SVR-Online Forum Forum Index SVR-Online Forum
The forum is run on a voluntary basis for members, volunteers and SVR enthusiasts.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Another class 20 for the SVR
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SVR-Online Forum Forum Index -> Motive Power - Diesel
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hearn_p



Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 5574
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can anyone comment if there is there a supporting group and/or a website for the SVR-based Class 20s?

The Preserved Diesels website has as being owned by "Somerset and Dorset Loco Company".

Railway Magazine February 2010 reports David Coombs jointly owns these under the name of Somerset and Dorset Loco Company.

The diesel shed appeal site refers to "Somerset Traction Ltd (D8188)" as being involved in the diesel shed project.

Patrick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Derby4



Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 1682

PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yesterday, Saturday, the recently repainted one, D8059 was in the "dining car" bay being worked on, whilst D8188 was parked on the other side of Kidderminster station, looking a bit forlorn.

Was this just coincidence, or is space being created in the yard for a start to be made on the diesel shed?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KJEvans



Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 1220
Location: Kidderminster or Edinburgh

PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, Mr Price was saying to Geoff it was because there wasn't any space in the yard. Geoff was thinking yesterday about parking meters.
_________________
Kieren, Kidderminster Station Staff and TTI

GWR=Gresley Was Right...to learn from the Great Western


Last edited by KJEvans on Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
heap_r



Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 561

PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KJEvans wrote:
Well, Mr Price was saying to Geoff it was because there wasn't any space in the yard.

That's just about it. Those with Eagle eyes will have noticed the stop blocks at the end of CS1 have been removed and the ground beyond prepared for an extension. This is to store the bogies currently taking up space on the TMD so the diesels can use the space.

This in turn will free up the Engine Line Dock to allow two service vehicles to be stabled mid-week when full strength sets are not required.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PGTips



Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bradleyman wrote:
PGTips wrote:
bradleyman wrote:
How real is the need for thuderbird type rescues though? - taking an honest commercial view - a discipline basic to the survival of the railway.

In over 30 years of regular steam footplate work on the SVR I have only twice had to fail a steam loco which then required short notice rescue to maintain the service.

On five other occasions an altenative steam loco has been substituted at short notice to maintain the service by using locos already in steam at a depot or swapping with those on a freight duty.

Hardly a regular occurence!

If these figures are in any way typical it seems extravagant (understatement) to expect to have (in addition to the admittedly slow 08s) at least one class 20 at each end of the line - given that this will presumably cost scarce s.

Whilst agreeing that these locos are very useful on P. Way work there is now apparent an evolving tendancy to "manufacture" work for them on the railway including moving around steam locos, in steam, which are perfectly capable of being moved under their own power.



That was in the days when the SVR had a closed season and the steam loco's were able to be given some heavier maintenance but in today's commercially driven world this has lessened, probably why the SVR is having to hire steam loco's to forfill it's premier steam service. I can recall at least 4 times last year alone, that a 20 has rescued or substituted for a steam loco and that's not including Hampton Loade, which a 37 and an 08 were involved. I'm sure that the directors and most of the SVR would be pleased for you to put you hand in your pocket to fund the the movement of steam loco's under THEIR own power, this could work out mighty costly in today spiralling running costs and the added wear and tear and increased washouts.


If there is a need to further improve steam loco maintenance, to reduce the number of failures per mile run, then surely that is exactly where the money should be spent rather than accept failures which cause inconvenience and require money to be diverted into multiple numbers of thunderbird diesels. There is of course no 100% reliability in diesels either as was amply demonstrated last season.

Re the towing of light engines in steam - this is the sort of "commercial" approach taken be the late BR!
With the loco insteam anyway the true full per mile cost of the towing diesel would need to be very cheap indeed to make that approach stack up in honest financial terms. The most financially astute TOC, West Coast, do not indulge in this normally when locos need moving.



