35025 Brocklebank Line

This is another point against the Merchant Navies I am fully aware of too, but again it's one of those points I feel folks throw about to make a point, yet seem to overlook certain other factors at play here. The biggest factor often being just HOW a Merchant Navy is utilized, for people who have actually care for, fire and drive these engines (those who run 35006 being the latest example) have often pointed out before that "they use more coal" is not as clear cut as that. This is true of any locomotive arguably, if you don't drive and fire it properly, of course it's not gonna perform as well or indeed prove as economical as it could be. The opposite is also true, where if you know how best to drive and fire a loco if just such a way, they can provide good results all round.

From what I've heard before from those in the know, once you fire a Merchant Navy in just the right way, then that fire (though perhaps bigger then what would be in other locos for sure) will last for a good long portion of time without needing to do that much with it. Combine this with the fact that due to their size, no railway would ever really provide anything that's a real challenge for a MN, their never really worked all that hard either and thus don't use as much coal to do the job. Plus it's all about just when and how you use such a loco as well, what set number of days you have it in steam and such, which from what I understand the GWSR has nailed down pretty well. No doubt in time so will the MHR.

Don't mistaken me suggesting that actually Merchant Navies are somehow actually super economical machines, certainly not, but then realistically when one really thinks about it... few of the bigger engines we have based on many of these railways really are on paper. It all comes down to how you drive and fire them, as well as of course how you overall utilize them.

On a side not, I'm not entirely sure why it is folks often argue about whether the NYMR would make good use or even want a MN, I mean I get it's one of the longest and challenging routes therefore a bigger engine like a MN would work right? Still don't know why folks talk about that often, I mean has anyone ever actually inquired to the folks at the NYMR what their thoughts are on such a loco? Would they be interested in making use of one if such an example was available?

 

The point I'd be looking at closely with a Merchant Navy is less about coal cost, and more about repair cost. Of the three you mentioned that ran on heritage railways, 35027 did basically one stint and wasn't then repaired, apparently with firebox issues; 35005 is now under repair but was the principal beneficiary of a ca. £1m lottery grant - whether it would have been done without that is an interesting question (could you justify a £1m repair based just on heritage line running?); 35006 the jury is still out - will it get repaired again at the end of its current ticket?

There are six light pacifics that are in the process of receiving new fireboxes, at £200,000 each. That is just the cost of the firebox itself; so the whole boiler overhauls for each of them will be well in excess of that figure. Bulk-buying led to a reduction in cost relative to doing just one, in particular setting up the dies from which the various components of the firebox could be pressed. As far as I am aware, similar dies don't exist for a Merchant Navy firebox; presumably they could be made in a similar way and pressed using the same equipment at SDRE, but it probably requires a similar joint effort from several MN owners to all chip in together to make that viable. A more traditional route of patch repairs on Bulleid fireboxes seems to my eyes to have been penny wise, pound foolish.

Tom

 

35005 Is in the process of having an all new inner firebox fitted I believe, so dies must exist for the pressings various parts , even if only for the inner firebox.

 

It is a fair point that undeniably it is an expensive business to repair a Merchant Navy Tom, I certainly wouldn't argue with that, but the point I made when it came to coal stands true too for this point also. Being frank no steam engine is exactly cheap to repair is it? Certainly not in this day and age. My argument against your point would be that it's all relative nowadays, pretty much nearly every steam engine can be expected to cost a big SIX figure sum when it comes to overhauls of any kind. Certainly I'm sure you must be all too painfully aware of this over at the Bluebell are you not? No overhaul is a cheap affair, at all. Of course we can argue that a Merchant Navy would cost more, but by how much exactly? Would it really be that much different from engines of recent memory?

I don't think it's fair place a question mark over whether of not the group who own and care for 35006 can get overhauled either Tom if you ask me, let's not just assume that they can't for no one knows that truly, instead we should give them the benefit of the doubt. They are the ones that did the mammoth task in restoring the engine from scratch after all, no doubt having made from scratch most the parts on that engine now. Putting a question mark over whether they can keep it running or not after the first ticket feels a bit of disservice to them if you ask me.

And I should add that Merchant Navies aren't exactly exclusive in being engines to have only run for one boiler ticket in preservation, to then not be repaired again anytime soon, that category can fit a LOT of engines in there from many heritage railways.

