Bluebell Motive Power

Indeed. that is one reason, I believe, why 80151 is higher up the overhaul queue than 80064.

With regard the 9F, it suffers (as do one or two other big Bluebell locos) in not having a supporters group behind it. Given the general need to restore a big black engine, Camelot - which has both a name and, more importantly, an active and effective owning group - was always going to look a better bet than 92240, which has neither. Even with the PLC funding much of the current boiler work on Camelot, the money and resources put in by the owning group are significant, and enough to tip the balance in its favour. When looking at the big locos on the Bluebell, in my view 92240, 75027 and 80100 will always tend to be the bridesmaids when compared with, say, 80151, 73082 or the Maunsell engines, which can do similar work but have active groups behind them.

Tom

 

I've just read the comments from Roy Watts in Steam Railway Mag - looks like the Bluebell isn't too much bothered about running diesel hauled trains these days.

 

But could 92240 be next in the queue after 80151? As a fairly straightforward overhaul and a popular loco with crowds and crews alike (I remember her last spell in traffic, dozens of children gathered round her at SP flabbergasted at her size and number of wheels) and she can also run very high mileages with little intermediate work. She seems to be quite a good bet for an extended railway running strengthened trains.

 

As I recall, that isn't at all what he said! Given the choice between not running a train and potentially disappointing or stranding passengers, the railway has taken the decision to use a diesel as a "thunderbird" loco to make sure the service has run. But when asked if we would be having a diesel gala, he said in effect no - we'd effectively had one when the diesel charter came in during the opening fortnight. At least, that's my recollection of reading the article in the WHSmith reading room.

With the SVR and NYMR regularly using diesels even on their nominal all-steam days, and the MHR having a month without any steam on account of the fire risk, for all the flak the Bluebell gets about running diesels, I'd still take a bet that by the end of this year, we will have had more steam diagrams than nearly any other heritage line in the country.

Tom

 

Possibly, though if we follow the LTP and Sir Archie's repair is successful, we conceivably won't need another "giant" in traffic until around 2024-ish, and then it is a toss-up between 92240 and 21C123 - and of course, only one of those has a name and a vigorous supporters group!

It's true that we are running heavier trains (or, probably more accurately, running our biggest capacity train for more days each year). But when all is said and done, we are still limited to six coaches. Maybe by 2024 that will have grown to seven if the Sheffield Park platform extension has happened by then, but that is still the sort of load that is within the capacity of a Standard 4/5 - a 9F will just do it more easily (and probably a bit more sure-footedly in damp conditions).

Tom

 

Cant see how claiming one day as having a diesel gala.
Hardly going against the claims the bb isn't anti diesel.

Sent from my HTC Desire C using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

Tom,

Yesterday on the SVR we had 5 steam diagrams with no diesel in sight.
During the peak season there is a diesel diagram on Saturdays with a rolling roster for the diesels. In the fringe of season, the DMU is utilised with 2 steam diagrams.

 

I think he was being tongue in cheek! But on that day, there were 6 diesels running.

Tom

 

Not a gala as in the type other railways have. 3 locos on a charter and 3 shunting and on p way trains.
I think the bb missing out on extra income by not having such an event only 2-3 days out of 365 can't hurt even a mixed traction event is a start.

Sent from my HTC Desire C using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

If the 9F's so unpopular why dont they sell it ? Indeed others like 75027 and 80100 could raise quite good revenue at a time it's needed.

If they arent needed for the next 20 days (and 80100 has never been needed)..
From the sounds of it.. there going to spend more time degrading back to Barry condition then they did when they were at Barry.

 

Who said anything about those locos being unpopular? I simply made the point that locos such as Camelot - with an owning group - have a built-in financial advantage. On the other hand they aren't Bluebell owned, so even though relations are cordial with our associated owning groups, I can't see the railway ever taking a strategic decision to sell locos we already own, particularly not big ones, of which the railway only owns five (34059, 92240, 75027, 1638 and 80100).

In any case, on a line with 30 locos and a requirement for about 10 in service, every loco will on average spend 20 years out of service for every 10 in traffic. OK, that's an average, and some will spend more and some less. But the average is that every loco will spend more time out of traffic than in traffic. The current published strategy calls for only one of 34059, 21C123 and 92240 to be in traffic at any one time. Ergo, those locos are going to spend much of their lives not running. That doesn't mean they are not wanted.

The answer to the "Barry" problem is, as always, more undercover storage space - which is in the plan. Operation Undercover phase 1 was the carriage works extension, which was completed in 2003/4, which effectively enabled the old carriage works to be used for storage of the Mets, GN Saloon etc. Phase 2 was extension of the loco shed by one bay, and filling in the sides (up to then, the western side had been open to the elements). That was completed in 2006, and gives undercover storage for a bit less than half the loco fleet. Phase 3 was the Sheffield Park Carriage Shed, which was completed in about 2011, and provided space for another 17 bogie carriages - effectively the Pullmans, Maunsells and various pre-group bogie coaches that are used in regular service. Phase 4 is the major carriage shed planned for Horsted Keynes, big enough for 24 full-length vehicles, and which - when combined with the SP shed - will essentially enable all the Bluebell's pre-Mark 1 carriages to go under cover. Which leaves Phase 5, the large exhibits museum, which should put the remaining locos under cover along with various interesting bits of NPCS.

Tom

 

he also talked about younger people not remembering steam locos and being more interested in diesels

 

As I said, that day was never advertised at the time as a gala - I think Roy was being tongue in cheek.

