Heritage Line Loco Power Requirements

Coal consumption figures on at least 2 heritage lines > 10 miles long put BB/WC locos very firmly in bottom place compared to the other locos in the fleets by a significant double figure percentage.

 

So, basically, it's simply "horses for courses". We should never forget, we're lucky the UK preservation scene has such a great active variety of surviving classes for us to argue about!

 

I rode behind Sir Gomer on Sunday for the first time. An "interesting" ride at the front of the leading coach.

 

Sorry Martin but these are still excuses.

Its is not at all impossible to accommodate three people on the footplate of a narrow gauge locomotive; I have been on one which will take four. Please don't cite a Double Fairlie in reply for these are like nothing else on rails.

I was going to say the footplate on a 2MT tank is large enough for a tea dance but that would exaggerate although it is spacious enough. Certainly plenty of room for three or four. As a point of information, 41313 has been hauling 4 Mk 1s up the East Somerset's 1 in 56. Youtube will confirm.

Incidentally, why do big chufferites always cite the NYMR as justification for using large machinery on shorter routes with easier gradients?

Paul H

 

It can make gaining time if running late very difficult if you have to take water at both ends. For example at Cheltenham racecourse the ru round can be done in 10 minutes, usually timetables for a 20 minute stop. With a nice tender engine you can gain up to 10 minutes of time back, whereas a tank you'd be lucky to shave even a few minutes off due to taking on water.

The increased costs might be significant compared to other locos, but in terms of the overall railway bill must be tiny - Tom's done this to death before. It would be interesting to compare maintenance costs of railways like the Paignton and Dartmouth, who, as you say, work their engines quite hard, compared to railways that use bigger engines than necessary more gently. Can anyone come up with some figures?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

I remember "Victor" running between Minehead & Bue Anchor. To judge by the ride in the front carriage, the footplate must've been an "interesting" place to be. Might've explained the lack of glum faces amongst crews when the 1976 ban on steam locos meant DMU services were necessary!

 

Do you run this late on the GWSR?

(Sorry!) Paul H.

 

We find the 2 Ivatts can take 4 comfortably. 46447 certainly didn't have any trouble on 4 today and regularly hauls 5 and a van easily enough. The ivatts are also more economical than 5637 using less water and coal despite having much less power.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

Not very often no, but I could spend ages talking about different scenarios which could lead to such lateness, all of which have occured, not very often, but it's nice to know you've got some recovery time.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Although industrials are not always balanced for comfort Gomer does suffer from rather uneven valve events which exacerbates the effect somewhat. With the valves times up better she would be much smoother.

 

So which railways do you think are guilty of this? SVR? Bluebell? GCR? GWSR? DSR? WSR? You really do need to talk in more than abstract terms on this. I have mentioned the SVR - you have commented on a class 2 hauling 4 carriages on a line under 3 miles long.

 

Coal and Water consumption also depends alot on the condition of the loco, a well looked after and maintained locomotive will certainly use alot less coal and water than a tired loco pre-overhaul. However all of this is eclipsed by the skill of the driver and fireman to use the loco efficiently; a good fireman should go all day without blowing off but still have the power when required; whereas a bad fireman can waste so much water and coal out the safety valves!

 

As apparently no one has detailed enough accounts per loco to tell us the real fuel and maintenance cost comparisons, this whole discussion is largely proof by assertion or anecdote... The LMS would have known...
Anyway...
The SVR has been mentioned, and those in the know there have confirmed Class 3/4/5 is what they need for various duties. This is a very popular line with longer trains than most. Class 2 seems to do fine on most lines most of the time.
There is therefore no *operational* justification for running Class 7/8 express tender engines backwards at 25mph. Nor Class 8/9 heavy freight locos.
There may be a desire to do so for fun. That's fine, but let's be up front about it. It is not an operational decision but just for fun (and we should know the extra cost of fun).
Or it may be that for various reasons there aren't any Class 3 locos available so you have to run a Class 5. Again, fine, but perhaps prioritise overhauling the Class 3!
That's the point.

