Bluebell Railway General Discussion

Are you sure you have the right century?

 

No!

(Now corrected).

Tom

 

Oh dear. I do hope that 31065 didn't demand the day off today because I posted a reminder of how it looked back in June 1961.

And Tom, the gronk is obviously a low powered diesel, so is it the diesel shunter you have there?

It does sound like some very quick thinking and hard work from everyone, including yourself, minimised the delays from 31065 taking the day off.

Bryan

 

Yes, the Gronk is the 09.

Little thinking on my behalf, the decision making was down to the day's Operating Supervisor. My one suggestion was to suggest that the crew of the gronk could do the shunting at the end of the day given our day was quite long, but I think he'd already reached the same conclusion in any case, so I can't even claim that one!

I am glad we had that day on 80151 rather than the originally rostered 34059 though, which would have been much less pleasant.

Tom

 

Them and 1638 have certainly kept the show on the road at times

 

Reading that Tom makes me wonder about 80100. Such a shame to see that loco slowly rotting away at Horsted Keynes. They were, and for those still running, a superb loco for branch and secondary lines and clearly are ideal for heritage railways. It would be truly wonderful to have one based at the Spa Valley Railway for instance.

I wonder if there has been any fairly recent interest for it to be sold to let someone with a very large bank balance embark on what looks to be a very long term and very expensive restoration project.

But I guess the really big bank account holders are already depleting their balances out on the main line.

Bryan - big sigh - B

 

Bryan

The standard 2 group were planning to take it on once 84030 is complete. I do not know if that is still the case.

Paul

 

I suspect there would be a riot if that loco were to be sold! Or a hard decision at any rate.

For a long time, we had three 80xxx tanks, but 80064 and 80151 were not owned by the railway, so 80100 was always seen as important in having. class of loco associated with the line in the line's ownership. Subsequently, 80064 has moved away, but various changes in ownership now mean that 80151 is 40% owned by the Bluebell Railway Trust. But even so, 80100 still has an important place. I do wonder if there will be more serious moves to overhaul it when 84030 is finished.

It's amazing how good 80151 was yesterday. We got 76 miles out of a bunker of coal with a comfortable margin in reserve. Train weights were variously 185 tons, 136 or 112. It could easily manage the heavier one, but on the light one just still ran economically with hardly any firing required. Yesterday was the sort of day that make you realise why people say 80000 tanks are the ideal locos for larger heritage lines. Oh, and a cab roomy enough that we had a paying footplate passenger on one of the trips as well.

Tom

 

As a layman, I'm struggling to understand why the 80000 is so good from a fireman's perspective, but the Light Pacific poor. Is it just the amount of shovelling required, or am I missing something else?

 

Thanks Paul.

The Bluebell's own page on the loco seems to suggest they may have moved on from that after 80151 arrived, to it becoming a Strategic Reserve loco. But it's hard to see how a loco seemingly rotting away out in the open can fulfill that role.

Bryan

 

Maybe because the light pacific has a grate 40% bigger than the 80?

 

It's little ergonomic things as much as grate area (though that has an effect).

To get the elephant out of the room on grate area - with the current hard Polish coal that is in circulation, it gives out heat very quickly but tends to burn away to nothing quickly. If you have a thick firebed, you produce inordinate amounts of smoke. So the option is to keep the firebed thin and fire "little and often" - but you are then always close to holes developing. In the worst case, having a hole in the fire - apart from diminishing steaming - can set up stresses in the plate work which over time damage the firebox. So good practice is to keep them from developing and fill holes when they do develop, but sometimes that means you end up - especially on the Bluebell coming south, down hill - firing not because you need steam but to keep the firebed in good shape. On a Bulleid, with a bigger grate, that can make it hard not to have too much steam, especially on a light train. It can be hard on a Bulleid to simultaneously keep the fire well distributed across the grate but also keep the steaming rate down to what is needed for a light train. For large parts of the journey coming south on the Bluebell, the only demand for steam is what the brake ejector uses.

