Swanage Railway General Discussion

I would imagine also that the type commonality within the SR fleet (multiple Bulleids, 3 Moguls, 2 Drummond locos) helps with the economies of scale and brings the cost down a little compared to having the equivalent number of locos but each one being of a different, unrelated class. Probably not massively, but it may well make a difference to being able to afford certain bits of work a little sooner. Doubtless it also helps if crews and fitters have fewer types to learn

 

Thanks NNR is doing a good job (considering the COVID restrictions) with Sidmouth's boiler (for SKP) and hopefully progressing with 30053's boiler.
From the last SSL update for SKP "The plan is to bring the locomotive to Herston for stripping and undertake ashpan work, and then transfer it to the North Norfolk Railway."
Hopefully all goes well and SKR can get back into revenue at the Spa Valley Railway, so earning so SSL can (also with fundraising) get Manston, 80104, Sidmouth and Brocklebank line locos back in steam?

 

Just on that narrow point: if you are planning the same annual mileage either way, then whether you have five or six locos nominally available, you'll use the same amount of coal - so the price of coal doesn't come into it. Where having five or six makes a difference is in your overhaul throughput. If you plan to always have six, you have to do an overhaul every 18 months; if you only plan on five, you can stretch that out to about 21 months. Since overhauling the same loco will roughly cost the same amount, cycling them all round every 21 month rather than every 18 will be cheaper in annual budget terms (because it will take 21 months to spend the same amount of money you would otherwise spend in 18) - but at the expense of operational resilience.

The trend we have seen over the last 10 - 15 years on many railways towards smaller operational fleets is I think driven by that overhaul cost consideration: put brutally, there isn't the money to keep ten locos in traffic doing 3,000 miles per year and completing an overhaul every 11 months if instead you can get away with six doing 5,000 per year and an overhaul every 18 months. (Figures will vary per railway, but the principle is universal).

Tom

 

Apologies I should have expressed myself better. When I said "the current offering can be sustained notwithstanding the price of coal" the point I was trying to make was that whether you had 5 or 6 locos available the current service levels could be sustained. The point about coal was that given its rapid increase in price and decrease in availability, some HRs may take a look at their lightly loaded days and decide not to operate or operate diesel instead of steam. In the case of SRC in the high season they operate two steam locos in service. They could choose to operate 1 steam and 1 diesel on some of those days.

Yes I was wondering at where the "tipping point" is and a railway decides to reduce the fleet size down? For the benefit of my understanding does a HR pay "rent" on a loco when it is out of service awaiting restoration? If it does then surely SRC has spent a considerable some of money on the 2 U Class locos that have been with them since 2014? and not in service?

 

Southern Locos and Drummond locos seem to fundraise independently of the SR, but work together on engineering which is good..
3 mins into the video looks like Mogul 31874 awaiting it's boiler (can someone confirm?), which went to 31806, is 31806's old boiler being worked on?.

The Swanage Mogul fund webpage has not been updated for a while, even though the SRT website saying 31874 overhaul was "urgent".
http://swanagemoguls.com/ is the SR concentrating on fundraising to get the T3 (which it now owns) finished? Then fundraising will restart on other loaned T10 and Mogul locos?

 

I have a feeling it may still be located at the Norden road rail interchange. I have got so used to seeing it their not sure I notice anymore, especially as I have not stopped there for about a month. Unless of course it is a different boiler that was there.

 

Southern Locomotives Limited and Drummond Locomotives Limited are separate companies to the Swanage Railway Company Limited, although connected to them through their respective contracts, and therefore responsible for their own strategy and fundraising. At present, 30053 is in Herston Works with the chassis being overhauled on a contract basis by SRCo staff and volunteers, while other parts of the locomotive are under overhaul/construction under separate contracts at other sites (eg the boiler under overhaul at Weybourne).

The last I heard, arrangements were being made for the boiler destined for 31874 to be assessed and quoted for, in order to progress this loco.

 

This is what I find so confusing and frustrating.

SRC / SRT went into overdrive to fund raise for the 3 Moguls of which only 1 was in steam / service. They launch a dedicated website and IIRC some form of club for those who donated.

The job is "half done" (TBH I am not sure what % of the job is completed) when suddenly the T3 appears and the focus rapidly switches from the Moguls to the T3.

I fully appreciate that the T3 was a once in a lifetime opportunity but why not continue with the Moguls? Is rent being charged for the 2 Moguls which are out of service in which case it would surely make sense to get those into revenue earning duty as soon as possible.

Not only is there the Mogul issue but I also get the sense that something similar has happened with the Carriage Shed Project superseding the Water Tower Project.

