Mid Hants Railway Operational Matters

This is one of four books I have on the end of Southern Steam. They are all good in their own way. This one is OK, but bear in mind that only about half the book is narrative, the rest is tables of which loco hauled which train on certain dates etc... The photos are interesting in that I don't think I've seen them published elsewhere but this is probably not the best pictorial record you will find.

Our friend from Swanage recommends "Southern Steam Sunset" by John H Bird and "Twilight of Southern Steam" by Donn Benn ("Gricerdon"). I have both - the former is excellent and is the one I would recommend for a comprehensive view. Don's book is very interesting but is very much a personal account of what he and his friends got up to in pursuit of Southern steam in the last few months. A lot of the book contains timing logs which is great if you like that kind of thing - I do but it may not be what you're looking for.

If you want an incredible amount of detail there is also "Southern Steam Operations 1966/7" by Ian C Simpson.

Hope that helps!

 

I think the other side to consider too is that overhauling something and then using it hard means your next overhaul will be another expensive one. 30506 has had needed a fair bit of work and my impression there is concern it might not make it to the end of its ticket if it is continued to be used 100+ days a year as it has these past few (compared to the 70-80 days estimated to be the right balance in the article) which, given the Ivatt is out of ticket end of this year, will leave the railway on shaky ground with just two resident locos for a while.

Like everything, there's a balance to be struck. Your £1million overhaul might have the loco in exceedingly good form. If used right, your next overhaul might be £100,000 (example figure picked at random). If worked overly hard, that may become a £300,000+ overhaul (again, random figure), but your not gaining any extra "time" out of it (I.e. still restrained by the ten year certification). With the right fleet in terms of numbers and capabilities, the really expensive overhauls become, in theory, more spread apart and you should (again, theoretically) get more for money in terms money spent Vs time used.

(Hoping that makes sense - I know what I'm trying to say but struggling to find the exact words to convey it.)

 

Thank You

 

Would a Bulleid on the Mid-Hants ever be worked hard?

 

It was not a panic buy. It was bought because the railway required motive power. The loco was in ticket, but near the end of a mainline cert, and the price was attractive.
It was always (in my view) an overly expensive locomotive to overhaul, which was known to have a number of boiler issues, though the actual extent and nature was it turned out greater even than thought. That it would also cost more to run was also well known.
The overhaul of 34007 came about because someone was prepared to fund the overhaul, and there was a majority of the board who were enthusiastic about Bulleids.
It should be of zero surprise that the S15s and the std4 should be the mainstay of the future fleet. That was recommended in a loco strategy compiled over 8 years ago now, and subsequently confirmed several times. The nature of the line, the service and the locos available don’t change all that much. It is a shame that 76017 moved away.
For a lot of the year 41312 is the ideal Alton loco, so it is a pity it is having a period out of traffic. Without covered accommodation that will probably increase the overhaul cost a little. But, given the resources and all the other demands, it’s unavoidable I think.
Unless a very big donor or grant comes along I don’t see how 80150 could ever climb to the top of the queue, but I hope the team find a way.
45379, did have frame cracks. They were welded and the cracks did not reappear. The key seems to be keeping the horn clips very tight. A modification was made to some locos by the LMS (someone will correct me her if I misremember) involving a one piece cast steel horn arrangement I think. However, that may not be necessary. What will be is sorting out the valve gear and possibly the quartering. It need not be an insanely expensive overhaul, but it isn’t without a bit of risk.

 

That is not the question. In my experience the question tends to be how much effort does it take to keep a Bulleid able to do the work compared to other types.
The Jarvis rebuilds are tons better in this regard. The originals are difficult to maintain. We can go around and around on this, but I state only what I have seen in the accounts of the railway. Most jobs take longer to do on a Bullied, and need doing more often. 34007 was an absolute resource drain in this regard. A two cylinder outside valve gear engine built like a outdoor masonary convenience has lot going for it…
The S15 506 is mechanically very sound. It has stood upto a degree of use we haven’t achieved out of any of our Bulleids yet.

 

Those are all valid considerations, but my question was a specific response to

which I took, perhaps mistakenly, to refer to the economics of operating Canadian Pacific on the Mid-Hants.

 

Describing it as a panic buy was perhaps a bit of a hyperbole on my part, but your description of its purchase is at least trending towards the words I used. As a buy, it makes me think of the (probably apocryphal) Irish saying, My own opinion is that "if I wanted to get there I wouldn't have started from here!" It's just my opinion, of course, but I'm inclined to think that the money could have been more productively spent - just like I think the money being spent by SLL on Bulleid light pacifics is way out of proportion to what is needed for services at their various homes. Lovely engines but, as Hilaire Belloc said, "the whale is not a table fish"!

 

I think there's two broad things to consider regarding to 'working a loco hard'.

