be pedantic) compared to the 2-6-2T. I believe however under test with eight on, and controls at RFO and 40% , from a stop it attained 25mph on the 1/74 up to Washford in the Down direction.

Finally something that always surprises me. Despite the work done by Cook and Ell at Swindon on the Manors I have never, whether on BR on the Cambrian or between Redhill and Reading or during Preservation, noted an EDHP > 850 behind one. When Keith Farr wrote his Railway Magazine article on them a few years ago, despite an exhaustive trawl through the RPS data base we could not find any performance above 850, unlike for instance with the 43xx 2-6-0s where >1000 is/was regularly achieved. Yet I suspect you would consider a Manor (as indeed I think they are) a very suitable loco for the WSR.

Michael Rowe

 

Mike,

Thanks, very helpful,

So a piece of evidence we can put into the mix is that, looking at what is comfortable, with a margin for error, crew inexperience etc, in WSR terms,

4160, an uprated 4110 and 7821 are '8 coach' locos, and

4561 is a '6 coach' loco.

That will confine 4561 to the shoulders of the season and peripheral services like dining trains.

Robin

 

No. 4561 will be quite capable of taking seven coach trains as 5542 does on its occasional visits. The standard of overhaul being undertaken was specified under the previous CME with that intent. Indeed 4561, based on loadings as per 2007 (ie c 10% greater than present) would be able to handle MD1 all year.

As a matter of note 44422 is, I understand currently limited to six coaches, finding use during the peak.

Michael Rowe

 

Thsnks, but the evidence doesn't support this (with an appropriate margin).

Use of 44422 in its present state on anything above 6 coaches is a matter of pragmatism, given the locomotive availability, rather than desirable.

But, of course, the authority on these matters will be the Head of Mechanical Engineering, and that is the opinion that matters.

No doubt his input to decisions about 4561 / 4110 / 7821 will be crucial.

Robin

 

For those unaware that there is a whole forum outside this thread, there have been various other threads over the years about the balance of motive power policy. There is one running at the moment that has had, in amongst it, some interesting discussion about both the balance between ideal size - maximum loading and impact on long-term maintenance costs (briefly: somewhat too big tends to be expensive in daily operating costs; but somewhat too small can result in excess wear and tear leading to higher long-term maintenance costs as well as higher fuel costs by virtue of fire throwing: the ideal is to have locos slightly too big for the traffic on offer rather than slightly too small, but of course the dominant factor is not what is ideal, but what is available!); and also about the optimum number of locos to cover a service with a certain peak requirement. (Too few and you are in problems with resilience when you get inevitable unplanned failures; too many and you don't optimise the mileage between overhauls, so the per-mile running cost goes up when you factor in the overhaul cost).

One thing it hasn't considered in detail is the balance of ownership, and here I find myself in agreement with @Maunsell907 that a mix of railway-owned and independent-group owned locos is probably a better solution than being 100% reliant one way or the other. My hunch is that railway-owned locos probably give more security in planning to match availability to requirement, whereas locos owned by independent groups tend to make additional resource available (cash and skills) that may not otherwise be available to the railway - hence my feeling that a mix is preferable to being wholly dependent on one or the other.

(Incidentally, in the context of the WSR, I don't make a distinction between WSRA and plc in the context of a "railway-owned" loco).
Tom

 

I agree about the in-house / independent mix.

Robin

 

I remember that year & other similar around that time .We seemed to get those three a lot , & apart from 80136 I sometimes felt that the 45s , although they did the job competently & well, if they'd been human ,when they got to shed they'd have said , phew, glad thats over! I wonder if 'Aberdare' can shed light if there was any extra maint. costs during this period to back up this , of the bit bigger than you need theory, which is obvious to me.

 

Perhaps the decision to let 3850 go will come to be rued in future. Although the WSR isn't quite in the NYMR's league in terms of gradients, I have always thought that class 4/5s (and I'd classify a 28/38XX as 5P as a heritage railway engine) are the ideal engines. I was surprised when the LMS 4F was taken on, it would have been better to try for another 28XX or Hall.

 

What exactly are the issues with 44422 that result in it having a reduced loading?

 

Not many to choose from in the classes you refer to. 2857 and 2807 are the only 28/38's currently in ticket. 6960, 6990 and 4965 the only halls I think? The hire market is not exactly flush with suitable locos looking for work at the moment, so perhaps a case of beggars can't be choosers (no disrespect to wsr or the 4f)

 

It's a Midland 4F. Nuff said!

 

West Somerset Railway - Then and Now

Minehead as viewed from North Hill, 1864, 1875 and 2017

A triple today, showing Minehead before the coming of the Railway. However the West Somerset Railway would have been open to Watchet, so West Somerset was beginning to open up with a coach to Minehead meeting all trains at Watchet.

The 1875 view shows how busy the Railway was making Minehead. There appear to be many people on the beach by the station and building has started along The Avenue. The ubiquitous Goods Shed can be made out.

This view was difficult to replicate from North Hill as it is now far more wooded. But the Goods Shed can be made out to the left of the big trunk. A walk up North Hill today is rewarding physically, and also rewarding in terms of the views of the town, station and surroundings, particularly from the War Memorial about half way up. The rosy glow when you get back down justifies a cup of tea and a cake in the Turntable Cafe at Minehead station before catching your train home!

1864


1875


2017

 

I am sure those with more loco knowledge than me can give a more technically complete answer, but essentially 44422's overhaul was fast tracked to have her on service for the 2016 Spring Gala marking S&D 50. The boiler overhaul was thorough but the 'bottom half' only tackled the essentials and much of the mechanics of the loco are rather tired.

Robin

 

Interesting that the railway never actually reached Minehead (as it was then) and "old" Minehead had to expand out and meet it. I expect it was landowning issues, but it also suggests that the primary traffic must have always been intended to be tourists, otherwise there would have been some connection to the harbour.