If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by The Black Hat, Feb 13, 2011.

  1. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    12,467
    Likes Received:
    11,201
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That's true but it is also a learning curve as oil firing is a whole new thing for the NYMR. 2253 has been chosen as the drawings already exist. 3672 is planned to be oil fired when finished; again the drawings already exist. There's also an Austerity 0-6-0ST that's in limbo and, again, the drawings already exist. An Austerity has the drawbar pull to cope with 7 coaches but, as a coal fired loco, hasn't the boiler capacity. Oil might turn the corner on that.
    I would expect (and hope) that oil firing doesn't progress to the Standards and Black 5's.
     
    banburysaint, YorkyLad and black5 like this.
  2. Sidmouth4me

    Sidmouth4me Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    341
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Malton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Yes the NYMR is better off, even with just one all fired loco (and potentially two once Dame Vera is converted) as most passengers seem happy if at least part of their journey can be steam hauled (either there or back). And there have been occasions where whilst coal fired steam has been banned across the moor, it was still permissible on the flat Network Rail section between Grosmont and Whitby.

    As I recall steam was banned during the spring of 2023 (due to the dry brown bracken as alluded to earlier) between Pickering and Grosmont, but late summer of 2022 between Pickering and Whitby due to hot summer that year. In other words, there is a risk of steam being banned anytime on the NYMR during its key operating season, and I think it good that the railway is looking at mitigating the risk.
     
    Greenway and black5 like this.
  3. MrDibbs

    MrDibbs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2019
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    York
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Having read the occaisional book written by BR men containing their experiences of Oil Firing,
    I'm looking forward to the challenge even if it does mean I have to reduce visits to the tea room
    If I want to avoid an increase in trouser sizes! I'd rather have steam and oil firing than the
    secondman's seat in prolonged periods of Firecon Operations.
     
    Greenway likes this.
  4. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    9,661
    Likes Received:
    7,717
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    What about S15's weren't some converted to oil firing during the 1920's due to miners strikes?
     
  5. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,351
    Likes Received:
    62,438
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I think it was a couple of N15s, not S15s that were converted - same boiler design though.

    Tom
     
  6. torgormaig

    torgormaig Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    4,839
    Likes Received:
    7,415
    Oh Dear - what have I started?

    Firstly I am not against oil firing as such and like @MrDibbs I'll look forward to the training and "having a go on one". But as others have suggested the railway has far more immediate problems to grapple with. Having one (or two) oil burners is not going to significantly reduce the environmental fire risk which is probably more managable in other and easier ways.

    The Ffestiniog Railway ran as an oil fired railway for many years because of the percieved fire risk of coal burners but have since gone back to coal without stting North Wales alight. Puffing Billy in Australia converted one of their Na class locos to burn oil three or four years ago but for some reason have abandoned the conversion and it is now a coal burner again. Oil firing the S160 is a laudable venture but not without risks. Ok it has a steel firebox but even so do we fully understand the stresses imposed on it with rapid heating and cooling cycles? It is a risky venture into the unknown and I would suggest that now is not the time to take such risks.

    @Steve suggests that the conversion may be paid for by the owner and this may be so, I don't know. But look at the tangle that Tornado has got itself in by going down the road of trying to fit ERTMS. Great, it has all been fitted at no direct financial cost to the owners, but it still does not work and has cost them dearly in other ways, not least their reputation.

    I do not feel that the NYMR should be setting itself up as a guinea pig for the heritage steam railway movement. Lets face it if we all survive (and I'm sure we will) we are not going to see railways up and down the country converting en masse to oil firing. If fire risk becomes an increasing problem then the solution lies in better lineside and locomotive management.

    Finally I have to say that these are my personal opinions so I would not pay too much attention to them if I was you - I could well be wrong on several levels. I am fortunately not involved in the running or management of any heritage railway and I do not envy those who are.

    Peter
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2025
    MellishR, YorkyLad, 60044 and 6 others like this.
  7. 30567

    30567 Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    6,002
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    Jamessquared likes this.
  8. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,351
    Likes Received:
    62,438
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That’ll teach me to check sources first rather than just write an answer down!

    Looks like it was
    • Urie N15s 737 and 739 in 1921 (737 made a valiant attempt to burn down Salisbury shed on 28 July 1921, fortunately without success!)
    • The same two locos again in 1926, using equipment that had been stored since 1921
    • Urie N15s 740/45/48/49/52 in 1946-47, all converted back to coal by 1948
    • Urie S15 No. 515 in 1921

    Tom
     
    30567 likes this.
  9. 60044

    60044 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    952
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Salisbury
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    What we don't know (and if the railway knows, it doesn't seem to be letting on) what the likely relative costs of the oil fuel vs coal are. I find that surprising given that everyone in the SMT seems to be trying to think like an accountant now.
     
