Operational cars?




Operational cars?

by Christoph Heuer » 30.01.2008, 21:22

Hello all,

in this thread Peter1297 wrote:

Peter1297 wrote:(...)We have lost 1282, 1297, 869(UDE only!) 602, 510 and with 298 on hold we have NO modern (1932+) operational trams(...)


Err, I seem to have lost track of our operational cars. No wonder, as I only did a few days in October last year. If I remember correctly we had in service last year: 2, 7, 22, 40, 45, 60, 68, 74, 180, 331, 345, 399, 812, 1297, 1622 and 3006. 5, 167 and 273 were off because of the wheel-track interface problems. 869 was UDE only. Of the regular(ish) performers of the previous years we have lost 106, 166, 510, 602 and 1282 and now 1297. 166 needs rewiring. Does anyone know why the other cars are off?

It appears to me that either we assume that our visitors prefer old cars, which probably is true, or that the workshop prefers old cars which definitely need less maintenance because there are fewer parts to maintain, or both.

Regards

Christoph


EDIT: There should have been a question mark in the headline which I now added.
Christoph Heuer
Administrator
 
Posts: 120
Joined: 10.01.2008, 00:00

by Advertising » 30.01.2008, 21:22

Advertising
 

by Andrew 7 » 31.01.2008, 20:52

It is getting rather difficult to keep track of what is serviceable and what isn't! I'm not totally sure, but I will offer the following points.

*Liverpool 869 came back into service late last year, september I think - it did the Enthusiast's Day sidings tour and so should be running in 2008!
*I think LCC 106 had a problem with its tyres - not absolutely sure but it was definitly wheel related.
*The single deckers are a bit unclear - after the wheel/track problem came to light they were withdrawn (B&F 2 as well), but again, 2 and 167 both ran at the Enthusiast's Day. I'm hopeful that at least some of these cars will be out again this year!
*Glasgow 1297 has a motor fault and is a low priority at the moment.
*Glasgow 1282 is not likely to run again for the forseeable future, I think it has been 'signed off' as in need of a full rebuild, I believe there may be some underframe corrosion? This is why 1297 came back... only now we have neither!!

Hope this helps, if any of the above is wrong please correct me. Also, is it just me who feels that there is no longer any desire to maintain such a large operational fleet, compared to a couple of years ago?
Andrew 7
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 25.01.2008, 21:50

Operating Trams

by Paul_Turner » 02.02.2008, 00:24

It does seem to have been a funny year or so for trams.

166 returned for 2005/6 and withdrawn again
602 returned for 2003 and 2005 (lightly used 2004/6) and now withdrawn
1297 back for 2006 and clocked up a high mileage and now withdrawn again
902 operational in 2006, then withdrawn again
Why have these car come back and gone again, especially 166/602 which were externally funded. One would expect longer serving cars that accure high mileage to be under threat of withdrawal (like 106) not the newly returned low mileage cars. The fleet does seem to have become very traditionally focused again.

Bogie single deckers having "track wheel interface" problem - probably caused by too much gobbledegook in the interface. The plain english campaign would have a field day! 2 and 167 did return at the end of 2007 and I understood the interface problem was being solved this winter.

Be useful to know what is planned for 2008.
Paul
Paul_Turner
 
Posts: 11
Joined: 01.02.2008, 02:24

Re: Operating Trams

by Andrew 7 » 02.02.2008, 20:59

Paul_Turner wrote:Be useful to know what is planned for 2008.
Paul


It certainly would.

The problem is, although losing all these trams will save money as it means a smaller running fleet of trams that are probably easier to maintain, it isn't encouraging people to make repeat visits. To be honest, my last 2 visits to Crich were a bit of a let-down IMO, I like to go and be surprised. If it's just the likes of Glasgow 22 and Blackpool 40 running all the time, there isn't much incentive for enthusiasts to visit 3 or 4 times a year!
Andrew 7
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 25.01.2008, 21:50

Re: Operating Trams

by Christoph Heuer » 02.02.2008, 22:57

Hello everyone,

Andrew 7 wrote:Also, is it just me who feels that there is no longer any desire to maintain such a large operational fleet, compared to a couple of years ago?


