Fire Risk

A lot of good points in there.

To take the Bluebell as an example, we have something like 30 drivers, but only around half of them have diesel competence of some kind. Moreover, for the class 33 and class 201 that had generally lapsed at the point those units arrived this summer because of the conditions in our CMS about frequency of turns - even the drivers competent on the Hastings Unit had typically had about 10 or 11 months since their last trip, which is too long under our rules. Hence (noted on the Bluebell thread) @Jonnie from the Spa Valley kindly assisting with re-certifying some drivers it.

Loco rostering is also an issue: normally our loco rosters are published early one month for the following one. But the August roster was essentially torn up before it had even really kicked off, and since then we have been working a week ahead. I assume that is because behind the scenes, the powers that be are making a decision on the service we will run and the traction basically from week to week, and the rostering is then being done just for that week. To take my case, I went into August expecting to have four turns, but right now I have one rostered, and with a question mark for anything beyond next weekend. Fortunately being a largely weekend volunteer with a 9-5 job, I hadn't taken any time off work in anticipation of doing some midweek stuff, but undoubtedly some people will have done.

Tom

 

I think it does matter, but how much depends on a number of factors. I've witnessed people walk away when told that they'll get a diesel, but the conversation was simply steam/diesel in the context of a railway whose advertising focused on steam.

If the diesels are well kept, in "old" liveries (yes, that probably does mean BR green), and the railway makes clear that diesels are part of its offer, I don't think the public reaction will be as extreme. That's because one of the major issues is to do with what people expect vs what they're getting.

However, steam is a key draw and demand is likely to fall when steam is not on the menu.

Finally, I'm far from convinced that you can simply do a netting off between demand in a "normal" period and demand now. Enthusiast as I am, I'm much less likely to visit a heritage railway for a slow run in heat traps with limited ventilation, regardless of traction, than I am to visit when the weather is bearable.

 

Do not forget the Class 20, seemingly liked by so many.

 

Yes indeed. Best not to forget that unique style, one off in the class, 2-10-2 South African Class 20 steam loco. Built in SA 1935 and converted to a condensing loco with a type CL condensing tender in 1950. Sadly scrapped in 1961 . It is said to have performed well, and if it had been kept going it would surely have been a candidate for preservation.

Bryan - I would have been one of the so many who liked it if it had survived a lot longer - B

 

I think this is not unusual. I seem to remember, when I was a bit more involved with mainline steam and the MNLPS, that VSOE/Belmond had a 6 - 8 week period without steam in the summer, and the MNLPS planned to use that time for Clan Line's annual maintenance.

 

I only agree to a limited extent, sadly. Yes, more intense rain will happen eventually and for the UK, climate change predictions suggest wetter winters are statistically likely. But there is still the practical question of when and where things might change (or even flip to a new weather regime). Nothing is guaranteed.

The forecasts and commentaries around the super El Nino suggest that the UK winter may be wetter, and maybe a little colder than average … but most seem to expect no such change before October. There is also the unfortunate statistic that August is often a wet month, whereas September and October can be drier.

Here in Surrey, in response to people asking when the hosepipe ban will be lifted, I am suggesting “around mid November”. Obviously that’s only a guess! But current forecasts suggest a long period of blocked weather patterns affecting SE England and others.

I am fearful about the effects for heritage railways. Yes, diesels can run but they are not what the general public mostly wants to pay for. For the larger railways like Bluebell, a prolonged period of no (or very little) steam means a similarly prolonged period of passenger income falling well short of what was budgeted for.

 

Maybe the various hosepipe bans and the steam ban due to dry vegetation shouldn't be over-conflated. At first glance they are in response to the current severe drought, and that is what is being reported in the media, but our modern media don't seem to be too interested in digging into the background of things. They've sacked most of their real investigators and rely heavily on pasting the content of news releases. The dry vegetation that's the cause of the steam ban and which is actually caused by this drought (similar to 2018) will eventually be cured by a few good downpours to damp the top layer and steam should be running again. One Atlantic storm system should cure that, and hurricane season is approaching in the Carribean to get things started in that respect.

