West Somerset Railway General Discussion

On that basis the WSRA are wasting time and money getting 4165 back into service, unless of course it is to subsequently sell it.

 

First the 04 now 4110, it all smacks a bit of selling the family silver, I'm not sure I like what's going on at Minehead

 

4160 is a 'souped up' Large Prarie but I cant see that 4110 would not be able to perform in the same way, as well as having worked the line in BR days

 

Are train sizes on the WSR the same as then? (I don't know, hence the need to ask.) It's also possible they plan to enlarge them, to theoretically help with the money issues.

Noel

 

Bigger trains don’t help with money issues unless you have the passengers to fill them! It’s one thing saying run bigger trains to make more money; quite another doing it. Not to mention bigger trains meaning you need more operational rolling stock, which means a bigger workforce to keep up with the volume of routine maintenance, exams etc.

Bottom line is that you have to think how to increase passenger numbers first and then ensure you have capacity, not the other way round.

Tom

 

December Drama

Raveningham Hall speeds a Santa Express service past Stogumber.

 

I did think about mentioning that (something along the lines of 'don't know what plans they'd have to fill them'), then decided it was too obvious! (The "theoretically" was supposed to imply all that!)

But if they did have plans along those lines, it could help explain the decision (to mention another 'too-obvious').

It is a bit of a puzzle of a move, though, unless the money issues are serious - in which case I'd have thought they needed bigger steps than some asset sales for a one-time boost? Unless this is just to tide things over in the sort term?

Once they'd decided to do it, though - the kind of move one can't keep quiet - it probably would have been a good idea to explain the reasoning, though, precisely to prevent the kind of commentary up-thread.

Noel

 

I suspect not completely obvious, given that you quite often get comments on Nat Pres along the lines of “we on the Much Meddling and Little Snoring Railway routinely run seven or eight coach trains” but without the important detail of whether those trains are full or not! It’s interesting that the Swanage Railway - albeit shorter - carries something like 200k passengers per year while generally running trains no longer than 5 coaches. (I realise that the shorter line means that the relationship between passenger numbers and seat-miles works in their favour relative to a longer line; i.e. if every passenger does on average a single return journey, they can carry a given number of passengers within a smaller number of seat-miles with shorter trains).

Tom

 

5199 also spent a period on loan at the WSR in fairly recent times if I remember correctly.

 

Do you need to run High power engines on max load of carriages through the whole operating season?
Or can smaller engines take over at lighter periods on shorter trains?

I know that we on the NYMR drop from 7 to 5 coaches in the shoulder periods, possibly even less.
Meaning that locos like the J27 or Lambton tanks can be used.

 

The 'Peak' trains are 7 - 10.15 from BL for example & the other set on a 2 steam train timetable is 6.

I suggest that the 7 coach set is usually comfortably full although I have on occasions wished that some of the later departures from Minehead could have been strengthened

 

I wish the consortium well and it could be a good opportunity for new blood to be able to get on the locomotive ownership ladder. It would be good to see it restored to steam again.

 

I was about to tripe something similar but Ploiughman has beaten me. The NYMR arguably carries the most passengers each year and trains are generally limited to 7 coaches. The maximum number of trains each day (evening diners and galas excepted) is eight each way and that is only on 8 weeks per year. Most of the time it is six. The WSR does run less trains but it also carries quite a few less passengers. Why does the WSR need to run long trains for much of the season? I get the impression that WSR trains run with a much lower load factor. I will admit that this is better for Joe Public but it does have a significant affect on the bottom line through fuel used, wear and tear and maintenance.

 

In August the Swanage runs thirteen return trips Swanage Norden ie with five coach consists, 65 coach
equivalents per diem

The WSR in August runs 7 return trips twixt Bishops Lydeard and Minehead ( typically 2 sets of 8, one of 7,
the 7 coach set (MD1) does two return trips) ie 54 coaches per diem.
(I appreciate that a more accurate comparison would compare seats rather than coaches. Simplistically for
instance, assuming one brake per set the more the number of carriages the ratio of average seats per carriage
increases)

The loco revenue miles are Swanage 182 miles per diem, WSR 280

(Even allowing for the lower Swanage fares, the revenue per train mile assuming similar pax numbers
favours the Swanage significantly, and that is within a notionally lower operating cost.. The Swanage
also benefits as pax numbers in recent years have exceeded those of theWSR. I am sure I do not
have to remind contributors that the fare box for a return trip is not governed by a per mile overhead
recovery rate but by what the market will bear. That is what a family will pay for a day out.)

Regarding previous postings wrt 4110. A large Prairie as per nos. 4141, 4144, 4160, 5164 & 5199, all of
which have worked on the WSR in the past, is comfortably capable of timing 8 coach trains on the
WSR. ( As a matter of note 9351, which with its tender is hauling effectively an additional coach, under
test attained 25mph on the 1/74 between Watchet and Washford with settings at RFO and 40% with
an eight coach set. )

(It is true that 4160 with its two row superheater has a marginal power advantage over the other
locos. More so when the valves were set to lift at 225 psi, subsequently reduced to 200psi as per
the others.)

In short 4110 is an ideal loco for the WSR, but if the 'Piggy Bank' is empty, and overhead
reductions alone are not sufficient/possible then needs must ?

I have in the past suggested that the WSR should throw away it's existing Timetable and start
afresh noting passenger flows, destinations etc. The MDI turn for instance (MD BL return twice)
invariably even in August on its last journey (BL dep. 16.20 to MD) carries less than
50 passengers in 7 coaches. However I do recognise that this is arguably not a current priority.

Michael Rowe

 

If a shorter train means that you can run with a pannier tank rather than a Bulleid pacific then obviously there's going to be a saving on the coal bill. However. if you're running with (say) a manor, I find it difficult to believe that the difference between 5 coaches and 7 coaches is much of a saving on the coal bill over the whole day. It might make a huge difference to the customer experience however!

 

To put the 41xx load issue to bed the following is extracted from the WSR General Appendix - for Maximun Permitted Loads - 41xx 8 coaches. (Manors & Halls are allowed 9 whilst a 57xx or 45xx is allowed 7).

 

It's not the coal bill that is the major factor in the cost of running long trains; it is the maintenance overhead of running more carriages which translates directly to higher annual fleet mileage, meaning more inspections and so on that need to be carried out per year (since a lot of carriage maintenance is mileage-based). That's a direct labour cost saving if you regularly run shorter trains - provided they don't become overcrowded.

Tom

 

Its worth making the point of course that some trains will need to be run for 'operational' reasons - otherwise they just run ECS, also that you need to offer a 'commercially attractive' timetable.

This was discussed earlier in connection with the DMU diagram & as a 'for example' the bus from my house to Bath is now half hourly instead of hourly which is a much more attractive offer than before