Which loco classes are best suited for use on today's heritage railways?

[whart57]

I am not a follower of the doings on heritage railways but I was intrigued to read of the BR Standard 3MT under construction at the SVR. In particular the assertion made in the RM article that the class was particularly suited to today's heritage lines. That got me wondering about the factors that those responsible for operations on those lines have to consider when selecting which locos to deploy 

[KeithMacdonald]

Which loco classes are best suited for use on today's heritage railways?

 

The way things are going, any that don't use coal or fuel oil.

[Wickham Green too]

....... so long as they're called 'Flying Scotsman'.

[Titan]

Well I suppose that the answer is basically powerful enough to handle the longest required train on the line taking into account gradient, with enough coal capacity to last the day, and enough water capacity to ensure it does not need watering too frequently. Good visibility in both directions is useful too. For most lines a medium to large six coupled tank would probably suit, although for the longer line a small to medium six coupled tender engine with a fairly small tender (for better visibility when running in reverse) might be better.

[whart57]

Is there also a need to consider the "heritage" aspect? Obviously for the general business of providing families with a steam railway experience anything that puffs and hisses appropriately will do, and you'd expect BR standards, being the newest - or rather least old - locos and being designed for robustness and easier maintenance to take a major role. But don't many preserved railways have an identifiable "heritage"? The Kent and East Sussex for example is not merely aiming to be a steam railway, but is also trying to recreate the sort of light railway Holman Stephens was noted for. Their Terrier and SE&CR P class locos are "correct", both classes ran there back in the day, and the 100 year old saddletanks rescued from industrial use are sort of "correct". Hunslet Austerities aren't, yet I suspect they are more powerful, more reliable and easier to maintain, and thus get used a lot more. The Terriers in particular seem a bit fragile these days, perhaps the demands made by the 150th anniversary of their first deployment is getting to them.

[IWCR]

Most railways would be well served by locos within the class 2 to 4 power categories, a few more steeply graded ones running large trains needing something a little larger.  Max  speed is  25mph  hence big wheeled express  locos are not the ideal.

Many of the surviving locos came from Barry scrapyard which had an excess of big express and  heavy  freight  engines,  whilst  the ideal would have been the small  to medium loco for heritage line use  you  had  to  accept  what  was  available.  For  example  the  class 2  Ivatt tank,  a  perfect  engine  for  many  heritage  lines  had  only  2  examples  at  Barry  compared  to  28  Bulleid  pacifics.

Industrial locos also prove suitable, smaller lines  can  use  virtually  anything  but  larger  lines  need  the  bigger  industrials  with  larger  diameter  wheels,  the  Hunslet  Austerities  are  common  and  a  good  loco  being  designed  for  short  distance  trip  working..

The  more  suited to  the  traffic  the  more  economically  the  loco  is  to  use,  an  important  factor  cost  wise  running  a  heritage  line  although  the  big  impressive  locos  do  have  a  higher  "appeal"  factor.  However  you  run  what  you  can  get  hold  of  ideal  or  not. 

 

Pete 

[Cowley 47521]

When I volunteered at the Mid Hants in the 1990s I thought that the perfect loco for the line was the little Standard 4 76017.
It had enough power to take a five coach train up and down the hills reasonably efficiently, it was fairly easy to maintain, it was reliable and it was also a local engine (in fact it was involved in a derailment somewhere nearby in BR days).

 

Each line is different and has differing requirements obviously but those locos with their decent visibility in each direction and their 80xxx tank equivalents seem like excellent all rounders to me.

[John-Miles]

Evidence would suggest the Manors. Virtually everywhere you go (I live in South Wales so my view may be a little skewed) they have a Manor running. I get bored with them. It's like they were the most common loco on the GWR when there were only 40 of them. 

[Nearholmer]

Class 24/25.

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Steamport Southport]

On 03/12/2022 at 10:56, whart57 said:

The Terriers in particular seem a bit fragile these days, perhaps the demands made by the 150th anniversary of their first deployment is getting to them.

 

Are they though?

 

I thought most of them have had major parts replaced such as brand new boilers and cylinders?

 

Brighton and Freshwater definitely have. I believe at least one of them has had a new set of wheels.

 

https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/a1-and-a1x-0-6-0t-lbscr-stroudley-terrier-various-between-32635-32689-w8-w13-ds377-515s-ds681/

 

These will last another 150 years.

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

20 hours ago, John-Miles said:

Evidence would suggest the Manors. Virtually everywhere you go (I live in South Wales so my view may be a little skewed) they have a Manor running. I get bored with them. It's like they were the most common loco on the GWR when there were only 40 of them. 

 

30 built. 20 GWR and a new batch of 10 by BR. The next batch appeared as BR 4MT 4-6-0s instead which is another perfect design for heritage railways that are over 10 miles long or so, and which has gradients.

 

You can only have what was available and eight Manors managed to get to Barry plus 7808 which was saved directly from BR. All have steamed since as ISTR they were all in very good condition on withdrawal.

 

Jason

Edited December 6, 2022 by Steamport Southport

[Pete the Elaner]

18 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Class 24/25.

 

 

 

 

I was about to say the same. The initial question was which classes are most suitable.

Steam locos are filthy, a pain for maintenance & the view from the cab is poor.

Rebuilding a diesel engine is somewhat easier than a boiler overhaul & you can start one up with little more than pressing a button.

 

Steam engines may look nice puffing out smoke & steam with their motion on display, may sound purposeful & may also smell nice with a supply of decent coal, but they are not the easiest of machines to keep running.

[Blandford1969]

It depends on the job and the load. 

