Bluebell Motive Power

Julian

Have you read the accounts for the last five or six years? What exactly do you suggest should have been restored, given the money available for loco restoration? And don't forget, the extension was a "now or never" project, so don't just say "the donations raised for clearing the cutting should have gone instead into locos to work the new service" - if we'd done that, we'd have more locos, but there would be no line for them to run on, and no conceivable chance we would ever be able to open to EG! Given the options, and the fact that, before this year, income had been flat for six years (which means a real terms cut in revenue), I don't see what course would have been better. Yes, maybe we could have restored a bigger loco rather than a couple of smaller ones over the last few years - but that wouldn't have helped, as we would have run out of locos earlier... At least with the way things are now, we are in EG, have the increased revenue that the extension has generated, have no borrowing, and are still operating with steam, albeit hired. That's better in my book than not being in EG, still needing to rely on hired locos and not having the 30%+ increase in revenue we are currently experiencing which you seem to want.

As for covered storage - yes we need more, show me a line that doesn't. But it isn't quite true to say the Mets were under cover. Even they were outside for many years, to the extent that serious thought was at one point given to burning one of them. Since then we have managed (OU phase 1 and 3) to get the entire fleet of operational wooden coaches under cover; and OU4 will get all the non-operational wooden coaches under cover within the next few years. That's several million pounds of investment in storage facilities even while the extension project was going on. When OU4 is finished, it means that over a period of about 15 years from the beginning of the century, we have built or will have built storage facilities for nearly 60 vintage coaches.

I'm not saying things are perfect - they never are. But you seem to be looking for a line where the management has perfect foresight for many years ahead; where no locomotive fails in traffic unexpectedly; and most importantly, where the management is able to spend however much money they need, regardless of income. When you find that line, let me know and I'll join, as it sounds like a great place to be.

Tom

 

It looks as though you have aspirations to join the board Tom for this article?, the PLC must be very proud of you.

Regards
CW:

 

I agree with you entirely Tom, I was just disappointed to see your Chairman spouting this garbage which I thought had generally been disproved elsewhere.

 

Dear Julian and Tom,

Is it too easy to say I think you are both right? Yes there is a lot of covered accommodation nowadays. Yes too many resources are expended on Bulleid pacifics but the Bluebell is hardly unique here as a plethora (see dictionary definition of "plethora") survived into preservation almost accidentally.

I do feel that during the "extension period" the railway became fixated with its new bit of line and omitted to ensure the existing bit got its fair share of money and attention. Not surprising really and doubly so with the constraints upon time but I was shocked by how down at heel some aspects had become on my first trip to East Grinstead. Equally I was surprised and impressed to see how quickly some of these matters had been sorted on a return visit some time later.

Whether or not the spate of breakdowns comes from the same cause, like the great majority of correspondents here, I haven't the faintest idea. The multiplicity (I nearly said "plethora" again) of ownerships mitigates against a systematic overhaul programme though. Advocates of "ownership groups" say they produce a dynamic situation. My concern is that determination of which machine to overhaul can become less to do with which one suits the operating company's needs best than with which ownership group shouts the loudest.

Tom will know I disapprove of the "Atlantic" project for similar reasons as my doubts about spending resources on Bulleids. If those concerned are looking for a project after the H2 is done, then how about a Brighton E2? Sensible size, simple construction and with one overwhelming advantage. This was the prototype for Thomas the Tank Engine. Paint it blue and considerable income from charter work can be expected!

Paul H

 

Possibly not - it seems that the owners of the Thomas the Tank brand are determined to kill the goose which lays the golden egg, which is why increasingly railways are running non-Thomas themed children's events. Even the Bluebell no longer runs a Thomas weekend!

Increasingly it seems, it is the "Peter's Railway" series that is developing good, mutually beneficial relationships with a number of heritage lines, including but by no means exclusively the Bluebell

As for ownership, and more for everyone's interest than yours specifically - the Bluebell owns 20 of the 30-odd locos on the line, with a reasonable spread between the large, medium and small. Of the big locos (class 4 or above), the Maunsell Soc own four (847, 1618, 541 and 928), the Bulleid Soc one (21C123), the Camelot Soc (73082) one, the 80151 and 80064 groups own one each - the remainder (34059, 1638, 32424, 80100, 92240, 75027) are owned by the Bluebell.