I'm sure our hardworking skilled engineering staff would love the the use of your crystal ball so that they can predict an imminent failure on a mechanical machine. No amount of money will EVER solve this.
I do believe that i never actually said diesels were 100% reliable!!! I accept their falability due to the amount of moving parts they contain but most of their unreliability is due to their lack of use i should imagine.
I'm glad to know that the SVR has the sort of money lying around that we have steam engines standing in full steam, ready to go? Then theres the disposal for the crew, long day just to move a loco. Light Steam still costs coal and water to bring them round and move them, what were we informed it cost 90 a day for an dead steam loco to stand on shed, then the costs for coal, water and oils. That's a few round trips for a diesel.
West Coast do this A/ To keep their drivers ticket up to date; B/ most of their moves are over a little more distance then a gallon of steam oil down the blast pipe will suffice so require steam and C/Their being PAID to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boldford



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 2727
Location: Glad to be no longer stuck on that linear parking lot known better as the M6

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PGTips. May I remind you bradleyman wrote about light engines in steam; not about engines in light steam. I would like to think even the most ardent diesel enthusiast would understand the difference and not obscurificate the fact that the steam engines in question had sufficient crews and were quite capable of self propulsion without the need to be slowed by a class 20 diesel.

Further; we are not West Coast and it is nave in the extreme to think we should "play trains" by emulating their practices.
_________________
There are two kinds of people.

1: Those who back up their hard drives.
2: Those who have never had a hard drive crash.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bradleyman



Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 822

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PG Tips wrote:

I'm sure our hardworking skilled engineering staff would love the the use of your crystal ball so that they can predict an imminent failure on a mechanical machine. No amount of money will EVER solve this.
I do believe that i never actually said diesels were 100% reliable!!! I accept their falability due to the amount of moving parts they contain but most of their unreliability is due to their lack of use i should imagine.
I'm glad to know that the SVR has the sort of money lying around that we have steam engines standing in full steam, ready to go? Then theres the disposal for the crew, long day just to move a loco. Light Steam still costs coal and water to bring them round and move them, what were we informed it cost 90 a day for an dead steam loco to stand on shed, then the costs for coal, water and oils. That's a few round trips for a diesel.
West Coast do this A/ To keep their drivers ticket up to date; B/ most of their moves are over a little more distance then a gallon of steam oil down the blast pipe will suffice so require steam and C/Their being PAID to.[/quote]

Have to disagree with a number of your points here:
1. There is a definate relationship between maintenance standards & the number of failures per mile. There are also other factors such as the comptetence of crews to diagnose failures also.
2. What we were discussing was the need for further thunderbird locos set against the cost of their provision. Nobody has said that the 08s are surplus but it is acknowledged that they are slow. The point is that for the few occasions when failures occur each year can the railway justify the extra cost (and space for) more class 20s. This does assume of course that they are not being provided as a purely philanthropic gesture by the owners with free maintenance on a long term basis.
3. Don't know where you get a standing cost of 90 per day for a steam loco but be careful the same accounting rules are used if you want to make comparisons.
4. Moving steam locos dead without removal of con rods over significant distances (more than a few yards) is bad practice & should not be condoned on the SVR. Pouring oil down the blastpipe is not a proper answer to valve & piston lubrication. Dead line length movement of locos could be argued to be in contravention of the loco agreement & would not be condoned by responsible owners.


Last edited by bradleyman on Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
creese_m



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 567
Location: West Midlands

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bradleyman wrote:

Have you ever been involved in advertising your brand of tea on the telly?


Is this really necessary . appalling comment on a public forum that does you and the group you represent little favours
_________________
regards

Latest photo updates on http://www.flickr.com/photos/martincreese/

Photo charter organiser for 20 years . Everyone welcome http://facebook.com/30742charters

My Blurb Bookstore http://www.blurb.com/user/store/Martincreese
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bradleyman



Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 822

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Absolutely right - comment was added in jest only - but agree on re reading that it was totally inappropriate so it has been removed with appologies.

None of my posts purport to be on behalf of any other party.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Buffer



Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 682
Location: Leamington Spa

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boldford wrote:
PGTips. May I remind you bradleyman wrote about light engines in steam; not about engines in light steam. I would like to think even the most ardent diesel enthusiast would understand the difference and not obscurificate the fact that the steam engines in question had sufficient crews and were quite capable of self propulsion without the need to be slowed by a class 20 diesel.