 

For prep something like a BR std or 1501, the latter you don't need a pit at all for oiling just to check the springs. A BR std is just a nice easy prep and the separate steam brake for running round / shunting is nice and responsive. 

 

On a normal service a class 4 or 5 are perfect enough power without being overkill. The thing with a higher class is that they take more time and oil to prep, burn more coal burn more water and do more damage to the track. The same is the case of larger diesel locos like the class 40s, 46 and 50s. 

 

For a driving school an Ivatt class 2 is perfect having a nice large cab and easy to keep an eye on the participants. 

 

 

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

3 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

I was about to say the same. The initial question was which classes are most suitable.

Steam locos are filthy, a pain for maintenance & the view from the cab is poor.

Rebuilding a diesel engine is somewhat easier than a boiler overhaul & you can start one up with little more than pressing a button.

 

Steam engines may look nice puffing out smoke & steam with their motion on display, may sound purposeful & may also smell nice with a supply of decent coal, but they are not the easiest of machines to keep running.

 

All depend on what knowledge your railway has.

 

When I was involved in preservation nearly everyone knew about steam, it's very simple, yet very few would have had a clue on maintaining the diesels. We tended to leave that to one or two who did have the knowledge.

 

The Class 24 we had was great. Even good for running a few hundred yards and back with a couple of coaches. Was a bit of a caged tiger though so it was inevitable that it would leave. I would also add the 26 and 27 as being useful. 

 

 

Jason

[2251]

We had a discussion along these lines earlier this year:

 

 

[Nearholmer]

“Suitable” also spans across “draws the punters in” too of course, which is maybe where steam wins over diesel, although I don’t think it’s as simple as “people will come to ride behind steam, but not diesel”. People go to heritage railways for different reasons and some custom is “steam sensitive” and others not.

 

As a crazy frinstance, I’ve twice stood among groups of passengers at special events on a heritage railway where the loco at the stops was a Bulleid Pacific in original form. Many, my daughter included, were convinced that it was an electric loco! Triumph for OVSB’s attempts to make them look new and cutting-edge. People were drawn to the events for reasons other than steam, clearly, and in the most recent case they’d gone to a lot of trouble, dressing in pyjamas and dressing gowns to catch a train at lunchtime.

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, Blandford1969 said:

... burn more water ...

Hmmmm ???!? 🥴

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I was about to say the same. The initial question was which classes are most suitable.

Steam locos are filthy, a pain for maintenance & the view from the cab is poor.

Rebuilding a diesel engine is somewhat easier than a boiler overhaul & you can start one up with little more than pressing a button.

 

Steam engines may look nice puffing out smoke & steam with their motion on display, may sound purposeful & may also smell nice with a supply of decent coal, but they are not the easiest of machines to keep running.

I assume that on a heritage railway the people maintaining and driving steam locos are doing so because they actually want to, so from that perspective are those issues? That they cost more to keep running is, but the actual work itself?

[Ben B]

An interesting thread, and thought provoking too.  I'd say it also depends a lot on the line, and the expected traffic. My three nearest lines are the Worth Valley, the Embsay, and the Middleton, all quite varied by their character and requirements.

 

The Middleton, as an ex-industrial route with short 2-3 carriage (4 wheelers), light track, tight curves and short loops suits ex-industrial tanks and diesels, fitting for their heritage too.

 

The Embsay line has a nice mix of industrials (steam and diesels) and main-line diesel locomotives. The latter are probably a bit overpowered for the current route, but I'd have thought will come into their own when the long-desired extension into Skipton comes about. They've also got that gorgeous NER railcar for quieter midweek days.

 

The Worth Valley, being a relatively short line, has some oddities, like a pair of heavy freight steam engines, but being a steeply-graded line, they're useful on heavy and longer  trains. For an average weekday 4-coach set, they've the 2mt (Ivatt tank, and Standard tender) which seem perfectly suited, as well as Taff Vale no.85 (0-6-2t) for something more historical. But then they've also got a variety of DMU's and railbuses, which seem to do well, and economically, for off-peak and out of season trains, where they get used by schoolgroups and people using the line for a genuine public transport function. Interestingly at a gala pre-covid, I was chatting with someone who reckoned at a bare-bones the KWVR could do what it needed to with the pair of 2mt's, their Black 5 for the heavier stuff, a single DMU and the prototype diesel "Vulcan" for works trains and Thunderbirds.

 

The longer lines? I'd guess the big boys like the SVR and G-WR would skew more towards the larger locomotives, just by dint of distance and train-lengths.

[Steven B]

I'd guess most preserved railways see longer and more frequent trains than they did in BR days - certainly towards the end before they were closed. As a result larger locos are needed, even if the power & speed of an A4 or 9F is largely wasted (and to be honest, looks a bit silly on a single track branch-line).

 

Personally, I much prefer to see a type 2 or 3 diesel, or class 2-5 steam loco putting in some effort than a more powerful loco with the regulator barely open.

[Blandford1969]

42 minutes ago, Steven B said:

I'd guess most preserved railways see longer and more frequent trains than they did in BR days - certainly towards the end before they were closed. As a result larger locos are needed, even if the power & speed of an A4 or 9F is largely wasted (and to be honest, looks a bit silly on a single track branch-line).

 

Personally, I much prefer to see a type 2 or 3 diesel, or class 2-5 steam loco putting in some effort than a more powerful loco with the regulator barely open.

Big engines are boring to drive too, you just get them going and you have to shut them down. Much more interesting to have a smaller engine that you actually have to work and think about which also means the regulator stays open longer. Mind you at this time of year you can have heavier trains. Saturday night was 308 tons before the class 20 on the back which was not always working so you needed a class 4 for that job.