Bluebell Railway General Discussion

Julian

Along with a number of other vehicles I'm afraid. I think anyone interested in carriages (including me) will agree with you that the LBSC Directors Saloon is far more important historically than the Elephant Van,. However, the Elephant Van will have a use, is funded externally, is a relatively quick restoration and we will always need projects like this to enable novices (such as me) to gain experience in carriage restoration.

Along with many other Railways, with more money and more volunteers we could achieve even more.

David R

 

Arguably one of the most historically interesting vehicles on the Bluebell is the Maunsell TPO. Not a cat in hell's chance of that being restored any time soon.

 

At the risk of falling into the "wouldn't it be nice" trap, i.e. wishful thinking that involves no work or financial contribution on the part of the person making the wish, the saga of the Director's saloon is one the Bluebell ought to be a little shamefaced about. It was capable of use once (I travelled in it myself) and IMHO its care should have rather more priority that the building of certain replicas!

PH

 

Paul

In many ways yes, the problem is that the Director's saloon needs much expensive and time consuming work and even if restored will have only very limited use (given that the GNR Directors saloon is available). The "replica" (I assume you are referring to the Brighton Atlantic rather than the the 4 wheelers) has been funded by private individuals and it is the nature of people to contribute to what interests them, so I do not see this as a straight choice between replica of Atlantic or Directors Saloon, more likely between replica or nothing.

At least the new carriage shed at Horsted will ensure the conservation of some of these interesting vehicles. Whilst the Bluebell is very lucky (like the IOSW) to have so many older vehicles, it does give a challenge that many will not be restored for many years. Even keeping what is running can be a challenge given wear and tear over the years.

David R

 

There is an old Bluebell tale about the removed corridor connection from the Brighton Saloon being buried under Sheffield Park car park.

Or is that just a tale?

Robin

 

Not just a little shamefaced they should be totally shamed faced - how many decades is it the Directors saloon has been sweating and rotting under tarps?

I too had the pleasure of seeing this Gem when it was first on service. Sadly the BB management think Pullmans and GA are the only game in town, they made the Semi Royal coach unwelcome which was a far better dining environment after actually experiencing both for a special occasion than a rotting 3rd class Pullman. Directors saloon could offer the same but no hundreds of thousands are about to be peeed away on another rotting Pullman.

Brian ( BB member and Shareholder for Decades)

 

It may well be true - they were not proper corridor connecters, just a fall plate and some canvas so totally unsuitable for use. They were not part of the original coach, rather a Southern Rilway addition later on. They would not be used in any future restoration and as I understand it to fit "proper" connectors would require significant structural redesign which would spoil the charachter of the vehicle. Sad in some ways because this makes it less useful and so fall further down the restoration queue.

David R

 

I cant speak for the condition of the vehicles, but I have both eaten and served meals in both the Pullmans and semi-royal, and I would go for a Pullman every time in terms of ambiance and comfort as a passenger, and ability to serve efficiently from the catering department side of things.

Robin

 

And that appears to have been the feedback from most other customers, hence why the semi-royal (which was privately owned and on loan) was not seen as a substitute for the Pullmans and (I understand) why it is believed there is limited commercial value in restoring the Brighton saloon. Sad but (like all railways) there has to be some commercial awarenes. If we just restored "nice to have" vehicles such as the Brighton saloon and the TPO then what would we carry passengers in?

Resources are finite.

David R

 

Apologies. I have just been taken to task. One does not 'eat' in a Pullman, one 'dines' of course....

Robin

 

I must admit to being puzzled by some of the things that have happened. The 6w L.B.S.C.R. milk van was rebuilt but then allowed to deteriorate so as to require the exercise to be done all over again. Sometimes, the Bluebell being by no means the worst offender, I get cynical and wonder whether we had better not refer to "Heritage Railways" as much as "Tourist Lines" . Sometimes the heritage/museum function seems a bit of an after thought.

Interesting you should be unimpressed by Pullmans. I have often felt Pullman seating was designed to be grandiloquent rather than comfortable. Certainly 1st class in the Bluebell's Bulleid 1947 composite was more comfortable by a country mile. Now what became of that vehicle? Hopefully not tucked away in a siding along with the Director'Saloon.

Paul H.

 

Quicker the railway gets the builders in and put up the building frame and roof, which the money has been raised for so nearly all these old coaches which are outside rotting can go under cover the better and will be good if all 30 ? coaches which there room for are under by next winter to start drying out.

 

Hello,
Is there a up to date photograph of the Saloon?

Nick

 

Actually I think the milk van received minor repairs in the 1960's, sadly, as with all wooden bodied stock, sitting outside, time and weather take their toll untill it's needs significant work - it's the same with the passenger coaches. Hopefully the new covered accomodation will at least slow down the rate of decay.