Case in point over at the SVR, they spent nearly a MILLION overhauling Standard Class 4 75069, and that wasn't a restoration but an overhaul for an engine that had already run in preservation!

A lot of overhauls for locomotives wouldn't have happened if it weren't for grant funding or indeed a large scale appeal, that is almost a norm now at this point, so aiming this point against the Merchant Navies specifically just doesn't quite stack up to me.

It could be argued actually that, the reason why a lot of the overhauls engines are having are so expensive, is because of how they were restored and overhauled in preservation previously. Fact is most heritage railways I suspect had the mentality of patching up and make do kind of repairs because that's all they could do, whether it be down to lack of facilities or skilled labor to do the job proper, I think this is a pretty well recognized truth. No shame in that, this movement has come a long way from those days. But because of these past methods in overhauling an engine previously, we're coming to the stage now that all those patch up and make do kind of jobs are catching up with all our engines now. Simply patching up and repairing the same old worn out parts isn't cutting it no more.

The complete renewal of the fireboxes for the light pacifics is just the tip of the iceberg I'd say, these kind of major (and jolly expensive) renewal jobs in overhauling our steam fleet across the country is the new norm. It's not exclusive to Merchant Navies, and nor does it mean necessarily that they'd be the most expensive to repair.

As I said to start off with, the costs involved to restore any of these large steam engines, it's all pretty much relative nowadays.

 

They don't seem to be too fussed at having lost 60007, arguably a far greater draw for the average member of the public than a Merchant Navy that's hard to distinguish from the West Country they already have!

 

Really? I thought it would still be on the NYMR when not doing mainline duties (at Saphos?). Did I miss something?

 

On the matter of 60007 I don't think that's strictly true, for while yes the owning group now has an arrangement with the Royal Scot Locomotive and General Trust to operate it on the mainline, the agreement also ensures Sir Nigel Gresley's continued presence on heritage railways. NYMR being highlighted specifically on this matter.

 

Admittedly a point hard to dispute that... the two designs are so alike, and even taking into account their size difference, side by side the size difference doesn't seem all that big to me!

 

Its also worth taking into account that by the time 25 gets restored its highly likely 18, and 28 will be out of ticket, that leaves possibly just 9 assumming Riley's get her done in say 5 years, so that makes a case for fitting the mainline gubbings, if she is Swanage based, she will need it for working to Wareham anyway if thats intended, the main drawback with 31806 is it won't be able to haul a long enough rake if it goes beyond wareham, to make it financially viable , where as 35025 could, that opens up the opportunity of limited mainline work based on a triangle of Eastleigh, Salisbury Yeovil assuming that one of the mainline charter rakes still stables at Eastleigh plus when visiting other preserved railways, if they are mainline connected, it can move by rail possibly at the head of an revenue earning train, for instance, lets say its going to the SVR, why not run a tour Swanage to Bridgenorth? with diesel return or if its a loco swop another loco takes the return working.

 

Martin makes a good case re the timing, but I think the SLL organisation has a very good record of restoring and running locomotives in a reasonably cost effective manner on heritage lines. However, I'm sure that if somebody else were to offer to pay the extra to allow mainline running, it would be carefully considered.
I'm just very glad that '25 is being worked on and will steam again.

 

We shall have to see how that works out. For my part, I don't think it will be seen on the NYMR very much in future.

 

On grant funding: I don't think "that is almost a norm now at this point," - CanPac got grant funding within a wider project focused on carriages and oral history; I believe Bahamas did. But they are something of the exception - how many other heritage-line based locos can you point to that have recently been awarded significant external grants towards their restoration?

On overhaul costs: doing like for like work, a Merchant Navy shouldn't be significantly different to a light pacific for the mechanical work (it is after all, the same number of everything: same number of axle boxes, same amount of motion, same number of pistons and valves etc). The boiler, and in particular the firebox, is a different issue - more of it translates directly to more cost. In the preservation era, fireboxes seem to have been the achilles heal of many Bulleid pacifics.

As for 35006 - I am not in anyway decrying their efforts to return the loco to traffic, just noting that there is a rather patchy record of heritage line-based Merchant Navies doing a second stint of running. Let's hope they will buck that trend.

Tom

 

People and personalities change. Since the sad passing of Roger Barker, I get the impression that those in control of the loco do not see it as being based at the NYMR. Nor any other heritage railway, but that is purely speculation on my part.