Firstly there's the question of 'how much wear and tear is accrued on a typical running day'. In theory a loco which has a greater capability of putting down power will accrue less wear and tear than a loco with a lower capability of putting down power on the same diagram. So, compare a Bulleid of any description to an Ivatt - a Bulleid is objectively stronger than the Ivatt, and can do the same work with smaller regulator openings, so that reduces the incremental wear and tear on valve gear, piston and cylinders etc. Depending on the firing technique employed, you might also be able to get away with firing the engine less on the road, thus meaning you are opening the firehole doors less while the loco is working hard, reducing the exposure of the firebox to cold air, and so reducing incremental damage to the firebox. Having a larger firebox would also, I imagine, mean that a given amount of cold air entering the firebox has less of an effect on the firebox temperature than it would on a smaller boxed loco. Working the loco at gentler regulator openings would also mean a more gentle blast would draw in less cold air for a given length of time with open firehole doors. On the flip side, there are areas where a loco like a Bulleid will accrue greater wear than a smaller loco like an Ivatt - for example the Ivatt only has (I believe) 6 wheels with brakes (the 6 driving wheels), whereas a Bulleid Pacific has 12 (6 driving wheels and 6 tender wheels). I'm not 100% familiar with the braking systems on a Bulleid but, if you assume that applying the brakes to stop at a station applies all brake blocks on the loco as well as on the coaches (which is not always the case with every steam loco), that's twice the number of brakes applying and therefore twice the number of brake blocks and wheels being worn down, although potentially at a slower rate. This is even more pronounced with a Merchant Navy where each tender wheel has two brake blocks, not just one! That's all before you start to consider variation between running days - one day you might have a driver who is a bit more ham fisted or likes to hear the exhaust beat more than the next, you might also have some days where adhesion is reduced and so the loco slips a bit more, accelerating wear on the wheels

The second question is 'how many days of running is the loco accruing'. So, yes, you might be in a scenario where CanPac accrues less wear and tear on a given running day than 41312. But, if you're using CanPac twice as often as you anticipated you would because of loco shortages and its greater suitability for use during drought, suddenly the amount of wear and tear you're accruing is doubled as well, assuming it continues to accrue the same amount per day in use, so the loco being worked hard is more to do with the sheer number of days its in use rather than the work it does on a given day.

As has already been pointed out, the cheapest loco for you to use it the one that is already available and in steam. We can reflect with the wonderful 20-20 vision of hindsight on whether buying a Merchant Navy 20 years ago and then spending the money it cost to overhaul it was a wise decision for the Mid Hants, but the fact is, they have bought it and overhauled it, that money has already been spent, and in my opinion a better question to ask is "how can we use this asset in the most financially viable way given the the other circumstances and resources available to us". I think there's potentially also an element whereby the MHR has been burned by what happened with 76017 and so the idea of having railway-owned locos offers a degree of security that a privately owned loco doesn't - see the comment from their loco strategy about how 73096 is no longer considered part of the strategy because it is privately owned. Yes, they don't own every loco based on the line, but they clearly think some non-MHR owned locos (like the S15s or Lord Nelson) are less risky to consider part of their loco strategy than others.

Also, from a purely enthusiast's perspective, it's nice to have a reality where, while it may not be the most suitable loco for the job, somebody who doesn't have the money to pay for a seat on a mainline tour can still pop on down to a heritage railway and get a ride behind a Merchant Navy. Which, admittedly, is something I have not yet managed

 

4247 has just passed by the end of my garden (in steam) so it looks like it will be on the Alton set for the rest of the week.

 

It's booked to be on the Alresford set from tomorrow until Friday at least. The 150 unit will be running as well, starting at Alton.

 

Never had an issue with the purchase. It was a very attractive price for an engine with 4 or so years left (if memory serves). For the rest I agree. I was against the overhaul, at the time we could have sold it for more or less what we bought it for (despite having gone out of ticket). Unfortunately I was a lone dissenter in the boards. That was fine, and decision was taken, but I think it is fair to say that with the benefit of hindsight more may have agreed with me.

 

I wonder what the long term future is for 34105 Swanage. It last steam back in 1997 if memory serves me right.

 

There's got to be some advantages in having 3 similar locos based in the same place (if you include 828) in terms of maintenance, crew familiarity and resulting economy in use.

I have often thought that S15s seem well suited to some of the larger preserved line requirements.

 

If the ownership issues are unable to be sorted I guess it has no future.
Not sure if there is a legal avenue for the railway to "evict it" or if they are even prohibited from doing that.

 

Looking from the outside in and having but only the basic knowledge of the 34105 situation. If the railway evicts it, then surely they are admitting that they have no claim of ownership of it?

 

Like you Steve I know very little beyond what has been said on here. I thought the MHR involvement was in the time and money spent on the work done to date, rather than any ownership percentage of the loco, but happy to be proved wrong.
Presumably it is taking up space on the railway, and most lines seem short of space. Did I remember someone saying it had been moved to a siding at Ropley? Not been to the MHR for a while.

 

It's covered over in a siding at Ropley along with the other locomotives that are out of ticket.

 

Indeed! My mistyping...

 

The issue is that the ownership is unclear. It would not be helpful to say anymore. I do believe it could be sorted out, but not without fairly robust action and not without cost.