You are not alone. The fleet has become smaller. Personally, I believe there is no longer the need to maintain a large fleet of commissioned cars each year. To check a large number of cars at the beginning of the season means a large workload. This can be reduced to a sensible level if you do fewer cars each year. I believe we can do with about twelve cars, three open double-deckers, one open single-decker, two balcony cars, four fully enclosed, an enclosed single-decker for variety and 3006. If you rotate the cars each year you will have to do less start of year checks and still even out wear and tear over the years.

Paul_Turner wrote:Bogie single deckers having "track wheel interface" problem - probably caused by too much gobbledegook in the interface. The plain english campaign would have a field day!


I love being pedantic, probably because of my nationality. It should be "wheel-track interface" problems. I thought this was Crich gobbledegook until I found the Dutch version of that on a website about the museum tramway in Arnhem open air museum. So it is international engineers speak. In plain English it means: Comes of the rails too easily.

Kind regards

Christoph
Christoph Heuer
Administrator
 
Posts: 120
Joined: 10.01.2008, 00:00

Re: Operating Trams

by Paul_Turner » 03.02.2008, 01:27

christoph wrote:
You are not alone. The fleet has become smaller. Personally, I believe there is no longer the need to maintain a large fleet of commissioned cars each year. To check a large number of cars at the beginning of the season means a large workload. This can be reduced to a sensible level if you do fewer cars each year. I believe we can do with about twelve cars, three open double-deckers, one open single-decker, two balcony cars, four fully enclosed, an enclosed single-decker for variety and 3006. If you rotate the cars each year you will have to do less start of year checks and still even out wear and tear over the years.



It would be interesting to put a value on what it costs to prepare each additional car. From the 2006 mileage lists in the journal, the 12 most commonly used cars achieved the following mileages - on average 825 miles each. The other 12 electric cars averaged 376 miles each


Leeds 345 1,115
Blackpool 40 1,071
Joburg 60 1,039
Glasgow 1297 962
Leeds 399 845
London 106 825
Berlin 3006 729
C'field 7 715
B&F 2 702
Leeds 180 651
Soton 45 626
Sheffield 74 620

The top 12 does not include 273 or 1622, recent major restorations which must still be as good as new. Blackpool 40 has run the most miles at the museum at the end of 2006 at around 32,000 (i have 31,173 recorded but 1998 is missing! - and TMS reproted 2,345 miles at Blackpool in 1985) In its entire Crich carreer it has ammased just about the same number of miles as it ran in Blackpool in a year in the 1930s.
I appreciate these are now museum pieces and need to be looked after but does operation at Crich really cause much wear and tear when the work they do is about what they would do in 3 or 4 days on their original system

The point I am labouring towards is that if a core fleet of recently overhauled cars is used for the day to day running of the museum amassing 700-1200 miles per annum, why can't other cars run on a handful of special events a year. Prague 180 came out and did 116 miles in 2001 for a special event without suffering major ill effects I am sure.

Paul
Paul_Turner
 
Posts: 11
Joined: 01.02.2008, 02:24

by Andrew 7 » 03.02.2008, 12:40

This is sounding increasingly similar to Backpool's infamous "mothballing" situation: there were more trams than needed, so some were taken out of service despite there being nothing wrong with them. However, whilst many have stayed that way, a few have been reinstated. I think the problem with a small running fleet is lack of flexibility, e.g. on a busy day all 12 operational cas could be needed, but if the weather is bad then 12 enclosed vehicles may be needed! Then there's the issues of not all drivers being trained on some of the trams in best condition, like 869 and 1622.

Whereas Blackpool is a public transport system and needs to cut costs in order to make maximum profit, Crich is purely an attraction. So, I think that whilst there may be a happy medium, cutting the operational fleet too much could be a big mistake. I wonder if this is happening due to losing various staff/volunteers in the workshop? On the other hand, tram crews might miss the varied fleet and volunteer for duty less!

This is quite a big issue really!
Andrew 7
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 25.01.2008, 21:50

Re: Operating Trams

by Christoph Heuer » 03.02.2008, 22:08

Hello,

Paul_Turner wrote:The top 12 do not include 273 or 1622, recent major
restorations which must still be as good as new.


Both cars had problems this year. 273 has wheel-rail and 1622 had problems with the electrics since its restoration. Having said that, 273 was not among the top ten in the previous years either which suggests it is not popular with crews. There are not many people who can drive 1622 which restricts the mileage.

Kind regards

Christoph
Christoph Heuer
Administrator
 
Posts: 120
Joined: 10.01.2008, 00:00


Return to Archive



Who is online

No registered users

cron