Further; we are not West Coast and it is nave in the extreme to think we should "play trains" by emulating their practices.

Do we have the data and accountancy systems on the SVR to determine accurately the difference in cost between the following?
a) Moving two light engines in steam.
b) As a) but with a class 20 diesel providing most of the motive power.
c) Moving two engines in light steam towed by a class 20 diesel. Confused
_________________
Buffer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PGTips



Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Last edited by PGTips on Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:43 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PGTips



Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bradleyman wrote:
PG Tips wrote:

I'm sure our hardworking skilled engineering staff would love the the use of your crystal ball so that they can predict an imminent failure on a mechanical machine. No amount of money will EVER solve this.
I do believe that i never actually said diesels were 100% reliable!!! I accept their falability due to the amount of moving parts they contain but most of their unreliability is due to their lack of use i should imagine.
I'm glad to know that the SVR has the sort of money lying around that we have steam engines standing in full steam, ready to go? Then theres the disposal for the crew, long day just to move a loco. Light Steam still costs coal and water to bring them round and move them, what were we informed it cost 90 a day for an dead steam loco to stand on shed, then the costs for coal, water and oils. That's a few round trips for a diesel.
West Coast do this A/ To keep their drivers ticket up to date; B/ most of their moves are over a little more distance then a gallon of steam oil down the blast pipe will suffice so require steam and C/Their being PAID to.


Have to disagree with a number of your points here:
1. There is a definate relationship between maintenance standards & the number of failures per mile. There are also other factors such as the comptetence of crews to diagnose failures also.
2. What we were discussing was the need for further thunderbird locos set against the cost of their provision. Nobody has said that the 08s are surplus but it is acknowledged that they are slow. The point is that for the few occasions when failures occur each year can the railway justify the extra cost (and space for) more class 20s. This does assume of course that they are not being provided as a purely philanthropic gesture by the owners with free maintenance on a long term basis.
3. Don't know where you get a standing cost of 90 per day for a steam loco but be careful the same accounting rules are used if you want to make comparisons.
4. Moving steam locos dead without removal of con rods over significant distances (more than a few yards) is bad practice & should not be condoned on the SVR. Pouring oil down the blastpipe is not a proper answer to valve & piston lubrication. Dead line length movement of locos could be argued to be in contravention of the loco agreement & would not be condoned by responsible owners.[/quote]


So your saying we have poor maintenace standards!!! HMMM Bridgnorth will love you! And the crews won't be far behind!!!! their poor too!!!
Nobody has said anything about 08 because their not in question here, they are what they are, SHUNT engines NOTHING more and all gainfully employed shunting.
We are debaiting another thunderbird loco and 3 would be useful, 1 at either end for thunderbird use and 1 were the PW care to leave it, close to their days worksite to save miles of unecessary movements, commercial sense, on a rotational basis with the other 2 of course. Plus it doesn't delay other trains, crews or signalmen from getting home on time while waiting for these movements.
I really don't see what humanitarian aid has to do with steam or diesel loco's.
I'm sure your comments will be read with interest by Mr. Price and Mr. Lane about their issuing instruction of moving of dead steam loco's, i can recall this done on a FAIRLY regular occurrance for positioning and maintenace purposes, so they must be irresponsible in your eyes!!! And everyone envolved from cleaner to superintendent is incompetent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PGTips



Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buffer wrote:
boldford wrote:
PGTips. May I remind you bradleyman wrote about light engines in steam; not about engines in light steam. I would like to think even the most ardent diesel enthusiast would understand the difference and not obscurificate the fact that the steam engines in question had sufficient crews and were quite capable of self propulsion without the need to be slowed by a class 20 diesel.

Further; we are not West Coast and it is nave in the extreme to think we should "play trains" by emulating their practices.

