Bluebell Motive Power

I expect it will have to wait until after 27 and 672 have been overhauled.

 

The problem is, it's not a bit of money, it's a lot of money. Nothing that needs doing is individually beyond the capabilities of the heritage movement, but collectively, you might not be far away from a new build loco. Meanwhile, P class 27 is requiring similar work - new cylinders, probably a new (or substantially new) boiler; significant frame repairs etc.

My view is that in that circumstance, it makes sense to concentrate on one at a time rather than spread resources. Meanwhile, Stepney can still act as an ambassador (a roving one at times) despite not being operational. What I would like to see is that when Fenchurch is restored (with the 2022 anniversary in mind) that it is returned to Stroudley livery as No. 72, as close as possible - boiler and brakes excepted - to her 1872 condition. That would give us a Rooter in Stroudley livery while also being an operationally useful loco: I'm sure many people would not make the distinction in name at first glance.

Tom

 

thank you tom!
as paul hitchcock would no doubt agree, adopting the IOWSR procedure for locos is beneficial with pointless time spent on restoring 'P' class 'wreck' 27 on the Bluebell a non-starter! on the IOWSR the management deide where resources and time of volunteer labour is spent and not on pointless restoration projects (the Ryde tram being but a sole example that doesnt fit in). the volunteer effort expended on 27 would in my humble opinion be much better spent on other projects such as Stepney! i dont for one minute suggest that Stepney's long over due thorough overhaul will be cheap but a set of cylinder castings are in stock and ready to be machined (unlike 27).
chers,
julian

 

Need two sets of P class cylinders now after 1178 finally killed its set...

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

I don't see there being much difference between restoring Stepney or restoring 27. Sure Stepney has the name, and should be restored at some stage, but both are potentially useful historic engines in a poor state. The fact of the matter is, their is a volunteer team, who are willing to raise the funds and do the work to get 27 operational. Maybe that team aren't interested in Stepney?

The other point is that we have to start doing serious restoration work on some of our worst condition locos, or we'll end up with them all in that state. By allowing a volunteer team to do a long term overhaul of our worst engine, we'll end up with a fleet in overall better condition. Just look at the benefit of doing serious work on 473 in the late 90s, she's now working on her second boiler ticket. 27 rebuilt with a new boiler will result in an easily overhauled engine in the future. Personally I feel there should be a listing made up of the conditions of all our locos, ranking them from best to worst. From that list, the worst should always be the one under long term restoration by a volunteer team. Without such a vision, we risk having 30 terrible condition locos, all needing expensive and protracted overhauls.

Daniel

 

I must confess to being mightily puzzled as to the Bluebell's priorities both as to locomotives and rolling stock but they are not the only organisation which leaves me so puzzled! Byzantinism is everywhere.

Paul H.

 

The IOWSR is not a like for like comparison. It is a much smaller setup where those volunteers who want to work in the works can easily be accommodated on whatever the current project is, and the staff are used to finding jobs for people's capabilities. The Bluebell being much bigger has some spin off groups who will follow their own agenda (presumably with 'company' approval) but clearly feel benefit from being in a group rather than being individuals in support of the paid staff. The IOWSR also has the benefit of being able to find a good use for all of its locos so does not need a spin off group for the locos that would otherwise not be a priority.

 

Not for the first time I'm scratching my head! There are frequent calls on here to run smaller locos, yet it seems some on here consider restoring 27 - a small loco - as a pointless waste of time! So which is it? We are after all a preservation society: surely no-one would wish to see a 100+ year old loco simply abandoned, just so that resource could be spent on Stepney instead ? As it is, the scale of work on both 27 and 55 is likely to be similar, but the current decision is to work on 27 - not least because 55 is together in one piece and can still be a presentable piece of motive power. What is also certain is that when 27 is finished, likely with a new boiler, cylinder and substantial frame repairs, she should be the best of our Ps and in good repair for many years to come.

As for loco policy: we've been over it many times. Clearly, the major aim is to ensure sufficient motive power of appropriate size to run the service. Beyond that, there is a certain amount of rotation. With 30-odd locos and a service requirement for about ten, then on average, any loco is likely to spend twice as long out of service as in service: obviously, the detail nuances that calculation somewhat. 27 hasn't been seen in action for over 40 years, so in my mind, it is good that there is a group who wish to restore her. If that means that Stepney spends a bit of time dozing, then so be it. She is, after all, coming up to her 140th birthday, so I think she is entitled to a bit of a rest now and again!