The hosepipe ban problem runs a lot deeper and is harder to fix, because it's largely the result of a very big can being kicked down a very long road for a very long time, and the longer the time, the bigger the can is getting. Although it suits the water companies (and our under-scrutinising media) to blame it all on the current drought, El Niño and the favourite fall-back of climate change, the real reason for water shortages year after year, including times when steam isn't banned extensively, is underinvestment. There have been no major reservoirs built since the 1980s and thanks to the way the water companies were privatised, and later sold on to foreign owners, we won't be getting any soon. The water companies are happy to take the profits, but you can be sure that they won't be spending vast chunks of them in building the new lakes we need. At the same time, governments of all colours are quite happy to sit in their offices twiddling their thumbs, saying 'Nothing to do with us, guv. It's the water companies', ignoring the fact that the way privatisation worked, there is no incentive for the companies to do anything about it.

This is made worse by several factors. Firstly, the capital cost of new reservoirs, inflated ten times over by the difficulty in getting planning permission for any major project (a government responsibility) in the UK, with endless public inquiries, etc, etc. Everybody wants the water, but nobody wants their valley flooded. Then there's where the water is needed. The eastern half of the country, particularly the south-east, is significantly drier than the rest. Half the average rainfall of other areas further west, yet that is where the huge majority of the population has chosen to settle, because the weather is nicer and that's where all the jobs are. The place that has the least available water is the place with the most consumer demand.

Then there is the real elephant in the room. We've had no real increase in reservoir capacity in 40 years, yet in that same time the population has grown by 20% or more. We had a water supply based on the steady number of 55 million people we used to have, now various estimates put that figure at 67-70 million, and it's growing by hundreds of thousands per year. Is it any wonder we're short of water for our gardens?

Steam will return long before the end of hosepipe bans.

 

Hopefully, though I notice that Southern Water are applying for something more than a hosepipe ban in at least part of their area, because the supply is based on abstraction from the River Test. From how it's been presented, I don't think that would affect steam, but it is designed to restrict business use of water (car washes, swimming pools).

As for reservoirs, I think the blame on privatised companies is only partially true. In my patch, Anglian Water are pushing to build two new reservoirs, and local opposition is strong (especially to the one in Lincolnshire). Politicians are either sitting on their hands or backing the opposition; in another case (Abingdon), the local MP expressly accused Thames Water of wanting to build it to avoid spending money on leaks.

 

Absolutely. My reference to hosepipe bans was only an aside, being a retort to neighbours who were saying it will all be OK and back to normal soon, because it’s bound to rain next month!

Much less about our weather is to be taken for granted, actually. And that does apply to steam and how long we are likely to have to wait for the end of drought-related fire risks, just as much as to hosepipe bans.

Privatising the water industry was one of the worst moves by any UK Government in recent times. Admittedly public water boards were slow to create new reservoirs, and reluctant to push back effectively against the inevitable objections from countryside campaigners, the farm lobby etc. But they would not have been as bad as the privatised profit-skimmers have been.

As for population increases - also agreed. The Government is pushing ahead with new housing and seems content for houses to be occupied before local infrastructure can meet the increased demands. Short-termism and box-ticking rules over proper forward planning!

 

Taking water from the River Test is nothing short of environmental vandalism. Southern England is home to 85% of the world's supply of chalk streams and the Test is one of the best known and most important. They are incredibly rare and valuable in their own right. They are to some degree immune from the effects of annual droughts and not reliant on rainfall like our other spate rivers are. They are fed by springs from chalk aquifers, the water is clear and pure and bursting with life in the rivers. But that strength is also a weakness. Their constant flow makes them attractive for water extraction at the expense of their value as a natural river. Borehole abstraction from the chalk aquifers that feed the Test and the other chalk streams reduces the local water table and dries out the springs that give them their flow in the first place, so there is less water in the river to abstract and the resource is declining. England's chalk steams are under existential threat from increases water extraction in recent years.

As an example of what over-abstraction can do, look at the water crisis in California, where they are worrying about the draining and salification of their aquifers. The mighty Colorado River, which along with the water from boreholes, waters their cities and fruit fields no longer even reaches the sea since the 1960s. 100 miles from the Pacific, it dries up and is no more. They are horrified at the way Lake Mead has dried up in recent years. Over-abstraction is a man-made disaster.

 

Actually I dream of a perfect, no-expense spared water system. In which all rivers would be allowed to run in their natural unpolluted state from source to sea, with no abstraction and no sewage being added.