Notwithstanding the comment about firing thin, it is normal practice to put a big wedge-shaped fire in the back of the firebox as a starting point, and that is a lot of labour all in one go on a Bulleid - there is a definite technique to fire to the back corners which are both a long way to the sides and also somewhat behind the firehole door (because of how the backhead slopes in all planes possible, and a few that aren't).

Now the ergonomics.

• The Bulleid cab tends to be quite stuffy and hot, which over the course of a day is quite enervating, particularly on a hot day. By contrast an 80000 is cooler and gets more of a breeze through the windows.
• The Bulleid cab floor is I think somewhat higher than on an 80000. That makes a difference climbing on and off - and bear in mind you get on and off a lot during the day to couple / uncouple etc, often from ground level (rather than platform level).
• The injector controls are machined hand wheels, much stiffer to operate than the simple lever to operate water on 80151. Again, that's another labour if the injector is constantly going on and off - on the mainline you probably put one on and left it, but we are constantly putting them on and off, and it is all labour. I'd go as far as to say that for ease of use, the injectors on 80151 are as good as they get.
• The firehole door on a Bulleid is very heavy. We don't have working steam-operated doors, so you have to lean on a big lever to open the doors, fire your round, then lean on the lever again to close them. The doors on an 80000 are very light to move. That matters not just when firing, but when making micro-adjustments of the door to control smoke. You have much less variability on a Bulleid, and when you do move them it is heavy. By contrast on the 80000 you can adjust the doors in small steps - maybe just an inch or two - to control the colour of the exhaust.

All those things - the weight of the firehole doors, or the height of the cab floor, or the stiffness of injector controls - may seem very minor. But they are related to movements you are doing scores of times - perhaps hundreds of times - in a day. At which point even a slight labour saving adds up. Add in the heat of a Bulleid cab on a summer day, and I'd take the 80000 any day of the week.

Tom

 

Thank you - that makes a lot of sense.

 

Agreeing with Tom's comments, they are splendid locos. The only fault is that they perpetuated Ivatt's bunker door design (who probably got it from elsewhere). The bunker has no shovelling plate, the doors just open into the cab a few inches above the floor, so coal spills everywhere, and the doors open the wrong way round too.

The 75000 version has a 'married man's tender' with a proper plate which is level with the fire door. I'm assuming the lower bunker floor means it holds more coal, but it means lifting the shovelful before swinging it...

But if that's the biggest fault......you've done well

 

Are you saying BR standards are better than Southern locos

Ever tried firing a Bulleid sitting down? You can do quite a bit of firing like that on a BR 4MT if you have a long shovel and you don’t have to go searching for the coal in the bunker. Just need to stand to fire down the right hand side. For the driver, oiling up is a doddle and there is never any need to get out of the seat when driving. The sliding seat makes driving in reverse a comfortable task, as well. Just sit facing inwards and look over your right shoulder. I think that the only thing the design team got wrong was the shovelling plate, or lack of one, meaning coal gets spilt on the floor when you open the bunker doors.

 

The only grates I've ever fired have been domestic, so I know very little of the art of firing. That's why I asked, as from the outside it wasn't obvious why two large and well sheltered cabs should give such different experiences.

I'd like to thank you and @Jamessquared for opening my eyes to the comparisons.

 

Tim gave a far more detailed response than my two penny worth. I agree with his every word.

 

A couple of photos from Sunday.
Went down primarily for 3687, and a first time behind 32424, but the O1's failure, and the rejigging of services meant a layover at HK, and the opportunity of a nose-around. Its an ill wind, as they say...
Platform 1 is looking very smart, and 1-road is now down:

However, there's clearly an alignment challenge at the south end :

Be interested to see what the solution will be here.

32424 really is a star. I hadn't realised just how loud the exhaust can be! And with that big Westinghouse pump going, it really does command attention.
Bonus pic- the Gronk swapping tablets

 

Re 'Be interested to see what the solution will be here' with the Plaform 1 track not looking to line up with the incoming track. A very slight reverse curve maybe, only looking a lot sharper due to the long telephoto used to take the photo?

I am sure the Bluebell will have it all planned and under control.

Bryan

 

I'm sure they do, Bryan. Incidentally, no telephoto used, just a snap from my phone. Those sleepers are just up to the platform ramp end.