Do we have the data and accountancy systems on the SVR to determine accurately the difference in cost between the following?
a) Moving two light engines in steam.
b) As a) but with a class 20 diesel providing most of the motive power.
c) Moving two engines in light steam towed by a class 20 diesel. Confused



I'm quiet aware of what bradleyman wrote and i am conscience to the fact that ALL steam loco's start the day in LIGHT steam. I've never found a steam loco i've appoach yet in full steam at the start of the day!!! Thus using wood, coal and water to bring them into FULL steam is a resource the SVR can ill afford for a non revenue move. So a light engine move at the end of the day is rather preffed than diesel haulage as the steamer is already up and running but during the week when crews are scare diesel haulage IS CHEAPER. May i remind you that the speed limit for the SVR is 25mph so no steam loco will be slowed by a class 20.
If i remember correctly it was bradleyman who brought West Coast into this and yes we are playing trains, as i said their PAID, WE'RE NOT!
You'll have to ask Andrew about the accountancy system?.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PGTips



Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buffer wrote:
boldford wrote:
PGTips. May I remind you bradleyman wrote about light engines in steam; not about engines in light steam. I would like to think even the most ardent diesel enthusiast would understand the difference and not obscurificate the fact that the steam engines in question had sufficient crews and were quite capable of self propulsion without the need to be slowed by a class 20 diesel.

Further; we are not West Coast and it is nave in the extreme to think we should "play trains" by emulating their practices.

Do we have the data and accountancy systems on the SVR to determine accurately the difference in cost between the following?
a) Moving two light engines in steam.
b) As a) but with a class 20 diesel providing most of the motive power.
c) Moving two engines in light steam towed by a class 20 diesel. Confused



I'm quiet aware of what bradleyman wrote and i am conscience to the fact that ALL steam loco's start the day in LIGHT steam. I've never found a steam loco i've appoach yet in full steam at the start of the day!!! Thus using wood, coal and water to bring them into FULL steam is a resource the SVR can ill afford for a non revenue move. So a light engine move at the end of the day is rather preferred than diesel haulage as the steamer is already up and running but during the week when crews are scare and only certain steam engines are in use diesel haulage IS CHEAPER. May i remind you that the speed limit for the SVR is 25mph so no steam loco will be slowed by a class 20.
If i remember correctly it was bradleyman who brought West Coast into this and yes we are playing trains, as i said their PAID, WE'RE NOT!
You'll have to ask Andrew about the accountancy system?.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boldford



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 2727
Location: Glad to be no longer stuck on that linear parking lot known better as the M6

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PGTips wrote:
Buffer wrote:
boldford wrote:
PGTips. May I remind you bradleyman wrote about light engines in steam; not about engines in light steam. I would like to think even the most ardent diesel enthusiast would understand the difference and not obscurificate the fact that the steam engines in question had sufficient crews and were quite capable of self propulsion without the need to be slowed by a class 20 diesel.

Further; we are not West Coast and it is nave in the extreme to think we should "play trains" by emulating their practices.

Do we have the data and accountancy systems on the SVR to determine accurately the difference in cost between the following?
a) Moving two light engines in steam.
b) As a) but with a class 20 diesel providing most of the motive power.
c) Moving two engines in light steam towed by a class 20 diesel. Confused



I'm quiet aware of what bradleyman wrote and i am conscience to the fact that ALL steam loco's start the day in LIGHT steam. I've never found a steam loco i've appoach yet in full steam at the start of the day!!! Thus using wood, coal and water to bring them into FULL steam is a resource the SVR can ill afford for a non revenue move. So a light engine move at the end of the day is rather preferred than diesel haulage as the steamer is already up and running but during the week when crews are scare and only certain steam engines are in use diesel haulage IS CHEAPER. May i remind you that the speed limit for the SVR is 25mph so no steam loco will be slowed by a class 20.
If i remember correctly it was bradleyman who brought West Coast into this and yes we are playing trains, as i said their PAID, WE'RE NOT!
You'll have to ask Andrew about the accountancy system?.
All read and mostly ignored.
_________________
There are two kinds of people.

1: Those who back up their hard drives.
2: Those who have never had a hard drive crash.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SVR-Online Forum Forum Index -> Motive Power - Diesel All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group