Bluebell Motive Power

Overhead a member of staff at Atlantic House say to someone that they reckon 92240 could be the next big loco to enter the works after 80151 in the next few years. Not sure how informed they were though given I think quite a few locos are ahead of it in the planned list of overhauls.

 

Has the bluebell seen the 1960's coming and realised Standards are a lot more crew friendly?

It would be great to see 92240 being worked on...

 

Well 92240, from what I gather, ought to be a fairly straightforward overhaul to undertake (touch wood) and provides an awful lot of "bang for your buck". I would have thought maybe more a project for five years time or so, so as to look to take over from 34059 once she begins to creep toward the end of her next ticket, if I'm honest, but life is full of surprises.

 

There isn't a definitive plan that I know of beyond what has been announced, i.e. 34059, 928 and 80151 amongst the big engines. The LTP only requires one "giant" engine which means probably having another in traffic somewhere around the mid 2020s: at that point it might be 92240 but I would have thought 21c123 would also have a claim.

Anyone at GoS will hopefully have had a chance to look round the loco works; amongst the notable updates are that 80151 has had its boiler lifted; and new valves are being made for B473 and were in the process of being machined - the loco was visible with piston and valves removed, not a view you generally get to see.

Tom

 

I was intrigued when 92240 came in from the cold and reappeared in the running shed in April. But I think we need to let go of the idea of limiting ourselves to one 'giant' at a time. If overhauling the 9F after the current projects are done will mean that the 'tickets' of the larger engines are evenly spread out so as to prevent another shortage in 8-12 years, then so be it. And we'll have to put up with 34059 and 92240 running together for a while .

Bluebell Diesel Gala - 18/04/2015 by Matthew Nightingale, on Flickr

 

Tired of BR green or black. 21C123 would get my vote as well.

 

The Bluebell seem to keep everything in the earliest livery it can be run in, at least for the majority of the locomotive's ticket, so can't see it being painted any other colour.

 

Blackmore Vale has always been associated with Malachite Green and as 21c123. It didn't run much of its last ticket due to the persistant problems with its thermic syphons and firebox. I wouldn't have thought that it would require much work mechanically when its turned round unless it only got the minimum attention last time. The Bulleid Society already have the new thermic syphons in stock so I guess she will have similar work to what Archie has had at some point.

 

I disagree, the appeal of the Bluebell for me is the collection of either pre grouping and/or unique sole survivors, the vast majority of which tend to fall into the small or medium category, many lines can field numerous Bulleids and Standards, but how many can field a H, C, Dukedog, E4, Radial Tank etc, the lighter services are the only way to showcase such locomotives outside of gala's.

 

Whilst I agree with the latter, the availability of two large locos for traffic by no means implies that they will both be out most days, with the smaller ones hardly getting a look in. What does seem important is that the railway should have some of the smaller ones available as well and working some of the trains, but I would be surprised if that doesn't happen.

 

Out of curiousity, would Beachy Head come under medium, or does it have enough grunt to be considered large ?.

 

The BR power classification was 4P, so potentially it could fall into the Bluebells' "large" category (BR power classification 4 and above).

 

I suppose I should have clarified in the earlier post, I didn't mean the Bluebell should turn into a 'big engine' railway like the NYMR for example. My thoughts were that rather than limiting ourselves to one 'giant' at a time, we should group all the class 4+ locos together and rotate spells in traffic between this enlarged pool of locos to avoid another shortfall of locos that are powerful enough to haul the heaviest peak services. As opposed to leaving the 9F to one side because the LTP says we should only have 1 giant in traffic at a time, despite the fact that her overhaul (by all accounts) should be relatively straightforward.

The small and medium engines can't be neglected of course as they have their important parts to play in the railway's operations. It's a very tall order for the workshop to be a able to produce a sufficiently sized, diverse and sustainable loco fleet' Who would be willing to donate to a 'Keep up the pressure II' appeal to enlarge and enhance the railway's in house engineering abilities?