Then at the head of the tideway, all the water for human requirements would be taken out, pumped back uphill to massive (ideally, underground) storage, then sent on to consumers as required. Waste water would be piped to coastal sewage purification plants, or alternatively, piped untreated into tankers for clandestine discharge just offshore of [Russia or insert other undeclared-enemy countries of the moment]. Lots of possibilities with some creative thinking! Very high capital costs and a hundred-year implementation time, but once it was all set up, might not be all that expensive to keep going (apart from the tankers and their naval protection, of course).

And maybe in this expansive and expensive future, there could be a small secondary water grid to allow copious supplies of soft north-British water to be piped to loco sheds all over the hard-water south, too!

 

I don't disagree - I'm no fisherman, but have family links with the Itchen Valley and recognise the importance of chalk streams.

However, there are short and long term issues. What you describe are long term issues, which long pre-date water privatisation, and where multi-year change is required to allow that abstraction to be reduced or stopped.

Short term, relevant to the fire risk right now, I merely make the point that this one water company is talking about restrictions that go beyond the normal hosepipe ban level, and which (depending on how written) could stop the use of steam locomotives outright.

 

I'm not defending the water companies but, as a recent government commissioned report found, their failures are also a result of political and regulatory choices that have prioritised price. If the problems are going to be cured, honesty about the range of factors needs considering properly - not just a scapegoating exercise.

Steam is a mere pinprick. So is a carwash, or a swimming pool. The issue is what happens to a railway that is within an area where restrictions are defined.

From memory, this was threatened but never quite happened 30-odd years ago due to supply issues around Oxenhope.

 

It's interesting the different approaches that the various water boards have to hosepipe bans. Here in Worcester, which is officially in a drought, my local water board is Severn Trent and the last hosepipe ban they imposed was in 1995 - over 30 years ago. The racecourse had the sprinklers going recently for the races, the local golf course has got theirs going. Anyone born here within the last 30 years will have no experience at all of hosepipe bans, as they've never known one.

 

What's a hosepipe ban? We've got Kielder Water here, built in the late 70s/early 80s when we still were proud of industry and it was expected that the reservoir would be needed to meet the demand of an expected industrial expansion in the North East, especially on Teesside.

Teesside industrial boom. I wonder whatever happened to that?

 

Likewise here in Shropshire. ST do make quite a point of it.

 

Too many very interesting posts above to quote here. But very many thanks to the posters.

My views about not running steam when there is a lineside fire risk, but also not running it when restrictions on use have already been made with the possibility of more restrictions, are already in this thead. That latter point is not just an avoidable use of what is increasingly becoming a scarce resource at present, but I feel it is could be bad publicity for the railway concerned. And I make that comment even though I am, as I think is well known here, a 100% Steam only man - a dinosaur in fact with my focus not only being SR steam locos but only those in normal 1960s livery.

As for water companies. Such a vital rescouce must be taken back into public ownership asap. Even SE Water who grew from the privately owned Mid-Kent Water company. That's been my thought for a very long time - not just when we get droughts etc.

I recall 1976 and the debate then about a national water grid. So do we have one now, 50 years later? IMHO that could only be built by a sort of tax and spend Labour Government. Plus the same government getting legislation through Parliament for a special streamlined planning process. MPs, vote against that at your peril!

Then there is use of the unlimited water we are surrounded by - it's called the sea. Especially here in Kent, one of the critical water use parts of the UK.

The UK has just a few de-salination plants plans in use or planned. With wind and solar energy, suitable placement of the plants could at least reduce opertating costs, but not of course the investment cost.

More bottle spring water arrived in my grocery shop today - I am a SE Water customer and in view of their well publicised inability to keep suppling all customers (not just in drought conditions) I feel safer doing that.

And due to the impact of this summer's heat on such as my posties and various delivery drivers, I keep a supply of 500mm bottled spring water in my fridge to offer (free of charge of course) to them if needed. Only one acceptance so far!

Bryan

 

Just quoting this - and it's my normal reaction to any proposal of structural change to fix a problem. What difference will it make, why, and how?

That's not a value judgment, but to ask whether nationalisation (or even privatisation) will actually make a difference. Usually, it's a distraction from other issues - and risks making things worse rather than better (see the railways for an example...)