Bluebell Railway General Discussion

You often get weird effect on lights trains, here it appears that the first coach must be "open top" from the way the steam heat appears to be pouring out of the roof.

 

Yes, considerably - about 19,000lb TE against about 15,000, to give one measure. On our load limits, it is essentially allowed one extra full size coach to East Grinstead.

Tom

 

I would have said yes but the problem is the cost of overhaul, as far as I know the Adams Tank needs a new boiler and possibly frames. Some time ago I was talking to a well known driver of corny joke fame
(Tom knows who I mean) about two iconic Bluebell locos, 488 and Stepney and the chances of seeing them steam again. I was told rather than list the work needed it was easier to just say both whistles work!

 

That the Adams tank was one of the first engines that came to the bluebell, Should be reason enough to overhaul it, its probably been in Bluebell ownership longer than any of its previous owners, and lets face it There are not that many former LSWR Locos anyway, After all Stepney, or Fenchurch, , are now not going to be concidered to be loco's that can be used day in, day out, and will only ever be a high days and holidays use , but i bet no ones going to question the decision to overhaul either of those two, and theres the prospect of some day, getting some of the most iconic LSWR engines together in steam , 499 from Mid Hants, 563 from Swanage, and hopefully one day, 488 from the Bluebell.

 

From what I can understand an overhauled 488 would be virtually a new build so being realistic it needs someone with a very large chequebook for it ti be considered.

 

Don't forget W24, 53 and 245, 298 and 314 and 120.

The LSWR isn't doing too bad (compared to the other pre-Southern companies) by my count 10 locos (W24, 53, 120, 245, 298, 314, 488, 499, 506, 563), 7 classes (M7, O2, 298, 415, T3, T9, S15) and four different designers (Beattie, Adams, Drummond, Urie).

I think I would say that of all the pre-Grouping companies the LSWR is the best represented in terms of range of locos, designers, timeframe and that so many are able to run.

Make for a good gala too.

 

The IWCR did acquire the Black Hawthorn outside-cylindered 4-4-0T No. 6, which I think worked from 1890 to 1926?

Both this engine and the Adams 4-4-2Ts had connecting rods placed inside the coupling rods, which allows the cylinders to be brought closer together and the overall width reduced. I don't have a precise figure, but they are likely to have been several inches narrower than the Ivatt 2-6-2Ts now being used by the IWSR, and also narrower than the carriage foot-boards. Of course, O2s with no outside cylinders were likely still narrower.

I seem to recall that a visiting GWR 45XX was barred from one of the platform lines at Horsted Keynes on account of cylinder width, but GWR outside cylinders were widely spaced and set very low.

 

Goodness me, I'd never noticed that before!

Steve B

 

They certainly did ... and from photographic evidence it was worked extremely hard. The SR PW dept took exception to the weight of both it and BP No.7 (ex MSWJ) and that pair saw out their last use on the ex-IWR (Ryde PH - Ventnor) line.

Can't say I'd ever clocked the con rod arrangement, so cheers for that (I'll dig out my trusty Maycock & Silsbury tomorrow)

 

The Adams T3 has the same arrangement.

Peter

 

As do the FfR "Ladies" and retired older brother, Charles, the difference being I'd actually noticed the arrangement on those!

 

It is very obvious on those three compared with most SG loco's

 

I take it that your five isn't counting the USA tank, which could do the job, but seems to have been completely forgotten of late....

 

As indeed does Gresley's D49 Morayshire:-
No, I did not notice this one until it was pointed out to me some time ago.

Peter

EDIT:Forget about the D49 arrangement. Senior moment. The big end here is in fact both inside and outside the coupling rod. The inside and outside corks you can see are on the con rod and the middle one is for the side rod.

 

Whilst capable of doing the job, the USA is just not designed fir hauling passenger trains. Without either trailing or leading trucks, short wheelbase and outside cylinders, giving it a characteristic swagger, it was well known as a track-basher. Ask any of the Bluebell's older P/way hands, and they'll tell you it knocked seven bells out of the track.

 

I think the five Tom is referring to are H, C, O1, Birch Grove and the Dukedog. In time the 84030 will be added to the list, and hopefully the Adams Radial.

 

Don't forget the two B4s - 96 and 102, so that's 12 locos of 8 classes, plus a boiler (apparently in rather bad condition, so someone on this forum has said) from a T1.
Less preserved LSWR locos compared with LBSCR, but a greater variety.

 

No need to ask, Mark. I know roughly what our two are capable of! Simple fact is, I believe that if you are counting engines, you count them all, then give reasons not to use them, rather than not counting them in the first place.

 

We can add bits of the F9 are also in existence as well.

I had forgotten the B4s. All in all a pretty good selection. Everything from shunters to suburban/rural tanks to express locos. Being greedy only things that are missing are a goods loco (oh for a 395, 700 or H16) and a Drummond 4-6-0

 

Aren't those confined to the just the wooden bits?