 

If you project forward, say, 3 - 4 years, then we could conceivably have 6 or 7 large locos available for traffic (847, 541, 73082, 34059, 80151, 928?, 32424?), most of which would be in the first half of their boiler tickets; but only 2/3 medium locos (263, 65, 473?) all but one near the end of their tickets. While it is always possible for a large loco to do a medium duty but not vice versa, on the assumption that the general pattern of our service (in terms of number of duties and train weights) doesn't significantly change, I'd suggest we need to concentrate on smaller locos for a period once the currently underway overhauls of big engines are completed. Assuming good reliability, we are unlikely to be really short of big locos again until the mid 2020s, whereas we could be short of medium and small locos much sooner than that.

Tom

 

With the trains seemingly getting longer, and the line now open to East Grinstead (with its 1:55 gradient), I wouldn't be surprised if we are seeing a shift to the bigger end of the spectrum. It was only few years ago where you might find 3 or 4 coach trains on a summer Saturday. Won't be seeing that again (bar the Golden Arrow).

Though small locos will have their place of course, I wonder which will be next. Fenchurch is unlikely as that team is focused on 27, Stepney isn't either. The B4 would seem like a likely choice? Though I am going to hope that it might be finally the right time for the radial.

 

Glad to see Tom seems to be having doubts about having too many large locomotives to fuel, lubricate and overhaul. We are not talking about running expresses over Shap or Salisbury to Exeter.

PaulH

 

A lot of us would, though I understand it's pretty shot ?, not much better than Stepneys condition.

 

I think Fenchurch is almost a certainty to be worked on within the next few years - it's upcoming birthday is simply too significant for it not to be available for traffic by 2022. I'd also hope that 178 might be tackled as a replacement for 323 if not before: she needs a new cylinder block, but apart from that, I think the biggest complication will simply be finding time in the workshop programme to fit it. If the boiler were to be lifted and inspected at the same time with any remedial work needed tackled as well, that could give another full term in traffic.

Amongst the medium locos, 65 is likely to be a straight replacement for 592, and the next medium loco is likely to be a straight replacement for B473: rumours (but nothing more) suggest that that might be 9017.

If I could step into a time machine and go back to the early 1960s, I'd be buying Wainwright Hs, Cs and Ps as fast as I could...

Tom

 

Adding to what I posted up thread, I bought the new issue of Bluebell News at Giants and saw that the Maunsell Society intend to overhaul 1618 after 928's is complete.

 

But then we have a situation whereby the 7 locos you have listed will all be withdrawn again within the span of about 5/6 years (2023-2028/9 ish assuming good reliability). The large loco fleet seems to be in a 'boom and bust' cycle. There was something of a boom in the 2000's with 92240, 21C123, 73082, 75027, 80151, 1638, followed by a bust period a few years ago with only 1638 and 80151 available (a situation that arose partly due to 21C123 bowing out early, then problems with 34059, which is why good reliability can't be assumed) and the need to hire in locos every year. In the coming years we will be in a boom again, followed by the withdrawals I mentioned earlier. The locos that may be next through the works mentioned up-thread after the current projects are completed are all medium and small locos (1618 excepted, but the MLS locos effectively have their own, separate, rotation) and that is what is needed to prevent a short-fall that you mention, Tom. But then the pendulum swings again, and we're ok for small/medium locos for a while but need to turn around 2/3/4 big engines to prevent a shortage of those. Hence my thoughts on the need to spread out the boiler tickets of the big engines by not stopping ourselves from the possibility of overhauling the 9F whilst 34059 is running because of the (IMO) arbitrary title of 'giant' slapped on them.

Once again, I'm not saying that we must overhaul bigger locos at the expense of all others, but we need to break the boom and bust cycle of the bigger locos, whilst also keeping 3 medium engines and 2 small locos operational at the same time. Hence my comments about the need to increase the railway's workshop capacity.