  10. Lineisclear

    Lineisclear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2020
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    1,299
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worcestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Or perhaps more importantly whether use of oil as a fuel is likely to be possible for longer than coal?
     
  11. Sidmouth4me

    Sidmouth4me Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    341
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Malton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I’m not an expert on this but I understand that oil will be more efficient that coal, if not least because the fuel source and resulting heat can be more easily controlled; that a bit too much coal put in the firebox whilst climbing the hill towards Goathland can cause the boiler to blow eg if the fire is built up at Grosmont but then there is a delay.
     
  12. 60044

    60044 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    952
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Salisbury
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That's a very incomplete answer, though; what are the relative costs of the fuel, and what are the relative rates of use? There will also beadditioal infrastructure associated with sotring the oil - I doubt if the current oil tank fuel oil tank at Grosmont is large enough, even if its the same sort of oiland it isn't usually permissable to site a large oil tank without providing a bund to cope with leaks and spillage. I think it will actually prove to be quite a large investment at a time of stringency. I'm not opposed to it, but it really has to be thought through in its entirety, and I'm willing to bet that no-one has disclosed the likely total cost of all the aspects.
     
  13. oldmrheath

    oldmrheath Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    2,539
    While the cost of the oil is of course important, I suspect the cost of revenue lost if no steam running could be greater

    Jon
     
  14. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    12,467
    Likes Received:
    11,201
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I don't think that the NYMR is setting itself up as a guinea pig for the heritage steam railway movement. It is more of a case of solving the problem of fire risk and, possibly a safeguard against the lack of coal in the future. Personally, I don't think the latter will happen in my lifetime although the price may become a problem. As you have said, there are other ways of minimising the risk of lineside fires, as was practised in the days of steam. However, the maximum compensation payable for damage to crops, etc, is no longer the £50 it was back then and the financial risk is now so much greater. For this reason, it is better to eliminate rather than lessen the risk. Because we can no longer sensibly run coal fired steam during high fire risk the risk to revenue takes on a greater significance. It is well-known that passengers turn away when diesels are substituted for steam and that has a significant effect on revenue.
    Coming back to 2253 being a guinea pig, if there is anyone taking the risk, it is Peter Best because, if it fails, it will be he who has lost out. We should all be thanking Peter (as usual) for financing this and taking the risk with his loco.
     
  15. The Green Howards

    The Green Howards Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2016
    Messages:
    14,912
    Likes Received:
    8,459
    Occupation:
    Layabout
    Location:
    My settee, mostly.
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    It would be an interesting exercise to compare the environmental impacts of oil vs. coal in this scenario - CO2 emissions, particulate emissions, that sort of thing.
     
  16. 60044

    60044 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    952
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Salisbury
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That's a rather trite answer, I feel. There is a general feeling that we (as a species) should be looking at using less oil, and where it is practial that's starting to happen, but it is decades away from being phased out. Exploration for oil wells continues, but no-one is looking for new coal mines.
     
  17. Lineisclear

    Lineisclear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2020
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    1,299
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worcestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Exactly! Steve suggests the lack of coal won't happen in his lifetime. I hope that means it's in the very far distant future. However there's the possibility he may live to experience the unthinkable. Heritage use of coal is trivial but therein lies the problem. There has to be a financial incentive to import the relatively small tonnages involved to service the heritage sector . It also assumes that the drive to demonstrate net zero credentials doesn't lead to a ban on its import. If north sea oil,UK car and steel production and gas boilers can all be sacrificed on the altar of net zero why should heritage rail expect special consideration? Oil may be harder to ban than coal.
    It' s interesting that the Bure Valley has invested in battery traction. Is that the future?
     
  18. std tank

    std tank Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1,032
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Liverpool
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    What would be the benefit if this country, on its own, was net zero?
     
  19. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    28,099
    Likes Received:
    27,646
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    That is a separate can of worms on the "big railway". At the Bure Valley, I'd suggest that the relative lack of "heritage" locomotives to use, and the increasingly good economics of electricity, mean that a battery loco works well. Scaled up to standard gauge, I suspect the challenges would be greater.
     
  20. Lineisclear

    Lineisclear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2020
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    1,299
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worcestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    As we constitute in total about 1% of global emissions the answer has to be "insignificant". That's without allowing for the fact that with coal we've offshored production and radically increased net CO2 production by the use of dirty marine fuel to ship it halfway round the world. Because that's international activity , it doesn't appear on any nation's carbon footprint. It seems safe to assume that any more restrictions won't be based on logic any more then current ones.
     
    zigzag and Hirn like this.

Share This Page