 

Martin, your logistics don't stand up to even the closest scrutiny. How much extra to equip a steam loco with all the extra but necessary gubbins? TPWS, AWS, GSMR, OTMR, not to mention the extra paperwork and QA. Oh, and a support coach. £200K wouldn't be far off the mark. To pay for that would mean that the loco would have to be out on the main line an awful lot more than the occasional railtour. How many main line registered locos are actually based on heritage railways, rather than the occasional visit? Although not unknown, they are few and far between.

 

31806, 45212?, 45305, 45596, 46233, 60007?, 70013, 76084.

 

35005 has had a complete new inner firebox put in during the course of its current overhaul with pressings from SDRE. I suspect a lot of the press tooling is actually the same as for the lights; a light pacific firebox is a shortened MN firebox with a different foundation ring, and probably a slightly different combustion chamber leading to a smaller firebox tubeplate. I'm sure that's not been without costs, but in terms of setting the precedent for repairs it's worth remembering that while 35028 doesn't tend to appear on preserved railways that much, it is a preserved MN that's gone through several overhauls since 1967, so more tooling may exist than you'd think, if only considering 35005/6/27.

Appropriate water treatment will always be an important factor in getting good firebox life out of Bulleids, which as preserved railways become more sophisticated operations (and the advantages for all types of boilers are shown) should become less of a barrier. I know the MHR have noted the benefits of their RO plant for steel fireboxes in particular.

 

I can but agree and echo Steve's remarks above. Not just with regards to Gresley, either. Whilst yes it's fine and dandy running on the mainline, as has been highlighted the costs involved across the board will not be covered exclusively by said mainline running. So being based on a preserved/heritage line does have it's benefits. These include making the loco more accessible to the public, extra funds from running a service for the aforementioned public [as not all may wish to pay the prices asked for a mainline run]. There is also the opportunity to "test run" after repairs off the mainline, ok at a lower speed, with repair facilities closer at hand, not to mention more [hopefully] experienced staff/folk available if further work needs doing. Mileage payments from a preserved line may be lower than those from a mainline run, but as Tesco are apt to say.- "Every little helps!"

I remember well on one occasion, be that about twenty years ago the Duke of Gloucester Guys getting all pretentious saying .- "We don't do preserved lines. We're a mainline outfit.........!"

 

They are lower but as I understand it, that is to offset the fact that a loco may need to be unavailable for multiple days to run one remunerative trip. Quite possibly by time you factor in lighting up, FTR, then travel to starting point, then running an actual trip, then return from that trip, a "single day" on the mainline actually means four or five days away from base. So really, the "day rate" for a mainline loco is actually more akin to a "weekly rate", since as soon as you commit to a single day on the mainline, you are more ore less unavailable for other work for getting on for a week.

For a primarily heritage railway based loco to do that, the heritage railway has to back-fill the gap in their fleet while the mainline loco is away. That seems to me one of the hidden costs of trying to use a primarily heritage railway-based loco for occasional mainline trips. NB - that calculation doesn't apply for the specific examples of a heritage railway essentially extending its heritage operation onto adjacent mainline, i.e. NYMR to Whitby or Swanage Railway to Wareham; I'm specifically thinking about charters going further afield.

(There is also the point @Steve makes of the cost of fitting out with the necessary electronic stuff, and how many trips you need to run to offset that cost).

Tom

 

IIRC, the first round of grants for rolling stock restoration stipulated that the grant should in part be used to enhance the future sustainability of the item being funded - which translates roughly to: "We don't want to see you coming back again in 10 years time for this particular item !"

 

You can probably add the NYMR Whitby fleet to this list. There's a 'but' to this, though. AFAIK, 45305, 45596, 60007 & 70013 have always been main line certified and, as such, when the various bits became mandatory, N.R. paid for at least some of the equipment under the Network change arrangements. 45212 may technically be a KWVR loco but it is presently under the Riley stable and falls into the same category as 44871 & 45407, which are peripatetic. 46233 may have a base at Butterley but I'm not certain that you could argue it as being part of the MRT's fleet. That really only leaves 31806 & 76084 and I think 31806 got funding for this, although I'm happy to be told that's wrong.
Against this, both the SVR and MHR have withdrawn from the main line market and I think the same can be said about the GWS. There's good reason for this; quite simply the business case doesn't stack up.