Tom

 

If the Bluebell was run purely with common sense and on finances alone, then everything else would be laid up while 80151 and 75027 continually did the work, while that's important for long term sustainability, it's good that personal opinions take a factor and other items get an airing where possible too, the unique and/or Victorian era loco's and rolling stock are the main draw to the Bluebell for me, many can field a Standard 4 or S15, but only the Bluebell can a H Tank or Dukedog.

I might get some flack for this, but is Stepney that famous ?, yes it was the first loco on the Bluebell and appeared in a couple of Thomas books/episodes, but is hardly a cast regular like Thomas himself, and hasn't featured in a story as far as I'm aware in the last 15 years or more, I get the feeling she's more well known to my generation from the Thomas stories than the kids of today who probably only know the more recent TV series.

 

The work on 27 will be worth it if it turns out like 473, which was abandoned in a similar way but since being put back together has been arguably the best and most reliable performer for most of that time.

I believe it's the same team doing it as well? Which should be a good guarantee.

 

It's an interesting view. With my own children (aged 5 and 2), Thomas is sort of there in the background of their consciousness, but I wouldn't say it was a big deal. Amongst Bluebell engines, "Bluebell" is their favourite: I suspect because it is colourful, named and in steam. I certainly think TtTE is less of a big deal than it was maybe twenty years ago.

Incidentally, I would diverge from you in one area: "hasn't featured in a story in the last 15 years"? For some of us, there hasn't been a new TtTE story since "Tramway engines" in 1972

And finally: in the original "Stepney the Bluebell Engine", five other Bluebell engines featured apart from Stepney: Adams, Cromford, Captain Baxter, Bluebell - and, of course, Primrose, No. 27! There was a funny joke in that story that only dawned on me when I re-read it recently: When Stepney is talking to Duck about the other engines on the line, he says "and then there are Bluebell and Primrose - they are as alike as two peas!" That completely passed me by aged seven ...

Tom

 

And of course we all know the story (whether apocryphal or not) of Britt Allcroft or the successors writing to the Bluebell to ask them to stop using an engine masquerading as the popular railway series loco Stepney...?

Fenchurch was always my favourite growing up as I somehow found Newhaven Harbour Board black a little less threatening than improved engine green, but Stepney was always the celebrity. The Railway Series definitely played a part in that, but I was also a member of the Stepney Club (definitely a route for kids to get to know the railway), and even as a kid I was aware that Stepney was the first loco at the Bluebell.

I think the role it (he?) plays in preservation history is pretty important too...

I'm still waiting for the day somebody gives Sharpthorn a go... I know its not exactly a Paul Hitch (tm) Practical Choice, but wouldn't it have been amazing if Sharpthorn could have been used for a ceremonial works train sometime so it had been involved in building the same line twice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Quite! I only ever grew up with the original stories, plus the Ringo Starr episodes - all on VHS - yes I am just about old enough! I think you might be right that Stepney isn't a huge presence in TTTE fans today, usually you get awareness of Thomas, a "Henry" can usually be identified (any sort of green tender engine), and that's about it with a couple of exceptions. Then there's all the new rubbish that I know absolutely nothing about, luckily by the time they ruined it I'd grown out of it!

 

A quick Google reveals that Stepney has cropped up in a few episodes of the TV series. She (He?) even has a catchphrase: "Bluebell forever!"

 

It's an odd comparison anyhow. Surely Burgundy/Yarmouth is almost as much of a dog's egg as Primrose?

 

The best comparison with "Stepney" is "Calbourne" as the signature locomotive of its line. As it seems there is a replacement A1x pattern cylinder block available and an approved re-design of the boiler exists, neither of which is the case with the "P" class, the decision does puzzle me, although it is, of course, the Bluebell's call.

PH

 

Bluebell 150 happens in 2032.

Just for reference, like, you understand...

 

I heard a story, and I don't know how truthful it is, that one of the main reasons the WSR painted 88 in SDJR blue (and kept it in it) was due to the number of kids who would see it and say "look, Edward!".

 

But a P pattern will be needed sooner or later for the other three engines, and especially for Pioneer II, so the question is whether the Bluebell and the KESR should do it now, or do it later, or condemn four engines to the plinth.

 

Not offical Thomas but I quite like 'Blandford' if you scroll down the page.