Availability of Main Line Steam Fleet

And that's before you've even started on the really thorny issue of what's going to knock how many lumps out of which platforms / bridges / tunnels...

 

Quite, but I don't understand what's wrong with discussion about when locos will potentially be back in service; that is one of our main interests!

 

For gods sake...

The title of this thread is

'availability of main line steam fleet'

not petty bickering!!!

Can we have a sensible discussion for 5 minutes without it descending into..well..this!!!!

It all started off so well....

 

We can it just seem some don't understand things will happen when they happen.
Ipso Facto Ready when they are ready.

 

I'm partly in agreement with you and partly not, Steven. If I'm involved with a project where I know reasonably well what I am going to be doing, I can cost it and make a fair estimate of the time involved having regard to the resources I have. Time and resources are somewhat interlinked. Four men will probably do a job in half the time of two. Provided I have control of resources and know what I have to do, I can deliver. (And usually did in my working days.) However, in the world of heritage railways, life is not as simple as you are trying to make it. For a start, cash is king as that it is always in short supply. If you let me plan (say) the overhaul of 75029's boiler on the basis that I WILL replace the firebox, I can come up with a reasonable cost and time estimate before I even start the job and deliver it to those estimates. It will be expensive, though, so you won't want that. It is the same with your car, if you go to the garage with an unknown engine problem, the garage could give you a fixed price and time to change the engine or it could say, 'we'll strip it and investigate. Then we can give you a better idea of how much and how long. There's also then the question of labour. If you have a dedicated team working on your car, its easier to keep to that time. If that team also has to do other jobs as they come in and have regard to priorities, it is a different matter. 'It'll be ready when its ready' starts to take on a real meaning, much to your annoyance. Labour in a service industry is never something that is standing around waiting to fulfil your requirements. It's even more chaotic when some or all of that labour pool consists of volunteers over whose attendance you have no control and the service industry that supports you is one where spares are not generally off the shelf and there is a strong demand for the few specialists.
What needs to happen in the heritage railway world is that over optimistic estimates need to go out of the window. Decisions need to be made as to where the priority lies; is it cost or is it time? You can buy time with money and, to some extent, you can save money by using time. It is also too easy for people to give the answer that you want to hear without questioning it. That happens all too often, as you well know.

 

Photo appeared on Facebook last night of 34052 on the back of a low loader at Toton.

 

I am not sure that you are not saying in more detail what I said tried (and obviously failed) to summarise in a few sentences and phrases. In other words, @Steve's comments describe what 'joined up thinking' might look like.

There seems to have been a general reaction that I was seeking to denigrate the efforts of those restoring locos. My comments were wider than that and in effect come back to Steve's 'money versus time'. If I had £10 for every time some-one has said 'there is no Budget' or 'THEY won't let us have the money' when in fact no request had been made to spend nor discussion held as to whether the money could be found, I would have a large 'slush' fund to deal with such instances. 'Joined up thinking' includes being in a position to make those 'money versus time' judgments in an informed and timely manner - all too often, there is an assumption there is no money or it is worth for example (real life example from many years ago) having a paid person spend a month needle gunning a set of frames rather than spending a few £100 having them shot blast 'because we are paying him anyway so it is saving a few £100 that way'.

The use of volunteers is an interesting one. Heritage railways run a service which needs X number of people in a series of pre-identified roles in order for it to be delivered, working pre-planned shifts and diagrams. This is rostered and delivered, in some cases entirely using volunteers, in others using a mix of paid and volunteer, often only with considerable difficulty! If you have the sort of plan you identify as possible of being produced in the first part of your reply, then why can't that include 'we need X volunteer hours and this is worth using a resource to 'roster' achieving that as a 'minimum' input'? Likewise, if you know that those working on the job will be pulled to work elsewhere, firstly, is that wise, can be avoided, does it actually mean you need 2 separate and dedicated teams, what is the 'pay-back' if you do that? Secondly, why not plan on a realistic basis of 'these guys will, in 5 working days, only get to spend 3 (or whatever) on the project and will be needed elsewhere for the rest'.