 

Interesting comments though it would be quite wrong to lump Cl 8 goods locos in with all the big Cl 7/8 big wheeled passenger locos. At the risk of upsetting PH the Cl 8 goods locos are actually close to ideal on the longer lines in peak season as they are generally light on axle load for their size, quite happy at 25 mph (the sort of speed for which they were designed), generally very simple in design, will pull almost anything, are good a climbing hills, can get away from station stops quickly aiding time keeping and score well re coal economy.

 

I completely agree. But as someone who visits around 20 heritage railways a year, I see very few examples of motive power overpowered for the line. Yes there are Light Pacifics around on the Swanage, SVR and East Lancs etc, but their economy has already been referred to. A quick look at my records from trips last summer over a two week period, chosen at random, reveal the following:

SVR: 7812 with 10 carriages (8 LMS plus two BR)
KWVR: Industrial with 2 carriages (one Southern plus one 6 wheeler), followed by 85 with four vintage carriages
Middleton: 1310 with three carriages
NYMR: 44806, then 76079, then 61264 with 6 Mark Ones (my remarks say that this was seriously overcrowded)
GCR: 48624 with six Mark Ones
GWSR: 7903 with seven Mark Ones
Bluebell: 263 on six (4 four wheelers, one Southern and the LNWR obs), then 73082 on (I think) five Mark Ones
Swindon & Cricklade: Polish tank on three Mark Ones
ESR: 46447 on five Mark Ones
AVR: Austerity tank on four Mark Ones
DSR: 7820 on seven Mark Ones then 5542 on six carriages (I think) including DMU trailers and the observation car
BWR: 6435 on the autotrain
SDR: 6412 on five carriages (three Mark Ones and two GWR) then 1369 on five carriages (same split)

Which of these shows evidence of 'big chufferitis'?

 

See posts 68 and 73

PH

 

I think often in these discussions, there is too much attention paid to the running cost (specifically coal) and not enough to maintenance cost. As an example, it's probably fairly hard to measure a statistically significant difference in daily coal consumption between, oh, I don't know, an Adams O2 and an Ivatt class 2 when employed on equivalent duties. (Crew skill; diagramming etc will make more difference). But the Ivatt will comfortably run a bigger mileage between heavy overhauls if given the opportunity, which in turn means the per mile maintenance cost will be significantly lower. The same point would likely apply for more or less any pair of near-equivalent capacity locos you happen to choose with a big difference in age: for example, a Maunsell Mogul and a BR standard 4; or a Maunsell S15 and a BR Std 5 etc.

Which is fine as far as it goes, but at the end of the day (1) railways work with what's available, not necessarily what's ideal and (2) in the above case, you can't discount that the older locomotive may cost more in maintenance but be significantly more attractive for those likely to donate capital towards its repair.

Tom

 

A good point - "for the longer lines in peak season" as you say.
Would be interesting to do an exercise of actuals loads and requirements, ignoring what was available, and see what loco classes would result.

 

The Dartmouth line run a standard rake of 7 throughout the year although it may drop down to 5 or 6 in winter. Peak summer (double timetable) has two sets of seven but on single train running days coaches quite often have to be added on due to demand. It's quite normal to run with 9 or 10 on certain trips, typically first one off Paignton and mid afternoon off Kingswear. We've been up to 13 before although that requires diesel assistance, mainly for shunt release duties and a bit of help up the bank depending on the loco.

Smallest loco on 7 would be a pannier especially with the gradients, the 52/42 tanks are perfectly suited, can pull more or less anything... about 10 years ago the Torbay Express got stuck on the bank, 10/11 coach train plus Tangmere, received help from 5239, the 52 did most of the work from the standing start, there's a video on the interweb somewhere of it!

The manor and std 4 again are well suited to a normal 7 coach load and can quiet easily go up to 10.

 

I am beyond the edge of my very limited knowledge so please bear with me. Using SVR the 8F 2857 and 5MT 4930 both have no. 1 boilers and (per Wikipedia) identical grate sizes of 27.07 sq ft. So by those measures the fact that one is an 8 and one a 5 isn't terribly germane? Happy for someone to point out my ignorance.

Patrick