Bluebell Motive Power

aaaah truly strategic.and very reserved! so!

 

Isn't 65 going into the works in the not too distant future (I understand they wanted her back quite soon) as will 541 and 847 I think so not surer where that would leave the Standards. I think having both Standard 4's would be great as they are ideal locos as well as having a historical connection such as 80100 and 80151 being built at Brighton (80064 was built at Derby I think) as well as Standard 4's running the line in BR days

 

80064 was built at Brighton.

 

Indeed it was just looked it up must have got confused with one of the other other tanks.

 

The only preserved standard 4 tank that wasn't built at Brighton is 80002 at the KWVR, having been built at Derby.

 

Sadly reported in the Bluebell's Facebook page that 80151 has been stopped with a leaking foundation ring.

 

...in the nick of time for the Santas, too! :S

 

Don't Panic! Looking at the loco roster, 1638, 80151 and B473 are down to operate the three Santa trains, with 592 on steam heating. With a bit of a re-jig everything should be fine. Have 592 double heading with one of the Ps, and the other P on pre heating. It's why the Ps are pretty darn handy to have around!

 

Very true, so let's hope it all works out well. Really hope though that the constant double-heading of our two P's on the service trains doesn't end up knackering out the locos.

 

Bit of a downer about the standard 4. But hopefully it isn't too serious.

It's possible we may not need to revert to double heading. Because of the operational problems in recent winters of running through the tunnel (think - half-ton 20 foot long icicles hanging down the ventilation shafts...), this year's satan specials are only running SP - HK. This is the easier end of the line (1:75 max gradient, not 1:60) so it is possible that a full load would be in the capacity of one of the smaller engines. In any case, if we have to double head the C, I'd imagine we'd have to do the E4 on the same load as well, to all intents and purposes they have the same load limit. Both of them could take 5 Mk 1s over the whole line, so possibly with dispensation from the appropriate authorities, they'd be allowed 6 over the southern half of the line.

Anyway, that's speculation from me, not on the basis of inside knowledge. But is going to be fun to find out!

Tom

 

That's an interesting take on the Christmas market!

 

Never! The preserved railways I've been involved with have obviously missed a trick!

 

Not the officially sanctioned Bluebell marketing term, I hasten to add!

Though being the good little outpost of the Southern Railway that we are, you should be aware that absolutely nothing escaped a nickname! "There's no goods arthur available, so you've got a black motor on the Tavy" would make perfect sense to an Exmouth Junction driver. Though what the crews nicknamed the Marsh I1 tanks probably shouldn't be printed on a family forum...

Tom

 

Neither perhaps what I've heard 30064's nickname is!

Mark

 

More importantly, saves a bit of money on coal!

 

Reading RM today. There is a small article regarding the overhaul of SECR P class no 27. With the BB short of motive power and having to hire in 92212 from the MHR. Why start overhauling another small tank loco for? With the BB hoping to start running trains from EG in the next few years surely all available resources should be put in to overhauling larger locos. Smaller locos are nice to see but have a limited use on a longer preserved line.

 

The volunteer gang who overhauled the other 2 P class are at some stage going to taken this on, although they currently overhauling the Q's tender and assist with the overhaul of the engine.They hope to complete by December for the Santa's and get 5 years service or maybe a bit more out of it.

 

There was something in a Bluebell News about the Loco situation afew years back. Although we are getting some bigger locos back. 263 is quite a big tank engine (though not as big as the Standard it will be replacing), 847 is due back supposedly in July, 73082 is also under overhaul, 541 has also had work start on her and will probably become a priority for the Maunsell Society once 847 is running. I had heard rumblings about work starting on 65 soon as well.

It'd be nice to see locos like 92240, 75027, 21C123 back in service one day though.

Does that refer to 27 or 541? As I understand it 541 doesn't require a huge amount of work and why she's jumped ahead of 928 in the overhaul queue. Not sure what is required on 27 though? Any idea what paint scheme she'll be as we have a SECR liviery and Bluebell own liviery?