Tom

 

Still makes five pressure groups plus others with smaller machinery. Potentially if not in practice the "four and twenty jarring sects" of the poem.

I do take your point about Thomas the Tank Engine. The same comment is made everywhere. Really, Thomas events should be sponsored by the owners of the brand and the situation could well change in future.

Paul

 

Ok, I'll bite. Perhaps it's just that Tom has poured his spare time, efforts and money into a railway that he's justifiably proud of, and he wants to stick up for it against constant sniping? True enough, the Bluebell isn't perfect, but neither is any railway. I, for one, can't blame Tom for giving a measured, sensible response, based on verifiable facts.

Ta

 

Longer trains will never be a consideration, at least not until the platforms at Sheffield Park and Kingscote have been extended!

ALso of the five biggest preserved lines in southern England only three are actually capable of handling a Bulleid. Although seeing one on Tenterden bank or pulling into Havenstreet might be interesting to say the least!

 

And all five groups have in the past put into service engines that have served the bluebell well with next to no investment from the railway itself. With the apparent exception of the 80064 group, all the groups listed continue to provide funding and labour above what the railway alone is able to provide. Without those groups, non of the larger engines that are likely to see service soon would be in service. Infact, if it wasn't for the Southern Mogul Group, who became the Maunsell Locomotive Society, we might not have any ex Barry locos on the Bluebell. That would leave 75027, 928 and 21C123 as the big engines.

Daniel

 

Ask to see an unrestored carriage as an example of the carriage restoration quality? Does that mean the various rusty locomotives stored up almost every headshunt in the country are an example of the quality of locomotive restoration on those lines?

Comparing to the Bluebell to the IoWSR is a fatuous analogy, the IoWSR has a short line with no prospect of extension, a much smaller fleet of both carriages and engines and a workshop dedicated to doing all the required work on site. You might as well say "well the GCR can give their engines a good long run, it's a clear example of the mismanagement of the NRM that they cannot do the same for their engines".

You clearly have an axe to grind here, although I wonder what it is you expect to achieve by posting poorly-written rants anonymously on the internet...

 

Finished?

Chris:

 

I don't criticise the Bluebell C&W in the slightest degree. It does splendid work. Compared with Haven Street, Horsted Keynes has nothing to be ashamed of although there are several standard gauge lines that should be so ashamed. I won't say which.

Where I do part company with A1X is his implication that it is in some ways easier for a smaller setup. The productivity at Haven Street is amazing and will improve further now the carriage shed is coming into use and annual (yes annual) re-varnishing is unlikely to be needed any more. A casual passenger boarding any IOWSR train at Smallbrook will experience a carriage turnout day in day out unequalled anywhere.

Paul H

 

The Atlantic project seems more than a little bit sensible to me, than building a tank locomotive for the express purpose of painting it in blue with a number one, when there are dozens of these littered around the UK in various forms and able to be hired at short notice...!

There's an element I think of highlighting the Bluebell's failings rather more so than we would have done sans the extension. There is no "perfect" preserved railway and things take time, money and effort to do (that we know perfectly well). Hindsight remaining a wonderful thing, I do not know at a glance how the Bluebell could have been expected to do better than they are? The new carriage shed at Sheffield Park is superb, the EG extension now opens up the possibility of charters, visiting locomotives by rail and more passengers by national rail too. These are all aspects of the preserved line which will bring in revenue on a weekly basis ad infinitum, which they would not have had before.

 

Forgive me but you seem to be suffering from "big chufferitis", a regrettably widespread condition which is costly to treat! I thought suggesting that a replica "Thomas" be made would raise indignation and it did, so it seems. Please forgive me for my tease!