I fully appreciate that circumstances change, that the projects are led by individuals who have their own motivations and priorities but nevertheless a project has been started and then effectively shelved as a new project has appeared. Do those who donate monies to specific projects have the right to at least expect that the SRT will limit the number of projects it endorses to prevent project overload and excessive calls being made on SRT general (unallocated) funds resulting in the "jam being spread too thinly"?

 

Contrary to what seems to be being made out, the Mogul project has progressed over the last few years. A newly overhauled boiler has been returned, installed in 31806's frames and this loco re-entered traffic within 2 months of withdrawal for a full 2021 season at Swanage, along with main line charter operation too. Most other railways would give their eye teeth for only having such a useful loco out of traffic for such a short period of time!

Maybe if the boiler overhaul had not been so involved, or delays caused by projects being put on hold because of COVID had not taken place then it would have gone into 31874, but as it is a quite reasonable (IMHO) decision was taken to use it with the good-condition bottom end from 31806 to minimise time out of traffic and maximise worth to the Swanage Railway.

I have no doubt that 31874 will progress, in time. As I said above, the last I heard arrangements were being made for the boiler destined for it to be assessed. Hopefully this will lead to an overhaul in a reasonable period, and the prospect of two moguls working in tandem on the Swanage Railway.

 

Thank you for that insight - I was under the impression that the (original) intention was to restore and return to service at least one of the two out of service Moguls before 31806 required an overhaul.

I absolutely agree in fact I think it was it was an eminently sensible even clever decision to put an overhauled boiler originally intended for one of the 2 o/s Moguls into 31806 thus minimising the out of service period of 31806 to what seems like an almost miraculous (comparatively speaking) 2 months. Better that than have all three Moguls out of service.

 

Its not going be this year now though is it despite what others have said...

 

What's not going to happen this year?

 

31874 entering service

 

I don't know where that has been said or how recently, but no (without some sort of miracle). But then I'm cynical enough and grumpy enough to believe a loco is going to enter service when I actually see it in service.

One of my occasional pastimes is looking through the last 30 years or so of Steam Railway magazine and working out the percentage of restorations and overhauls that have been completed by the date originally stated. I can assure you, it's not a very high number!

 

Well, I went with middle son today (23.4)

Arrived just in time to get the 10.30 from Norden. Sadly both ticket machines in the car park are not working.

What you are expected to do if you dont have a smartphone I dont know.

Again I rode in the Maunsell Third Open and very nice it was being Eddystone. The rest of the MK1's in the train looked good internally as well,

After a trip to Chococo I popped into the CoOp for some shopping as cooking oil seems to be disappearing and youngest has scoffed all the bacon for miles.

Back on the 1200 behind 5526, indulging in my penchant for small prairies again, but apart from the mini buffet the other coaches in the train were not inspiring.

We waited to watch 5526 leave Norden & I was able to grab a tea from the buffet - good to see quality tea being used coupled with quality service.

Again a good day - OK morning out

 

Why not complain to those who own and can do something about that, not an internet forum.
As neither us, nor the Swanage Railway run the car park

 

I would say its true to take a pinch of salt with all planned completion dates.

But considering the original finish date of 31874 planned was 2015 (which I thought at the time was pushing it), its getting really stupid now its still no where... I have a feeling that Prince of Wales new build (which started in the same year) is going to beat 31874 in to traffic.

In fact nearly I given up on the f##king hunk of metal. I spent a long time looking forward to for no reason...

 

If the boiler swap had taken place it would of been running by now.
It was sensible however to use the boiler on 31806 at a time of covid crisis it kept it running.

31874 time will come soon enough. It’s literally just waiting for a boiler. Other than that it’s done.
No need to be using hidden expletives. I can assure you that absolutely everyone is as disappointed that 31874 isn’t running and it is a high priority for the company to bring it into traffic and reduce our overall costs. Plans are afoot.

 

it doesn't feel like it a 'high priority' when we had no official news about the moguls for over a year and that was just to report the boiler swap. I had my copy of the Swanage Railway News through the door today, and apart from the T3 and Southern Locomotives, had again no news on any locomotive matters at all. No even reports on 31806's recent maintenance. It just frustrating that as I pointed out a complex 'new-build' project seems to gone far better then what was on the surface was a overhaul.

 

As has been said, were it not for the boiler swap done with wholly reasonable justification, 31874 would most likely have been in service by now.

Your comparison of the P2 with the N project is rather like comparing apples with oranges; the P2 project was set up specifically to construct that locomotive, building on the experience gained through constructing the A1; the N project is a part of the wider Swanage Railway, with all the other varied demands of that business (and Internet forums). I personally (and I am but an 'umble volunteer) feel that having greater control of your locomotive destiny is a good thing, however this does inevitably come with the creation of conflicting priorities.