It all comes back to planning, communication and building confidence and respect between those involved; engineers, operators, money-people and of course end users!

Yes, this all has a cost - in resources and cash but I have always believed that you have to look at what that can deliver before deciding it is unaffordable - cash may be in short supply, but if there is a sound plan that needs more, either it can gain priority over areas lacking that plan or the 'money people' and fund raisers have to go away and find the cash. It can be 'do-able' - even banks can be convinced to lend against loco overhauls - I know, I have done it!

We have a hobby which in effect others make a major contribution to paying for (not that it doesn't cost us to take part!). I think I am again quoting @Steve in saying if any of us played golf, we would have to pay expensive membership and greens fees and buy all the kit needed to play. Those costs for the heritage sector are paid for between the travelling public and the 'charity' income of memberships, donations, bequests, grants etc.

All these 'funders' want to see and experience something - that is why they buy the ticket/membership, make the donation/bequest/grant etc. How focused is the industry on actually delivering what our funders support us in order to achieve?

'Joined up thinking' isn't just planning work, it is funding work, it is constant dialogue between all concerned 'we have found this extra work', 'who much and how long? Does it really need doing now? What is the payback if it isn't essential but is desirable?' This can be hard enough within the same organisation (i.e. a heritage railway model) but is clearly harder in the mainline sector where you have separate promoter, operator and loco owner. The comments that have lead to this thread could suggest 'are there enough locos to run this programme?' is not a question promoters seem to have asked before advertising. Cancellations and failure to deliver what was advertised cannot but impact market confidence and peoples' willingness to spend large sums (plus associated travel and accommodation costs in many cases) on what seems like a lottery.

Yet the general response seems to be 'shut up moaning and be grateful promoters operate anything for an ungrateful shower like you lot!' and 'this is steam, it is different'. Many of the responses to my original comments were in effect that second comment - and for many enthusiasts, clearly it is, but for others and the wider public upon whom we depend, will they see it as 'different'? How well do they understand? Will they find the same attitude if they spend their leisure time and cash doing something else, which they feel will deliver? And can we honestly say things are 'as joined up' as they could be, and that there is no 'outside the box' thinking that could improve matters?

Tin hat back on to be told 'you don't understand' again!

Steven

 

Literally and metaphorically on the money there @Bean-counter. Rational and logical thinking won't be universally appreciated though!
Thanks for taking the trouble to share great insight.

 

I find that most people who complain about the length of time an overhaul takes have never been involved at the sharp end. A steam loco isn't like a modern car where a computer readout can often pinpoint the fault.
The full extent of the work needed is rarely known until the thing is stripped down and a proper assessment made. Even with the input of a dedicated volunteer force most projects are still at the mercy of specialist contractors and their work load plus ability to deliver on time. Then there's the "buggeration" factor that can affect all aspects of the job.

 

My post was largely meant to be a counter to your hatred of the phrase "I'll be ready when it's ready." In our peculiar sector, it does have a lot of validity for reasons that I attempted to explain.

You can argue the same for a volunteer to some extent. However, it depends on the value that you put on a particular volunteer. I remember seeing one on a heritage railway (I'm not connected with) who was slowly cutting some 1/16" sheet steel into strips with a 4" angle grinder. When I suggested to the railway engineer that it would be good to invest in a plasma cutter, the response was that they already had one but finding jobs for that particular volunteer was difficult. Unfortunately, a good number of willing volunteers fall into the category labelled 'what can I give them to do?' Needle-gunning is a useful tool in this respect. As an aside, I quite like needle-gunning. I find it quite therapeutic as there is little thinking involved!

