Availability of Main Line Steam Fleet

There are two different thing though aren't there? Isn't the whole point of "it will be ready when its ready" expectation management and *not* promising what you can't be sure can be delivered? To turn round heavy generals, for example, consistently to a predictable timescale would surely require a exchange parts stock vastly in excess of what is practical for anyone to carry?

But in spite of overrunning overhauls, unexpected failures and all the rest. on how many days a year does the Bluebell fail to run the advertised service? But on the other hand it does seem to be a problem with the tours market that they advertise locos, relying on the small print if they don't turn up. I for one would be happier if they said "we aim for xxx, if ready, if not our reserves are yyy and zzz"

 

Sorry, relevant to the thread drift! I'd forgotten what we were on about in the first place to be honest...

Currently very unlikely 35006 will be going mainline as I understand it.

 

I think we can all think of any number of locos that have been promised with completion dates on an ever receding timeframe - I suspect "it'll be ready when it's ready" is really a reaction against such things. Of course, you can always argue that with volunteer-led projects, you can't predict your future level of resource and therefore it is hard to work out a timescale even if you have a reliable schedule of work. Though the counter argument is that most heritage railways are able to resource operational roles, with a defined resource commitment, into the future, so one wonders why it is hard to predict future level of maintenance resources?

Ultimately, I think there is a natural tendency to ask "what can we achieve with our given resources?" Whereas as soon as you commit to a particular level of service, you should really be asking "what resources do we need to deliver the service we aim to achieve?"

The most recent example I can think of was during the "copper stay crisis" a few years ago, so very rarely in answer to your question. But preserved running is generally simpler than mainline. We typically have about seven locos nominally available against a daily requirement that rarely exceeds four. So you have spare capacity for washouts, minor maintenance etc, and if you do need to substitute at late notice, your replacement is sitting few yards away. Whereas on the mainline, even if there is a spare loco available to cover a late failure, it may be hundreds of miles away. So I am not pretending it is easy. But I get the sense that the mainline scene seems to be running far too lean to give any confidence about the resilience of the service that they advertise. And as a prospective passenger, it is confidence that will be needed to make a spending commitment likely to run to > £100 months in advance.

Tom

 

I arrived on this thread trying to find out what was up, if anything, with Braunton. I haven't found that out but aside from the usual complement of sniping and hot air there's been a lot of common sense realism here.

If you were going to invest in an engine and your chief engineer or trusted engineering advisor told you that although it ought to be able to run 12 mainline excursions each year for 7 years of its boiler ticket, there's a strong likelihood it will barely make half that number and spend a lot of time laid up waiting for dedicated and committed people to fix it or find the parts because something unforeseen has happened (and that ignores the times there's no coaches with the right brakes for it to pull) would you invest?

I am amazed and grateful that people still do. But we are dealing with a fringe cottage industry, even though Mr Riley and others have nice new well fitted cottages. Big steam engines were expected to be maintained in big well equipped workshops by staff who did nothing else 52 weeks of the year. We cannot expect vintage engines to be as reliable as they were back in the day and the servicing infrastructure isn't there to support a quick turnaround and back into traffic - and some of the old "fixes" that would have kept a loco going would nowadays cause a FTR exam failure. Unfortunately for steam it's 2016 and I am not sure things will get better - we need to treasure each run, including those with a diesel on the back if the promoter decides that's what's needed, because this whole mainline steam thing may be a thing of the past more quickly than any of us realise.

To be clear this is not a criticism of those who sweat blood and tears to maintain mainline steam but a recognition of how hard it is and that it is getting harder with a more demanding network with fewer tighter paths.

Now, I must go and find out what's happened to Braunton.

Best to all

Mike

 

There was a youtube link to a big slide from Braunton at Salisbury a while back.

 

If someone did sit down and do that what practical difference would you see it making?

In any case I would be staggered if the tour operators don't do something of the sort in their operational planning, even if they see no need to make it public.

 

I don't agree. There are no reasons why Classes 4, 5 or 6 cannot perform on the mainline to acceptable standards as long as the loads are matched to their power. Shorter trains might well mean higher fares and that is a model that has still not been properly tested. I would be very happy to pay more for fast schedules and pure steam.