An E2 would, Thomas the Tank engine apart, be a sensible prototype for southern England (they worked all over the place) but railway preservationists seem determined to have the railway equivalent of a square rigger when all they really need is a sailing dinghy.

Paul H

 

On the contrary Mr Hitch, I wonder why you say that. I don't see the need to build a new E2 if you what you want is a working "Thomas". There's plenty coverted up and down the country without resorting to a costly new build. The Atlantic project is a mixture of recycling and new build so it stands on its merit, apart from filling a gap in railway preservation. Why build a locomotive to be Thomas - new build - if there are dozens already converted to look like him?

Regarding a Billinton E2 proper, no doubt it would be of some merit for the south of England, but arguably the E4 already preserved is a better and more useful prototype to show the Billinton development of locomotives. "They worked all over the place" - did they? Dover, Chatham and Victoria for short periods, and eventually six or seven (off the top of my head) sent to Southampton docks to work out the rest of their existence? There were only ten examples built in the first place, five of which sported the extended tanks. They were nowhere near as numerous as other Southern region tank engines no longer in existence either, nor as wide spread.

If there was a business case for a new Thomas, building a new Billinton E2 doesn't strike me as being the best way to go (where conversions of existing tank engines have proven successful and popular) and a new Billinton E2 good and proper doesn't strike me as showcasing either the best, most efficient or most useful example of a tank locomotive from the southern region.

There is as far as I am aware, absolutely nothing left of an E2 in preservation (the nearest relative is the E4), so it has to be built entirely from scratch, as per Tornad. The Atlantic project at the very least reuses components already existing, including one of the biggest and arguably most expensive components - the boiler. So how exactly is a new build Billinton E2 more worthy than a very reputable exercise in both recycling and building anew?

I wonder why you are so against the Atlantic project when your own suggestion seems to be a bit out of kilter with your own prognosis. As they say, each to their own.

 

I bet to differ, due the gradient created in the Imberhorne area now, the Bluebell has found itself in the situation where most of the tanks and a few of the smaller tender types are underpowered to shift load 6 to East Grinstead, while they will no doubt come in for shorter/lighter services, they are not the "bread and butter" services for the line if you like.

75027 was mentioned earlier, that's probably the most suitable loco they have now, with more fuel capacity than the tank equivalent.

 

Let me indulge in this little contest before hopefully at least gaining Paul H's agreement that it isn't necessary a great bet to win (least for the Railway involved!).

In theory, the NYMR has 3 steam diagrams off peak (of between 67 and 84 miles duration), 4 shoulder peak (between 43 and 72 miles) and 4 peak (72 or 108 miles each). This totals around 600 main season steam diagrams.

However, in looking at our costs, one of my colleagues who is probably one of the leading timetabling and diagramming experts recently retired from the National Network pointed out that quite rightly that costs are driven by diagrams - each diagram means steaming a loco (no small cost in terms of coal - especially for a large, wide firebox loco), having a set of stock to use and finding the train crew to staff it. Hence, if you can deliver the service with fewer diagrams, the number of locos and crews needed and "sunk" costs such as steaming a loco from cold are saved.

I suspect all heritage railways run trains of thin air (instead of passengers) to some extent and we could all do to be more vicious in asking whether a train filled to 20% or less of capacity is hugely worthwhile. It is not an easy debate - ensuring that a diagrammed day's work is interesting and rewarding enough to attract volunteers to do it is a very basic question we all must ask - but I suspect many of us "could do better" in this regard.

Steven

 

I agree there are a large number of locos under a class 3 which are not going to be able to cope with 6 mark 1 up that gradient and this is the rake with the disability coach in I assume this is used on the one train service.
The fact that larger locos cost more to run is going to be of set by the 30% increase in passenger number.
As usual for a preserved railway of this size the ideal loco is a standard 4 tank but there are not enough of these around so compromises have to be made and that may be using a loco larger than is needed.I don't think double heading is the way to go as it required more crews and a larger pool of locos working to run the service.
I stand by the comments on coach restoration the met coaches are great internally and outside.

 

But you have more than most and have none that work.....