I said in my earlier post that the heritage railways need to be less optimistic in their planning because that is one of the biggest problems. Back in 2013, the NYMR's G.M. said that 34101 would be running next year and would form a key part of the loco fleet. When I had the temerity to say that would never happen, the response was along the lines of "that's what those in control of these things have told me and who should I believe, you or them?" Of course, he should believe them but their optimism seriously exceeded their ability to deliver and this is the case throughout the movement. Until it changes, the only correct answer will remain " It'll be ready when it's ready" but that doesn't make planning easy for the rest of those who have to make the decisions.
Steve's law of heritage railway project management: Decide how long it will take and double it. Then take a long hard look and decide whether you are being too optimistic.

 

That's one hell of a sweeping statement...

Nothing much wrong with having the unskilled volunteer cutting up the metal strip with an angle grinder if you've scheduled things so that the extra time it will take is allowed for and the skilled guy is working on something else only he/she can do. Part of good project management is looking at all your available resources and allocating your less skilled people just as carefully (if not more so!) as the more skilled ones.

 

I'll stick with that statement. ' Throughout' doesn't mean everyone but it does mean that it is endemic. There aren't many overhauls and restorations or extensions that are finished to the originally published timescale and/or cost. I'm sure that you can think of some that were but I don't think you'll be able to think of many, which will prove the point or otherwise.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the unskilled volunteer cutting up the metal strips. I used it to illustrate the fact that using them on jobs that could be done more quickly/easily by other means was not necessarily the wrong thing to do. As you say, it can be good management of resources.

 

Just as a thought though: and bear in mind I have absolutely no experience of running a preserved railway, is it possible that locomotives are way down the priority list for resources? Locomotives can be hired, but if your permanent way, buildings, general infrastructure, perhaps even coaches are out of service aren't you in very deep proverbial? So if you are juggling where to use cash to keep the railway running, might it be the locomotives are not at the top?

 

I have a certain sympathy for both sides of this argument.

On the one hand, I think everyone can appreciate that we are using obsolescent assets, most of which are at least 60 years old, and some considerably older. They are maintained and operated by a mixture of paid and volunteer staff (which presents its own challenges). In the case of mainline running at least, planning is further complicated by the fact that owners, operators and promoters are often (though not always) separate companies, and run on tracks managed by yet a fourth body, for whom mainline operations are only a tiny part of their work. So no-one is pretending that lining all those ducks in order reliably is anything other than hard.

And yet ... we are running a service business, and our customers have a right to expect that we deliver what we promise. To them, the structural complexity of the industry is an irrelevance, if they appreciate it at all. Whenever the subject of diesel traction on steam tours is discussed, many are quick to claim "but the majority of our passengers are ordinary people, and they don't care about the difference between pure steam or diesel assistance." While that may be true, they must certainly care that we at least deliver the product that they buy. A rail tour isn't exactly a cheap day out: if a passenger buys a steam-hauled tour from A to B on a certain date, and then by time it is delivered, the route is actually C to D, on a different day, and without steam haulage for some or all of the way, they surely have a legitimate complaint. Which comes back to realistic planning. @Steve has made the point about promises tending to be wildly optimistic. But the fact that over-promising seems to be endemic doesn't mean that it is right or should go unchallenged. Surely it is a challenge to the whole industry to work out how to change from a prevailing attitude of "it'll be ready when it's ready". Because in general the one thing that will terminally sink a service industry is consistently failing to deliver what is promised.

Tom

 

I think coaching stock are often overlooked and important as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Eloquent and precise, the put up and shut up brigade would do well to heed.

 

May I add three characters to the debate - P&O

 

I was told by someone who travels more frequently than me, that top of the list of complaints that Steam Dreams have had over the years, was the state of the rolling stock.

 

And the level of volunteer input can vary considerably throughout a project.

There is a strange law though which seems to apply. As an overhaul nears completion there is a steep increase in the offers of help received! - funny that I wonder why?

 

To help solve the shortage of mainline locos? or as relevant to the significant thread drift?