As for the 1947 built Bullied Compsoite, that is currenlty in the workshop and starting to reach the end of a 6 (7) year overhaul. Whilst previously overhauled, this time it has required the replacement of the entire bottom steel plate (which in Bullied coaches replaces the wooden build rail of earlier coaches), which has required the removal of the interior and the floor - a major job caused by the slow rusting and deflection of this plate, pushing the body up and away from the underframe. Restoration jobs just become bigger the older the vehicles get.

It's like running a vintage car, you can't just restore it and that's it, it needs constant maintenance and repair and eventually (if you've been using it rather than locking it away in a garage as a showpiece) another body overhaul. If you've got 30 or 40 of them then it is a major job.

No lines are immune from commercial pressures - some manage it better than others.

David R

 

If resources are finite, you can't restore everything all at once. A 40 ton vehicle with about 25 seats and no corridor connections is always going to be difficult in that situation.

That said, I believe that we currently have more pre-Mark 1 carriages running than at any time in our history, and we have more under cover storage space than we have ever had before. Not enough, but more than we have previously had. That suggests the direction of travel is right: more resources would always be helpful.

If I could wave a magic wand over the C&W, my personal priorities would be:

- Finish 328, 949 and 3188 (the three four wheelers currently being worked on) to give a six coach set of 4 wheelers, albeit of mixed companies (allowing a five coach set and one vehicle to be under maintenance at any time)
- Overhaul 971 (the other 100 seater) to strengthen the pre-group bogie set
- Restore another Birdcage brake
- Finish 3687 (the Maunsell Restriction 0 Corridor Brake 3rd)
- Overhaul one - two other Maunsells, with consideration for wheelchair accommodation
- Finish 5768 (The Bulleid CK)
- Overhaul one - two other Bulleids, with consideration for wheelchair accommodation

That would give:

- A 5 - 6 coach set of four wheelers that would be within the weight limit for a P class or Terrier, and would contain wheelchair accommodation
- 4 Mets, which could be used on their own, or to strengthen the four wheelers at peak and the whole formation would be within the weight limit for the H / C / O1 / Dukedog
- A five coach high-capacity set of pre-group bogie coaches (2 birdcage brakes, 2 hundred seaters, the Brighton first) which would be within the weight limit for the H / C / O1 / Dukedog; and could be strengthened with the Obo / GN Saloon / LSWR brake within the weight limit of the Q.
- Six Coach Maunsell and Bulleid sets with wheelchair accommodation, within the weight limit of the Q / U / Std 4.

That would enable the Maunsell and Bulleid corridor sets to alternate as the main service set on Service 1 days; and be supplemented by either the Victorian or the Edwardian sets as the second train on Service 2 days.

As an outsider to the C&W that is an entirely personal view: how feasible it is I don't know, though we are actually past half way to that end in terms of the vehicles currently operational (4 Mets; 3 Victorian four wheelers; 3 Maunsells; 3 Bulleids; 3 Edwardian bogie coaches; Obo; GN Saloon; LSWR brake). Probably the most pressing issue right now though is to carry on providing under cover storage.

Tom

 

The builders are in - piling done, roof panels on site, steel framework due to start in the next few weeks

David R

 

I assume you mean this vehicle? http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/coach5768.html

If so, it is currently undergoing overhaul - frequent photo updates of progress here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/extension3363/albums/72157626601424746

Tom

 

It is exactly like a coach built motor car which is precisely why carriage sheds ought to but scarcely ever do, come before extensions.

PH

 

Just two thoughts. Firstly, if a vehicle is unlikely to be of use to you it is better off being "sold to a good home" who could make use of it, perhaps as a static exhibit. Secondly, an A1x in reasonable nick ought to cope with the Chesham set. The I.O.W.S.R. pair are allowed 80 tons tare and the 1 in 70 starts just beyond the platform ends at Havenstreet in both directions.

PH

 

We have a Bulleid 3rd on a long-term "restore and use" loan agreement with the MHR doing exactly that.

Fenchurch on occasion took the 4 Mets to Kingscote unaided, with steam heating. However, the gradient to East Grinstead is 1 in 55, not the previously sustained steepest bit of 1 in 63. We allow 70 tons for a Terrier and 60 for a P class to East Grinstead, which is a reduction of ten tons all round over the previously allowable limits to Kingscote. (4 Mets are 80 tons; I work on 12 tons per four wheeler).

The other consideration is that you have to match train weights to the smallest engine available, not the largest. For example, project forward ten years, by which time we might have six Victorian four wheelers. Quite likely that the small engine complement in, say, mid 2020s will be 27 and 72. So you need a load that could be taken by the smaller of those, not the larger. That probably means a 5 coach set (assuming 12 tons each for a four wheeler), not a six coach. That also allows one to be under maintenance at any time. Maybe operational experience might allow slightly larger loads: for a while a couple of years ago, we were sometimes forced to run the Golden Arrow (136 tons then) with two P tanks, so notionally 68 tons each. Nominally that was 8 tons over their limit, but in practical terms they managed OK.

Tom