Could proposed solutions cause more problems?

Michael Whitehouse makes some very interesting suggestions in his article (SR550) but I feel that his idea of preserved railways not having steam locomotive power of their own but hiring in a locomotive, a driver and presumably a fireman from a central maintenance point is probably going too far, particularly as they would have to ‘learn the road’ on all the different lines – and the driving, firing and locomotive maintenance skills which those volunteers had worked so hard for many years to obtain would be lost because of the use of professional crews.

Besides this, the fact that hiring and transporting an engine is an extremely expensive business (the comparison with ploughing engines is not really valid as they tended be a very local hire and usually arrived under their own power). The railway would also be responsible for the accommodation of the crew on top of all the transportation costs – also, hiring in a number of locomotives plus crews for a gala event would become unbelievably expensive.

As for having one set of directors, safety officers and so on to oversee all the preserved lines under a ‘Heritage Railways’ brand, most volunteers accept that as their railway grows professional help and advice – particularly in the legal, finance and locomotive maintenance departments – will be necessary. But go to pretty much any mess room on a preserved line and you will hear someone griping about ‘the management’ or the way it is being run, (often forgetting that ‘the management’ are usually volunteers as well and are doing their best for the railway). However, if that someone is really dissatisfied, they can either speak to them in person or make their feelings known at an AGM, or even vote for someone else; take that option away and have the line run from some central point by people they seldom, if ever, see and I think that they will feel that their voices and opinions are being ignored and their hard work unappreciated.

Regarding the article on oil firing of locomotives (SR551), the author puts forward some interesting points regarding the possibility of converting locomotives to oil firing. However, it should be noted that in two of his illustrated pictures, both locomotives are small and have been converted back to coal, while in the third example he states that, “the Durango and Silverton Railroad began a ‘multi-million’ program to convert its fleet to oil firing”, which basically destroys his argument for the average preserved line being able to afford to do it.

The excellent article on the NYMR converting ‘Dame

Vera Lynn’ in the previous Steam Railway also makes the point that the equipment needed was going to cost in the region of £100,000 – and that is even after they have all the original drawings for the conversion. Also, the article does not say whether those estimates include the cost of the tender modifications and the cost of bringing over a consultant from FMW solutions from the USA. The sad facts are that there are a large number of locomotives awaiting restoration or overhaul that are stuck in the sidings of preserved lines all around the UK, most if not all being subject to appeals for money to carry out the work, so the extra cost to convert older engines with narrow copper fireboxes will only add to the overhaul expenses, particularly if new steel ones have to be made in some cases.

If preserved lines want to continue with steam, then the coal may have to be imported, which will involve a considerable cost if done on an individual basis. Perhaps this is a situation where they could club together and investigate the possibilities of ordering large quantities of coal from Europe to be delivered to a central point from where they could collect their supplies. Yes, it would be expensive, but unless there is a dramatic turnaround in current thinking of the use of coal in the UK, the options are somewhat depressing: 1) import and collect coal from a central point; 2) follow Michael Whitehouse’s suggestion and have a small central locomotive and crew hire system; 3) run diesel trains only (how long before that too becomes politically incorrect?); or 4) the most awful option, shut down all preserved railways.

Do readers have any other suggestions, or a solution? Paul Mercer, Tavistock

Ed: There is also a fifth option, which is for our locomotives to switch to alternative fuels – whether they be solid or liquid. Yes, there will be a cost penalty, but surely even £100,000 is a small price to pay to keep our locomotives running? As Paul points out, the alternatives all have their drawbacks.

Solutions needed to Swanage’s Wareham trains

Following on from Sandy Ross’ letter (SR551) about the relatively low take-up of tickets on the Swanage Railway’s trialled Wareham service, I don’t think everything can be blamed upon the lack of publicity. Rather, there would appear to be some confused thinking about the target audience.

To appeal to the average tourist, the ticket price needs to be reasonably competitive, a higher cost perhaps acceptable for the avoidance of peak season traffic jams through Corfe Castle and easier parking at Wareham, but not prohibitively so. For railway enthusiasts, I think many would be prepared to pay a premium if steam haulage was guaranteed, either by top-and-tailing or by using an autotrain. For local people to use as a service, the ticket price needs to be low and the timetable sufficiently broad to meet their needs. Maybe all three groups can be accommodated in some way through careful choice of motive power, pricing and timetabling? If not, perhaps, one group should be prioritised, and the service tailored according to its specific needs. Whichever route is taken, I hope the railway can find a solution to ensure the future success of a Wareham service.

Peter Morse, Wimborne, Dorset