Tom

 

Yes, possibly, though personally I remain to be convinced. My anecdotal impression is that the family market - which after all is our bread and butter - really wants steam haulage, even when they are far too young to remember steam in service. But I am sure the directors have rather more accurate market research data than I have access to on which to base their strategy!

In the end, a major factor will be our ability to continue to attract volunteers, and whether those volunteers are more or less attracted to the line on account of a particular motive power strategy. Same goes for any other line in the country.

Tom

 

I must confess I've always had a bit of a soft-spot for 75027, been a thoroughly reliable and steady old workhorse when called upon without ever really getting the recognition she deserved. I think not being either a namer or being a nice "Southern" classic, as alluded to above, has played a big part in that.

 

I'm sure her time will come. Even as a non-Southern loco, she has a very significant part in Bluebell history, being the first really "big" loco ever bought for the line, at a time when people thought the E4 or Dukedog were big, and who really needed anything much bigger than a Terrier anyway? How times have changed!

Tom

 

i dont think the Bluebell has planned loco-wise for the extension at all. in fact the current loco problems are a sorry state of not 'forward looking' or planning for the extension at all so far as the loco department and funding from the organization is concerned. without the hired in locos the Bluebell wouldnt be able to run a proper service at all at the moment. i think tom's comments are a bit of a gloss on reality - it is a fact that the met coaches were under cover for very many years, whereas other rolling stock has remained in the open for 30 plus years. the Bluebell needs to get a grip of these things and have a loco fleet (ideally owned by the Bluebell) capable of running the services required. not to do so is a recipe for disaster, which is a terrible shame for arguably one of the best UK preserved lines. i do hope things improve very soon and management have the sense to spend money on the locos, and perhaps buying in some locos for future use that meet the current requirements. that said, i'd happily contribute towards a new 13"/14" cylinder block for STEPNEY to ensure he continues in steam! i still think that the emphasis on the Bulleid pacifics is mis-placed as they will swallow up resources like shovelling coal into their fireboxes!
cheers,
julian

 

I really do not think that's fair, bad luck happens.

Without bad luck the line would currently be able to field 34059 and 9017 alongside the current line-up, which would be the equivalent of taking the 9F and Prairie out of the equation. The bad luck associated with problems with the main running fleet would also have meant 847 would be, if not ready, then certainly more of an early rather than late autumn finish. Maybe the powers that be did underestimate the power requirements, maybe they didn't. The fact is their best laid plans were blown out of the water, the recent weeks cannot have been prepared for by anyone without 20:20 hindsight, which you are utilising with abandon.

Don't forget the perilous state of the funding for the extension, and come the start of this year it was a lot more "now or never" than is readily apparent, so if funds had to be re-directed then so be it. As has been seen, the increased revenue and ability to build a large pot of money to spend on doing exactly what you suggest is available, and I'd rather rely on visiting engines and make-do for a couple of years for an excellent position two years from now than have a fleet of excellently restored engines right now running SP to HK for the foreseeable.

 

I think it is harsh on the bluebell management considering what has been achieved on the line after my first visit in many years I was impressed by the quality of the restoration of the station the carriage repair facility was very good all of which are essential to running a railway.
I do think they may have issue that need to be looked into when it comes to motive power I can not see the point in restoring locos that will not be able to operate the standard service train of mk1.
Also if would be hard to imagine a preserved steam line in the south of England with no Bullied locos as these are used successfully on the SVR NYMR areas they have no historical links to. The steeper part of the line leading up to east Grinstead is going to require larger locomotives and if passenger numbers increase longer trains may be required.

 

the Bluebell decided in their best wisdom to increase the gradient on the extension. what their reasoning was i dont know. they had a pretty chronic loco situation before the extension opened, but did nothing about it. that smacks of v bad management in my book. 34059 wasnt a surprise to me. lewis nodes' published statements reveal all. Bulleid pacifics are voracious coal consumers and have considerable technical issues which on ARCHIE someone took a gamble which didnt pay off. that isnt bad luck, A1X, that's bad management planning and cost cutting. Barry Scrapyard wreck yet the inner firebox wasnt properly examined and removed - hence the considerable delay and considerable extra cost. the Bulleids are very expensive locos to run on a preserved line. they are not ideal, neither do they fit in with the LBSCR character of the line that gives it so much charm. Horace May has a lot to answer for concerning the prohibition on acquiring bigger locos in the early 1960s, which arguable has plagued the Bluebell ever since. there are plenty of other Southern locos on other lines and part of the NRM yet the Bluebell has a knackered worn out Dukedog and lots of small locos that are only there coz of historical opportunity such as the ex-NLR Cromford 0-6-0T.

on the other hand the IW steam railway at Havenstreet has more locos than it needs, had lottery funding for the rebuilding of CALBOURNE's boiler, 2 new A1X boilers, and a wonderful fleet of genuine pre-grouping coaching stock to be kept over winter soon in a new lottery funded shed. ok you might get an austerity, but they are pretty well tuned up and turned out as one would expect from the Havenstreet staff, and a big Ivatt tank will be in steam in september/october!

the new cylinder block for STEPNEY or FENCHURCH on the Bluebell was sold to the Spa Valley line!!

Ruston906 ask to see the historical LBSCR Directors saloon and then see what you think of the 'carriage repair facilities'!

nuff sed!

cheers,
julian