West Somerset Railway General Discussion

The Great Bench Shuffle - Round 17A...

This weekend's trip was to the Kent & East Sussex (photo 1) in the WSRA van with 4 SER-pattern ex-SR benches displaced from Blue Anchor by the arrival of 4 new GWR pattern benches, giving BA a complete set. Pictured are (2) a new bench at BA, (3) benches waiting at BA, (4) benches loaded at BA by Martyn Snell, Brian Jessup and Phil Sizer, (5) benches off loaded at Robertsbridge. I understand that they will shortly be transformed into K&ESR mid-purple brown (maroon to you and me)...

 

Well, for one thing, last year's Development Paper (para 5.1) and the AGM stipulated that neither 4561 nor 7821 "shall be sold or otherwise disposed of". That was the will of the members.

 

On the other hand, the WSR has had to cancel trains this year due to shortage of motive power, and is still probably only one broken spring or blown superheater element away from having to do likewise again.

In that context, a loco that can do 50 - 60 days at the shoulder seasons, plus galas and dining trains, but be available on the railway as a cold standby over the peak season in case of problems with the rest of the fleet would seem to me to be very valuable. Probably the error is imagining that it would be hired out elsewhere over the summer - that is one option, but it could be more valuable as a standby. To run the intensity of service the WSR does with a good degree of resilience probably requires about 8 locos nominally in traffic at any time to allow for at least one on washout, one having intermediate repairs (i.e. a mid-term p&v or similar) and still leave a couple on standby to allow for the law of sod.

Which would give a better passenger experience if there was another loco failure in peak season - knocking a carriage of a 7 coach set and sending it out behind 4561, or cancelling trains?

Tom

 

Several reasons:
1. the cost to completion of 4561 is a much more modest sum with much higher certainty - the cost quoted for 7821 is simply a low guess.
2. something has to be done with 4561 as it stands, a part completed project in an unsaleable condition except at a very, very knock down price
3. the completion (and fund raising for ) 4561 should result in a sound working locomotive well before that could be achieved with 7821
4. whilst 4561 might be a restricted load loco, it is still useful during the shoulders of the season allowing respite and works time for the larger locos
5. there is no sound evidence that fund raising for 7821 (of an already well represented type) would produce a significantly higher income than firstly doing similar for 4561
6. there is a track record of "wrong turns" with WSRA locos. The sale of 6412 is still resented by many and to now abandon 4561 sends the message of another muddle. Folk are perhaps less likely to consider contributing to such a muddle.

 

As i see it, 7821 will be the easier one to raise funds for, , ok its going to cost twice what 4561 will , but its hire fees, will be a better return, then is the time to tackle 4561 plus by then, the vintage rake should be ready, so by using 4561 and a vintage rake, you have a more profitable, to the railway loco.
Loco restoration should come under the WSR engineering, not WSRA, The WSRA can own loco's and raise funds for them, but it has to rescind the responsibility for deciding loco policy and what gets done first to the WSR engineering manager, who owns the engine should not be the issue, it should be , what is the most suitable for operational need, whats needed is a clear understanding of the role of both the Engineering department of the WSR, and that of the WSRA.

 

Indeed. Rather hideous in comparison!

 

Rather than it being a binary choice as proposed by Robin earlier, surely the question is "which to do first ?". Given the amount of money already spent on 4561 (replacing the twisted frames etc.), the sensible approach IMHO is to finish the job.

While some may not have agreed with the sale of 6412, it was a democratic decision taken by the membership. Given that we are in the happy position of running 6 + coaches for the full length of the line, 6412 was never likely to earn her keep. Instead, the WSRA has the combination of a useful loco to restore and a cash mountain to climb.

 

That's odd as the WSR have not had any ex-DMU vehicles in hauled use for at least 10 years - the coaches nowadays are all Mk 1s. Only the DMU is formed of ex-DMU vehicles. Are you getting confused with the Paignton & Dartmouth line which does use ex-DMU coaches?

 

There are some spectacularly erroneous assumptions being made here regarding the financing of locomotives.

A trap exists in persuading folk that keeping the hire money "in house" is somehow better than paying an equitable fee for loco x for a period of use from an outside yet supportive organisation. "In house" money has a habit of being raided for other purposes on the assumption that when it is actually required it will be refound, during that prosperous period which is just round the corner but never actually appears. Paying proper hire fees keeps the commercial thinking straight forward as all the costs are charged at the time and in the year when they fall due. The financial liability for locos is therefore capped instead of being infinite.

Some locos which are hired in have a substantial support organisation which injects both money and practical input to their locos - a subsidy which keeps them running. Such a subsidy for WSR home fleet locos appears to be at best weak, at worst almost non existant.

The idea that simple fund raising will pay for a 2017 style overhaul is fanciful. Money is now mainly attracted towards headline catching new builds and things which have not been done before - not mundane overhauls of previously in service locos. In that context 4110 holds a slight advantage.

No test appears to have been applied (boilers aside) as to whether it is cheaper to overhaul locos on the WSR (with pretty minimal volunteer input) or by contract elsewhere with a reputable specialist contractor. It is far from obvious that current in house arrangements are delivering best value for money.

The best situation is probably a blend between some home fleet to give basic certainty and some sensible hires with supportive organisations (not least to inject a little variety).

 

Absolutely spot on. In fact, there seems to be quite a few six coach trains out this year. I'm sure I'm not alone in believing there is more work for 4561 than just at "the shoulders of the year and the QB". My message to the WSRA would be to sort out what is apparently wrong with the work done so far with 4561 and get on with returning a most useful locomotive to the Minehead Branch.

Steve

 

A pedant writes: surely the vehicles forming the DMU can't be ex-DMU vehicles, because they are still part of a DMU!

 

We are also running the QB more frequently this year, a trend that I hope will continue. Steam locomotive availability is certainly one of the limiting factors for further growth, although volunteer numbers are our main concern in the short term. One element we're not short of is passengers. Our average seat occupancy rate is over 90% this year.

 

Your first statement is arguable. Locomotive 5542 Ltd seems to be one of the best run locomotive groups. Compare that with say with the Foxcote Manor group which seems perennially in fund raising mode due to shortage of hire revenue. I agree with your second paragraph.

 

Excellent news Barrie. An added bonus is that the evening QB trains use a loco that has run during the day so there is no need to light up another engine.

 

.... which, bottom line, is the sort of success which allows a heritage line to thrive, permitting key (though perhaps less profitable) heritage activities to continue. Might we all hope that ongoing vigorous discussions regarding locomotive availability will also keep this factor in mind?

 

One question for the QB staff - is 4561 a suitable loco for hauling this? - I'm referring to the quality of the ride knowing that some are more suitable than others where soup, red wine & white dresses might be involved.

 

duplicate post removed

 

I was not suggesting 'a binary choice' but 'which one to tackle first'.

There are some problems to solve with 4561, I understand, that are likely to delay progress by years, not months.

So the decision (in my opinion questionable, and looking forward to seeing the evidence) to spend (and partly mis spend) the WSRA scarce resources on 4561, may not determine where sensible progress might next be made.

Robin

 

I think I can answer that.

All but the GWR freight classes are suitable, so 4561 or 7821 equally suitable.

The freight locos develop an unfortunate push-and-pull effect which is unhelpful for those with a bowl of soup and unsafe for those in the galley slaving over a big pan of liquid....

Robin

 

Regrettably, NOT valuable as an operational standby at peak season when the effect would be to cause a couple of coaches to be removed from an already busy set.

Experience suggests that if 4561 was available high season it would not be used.

Robin