Bluebell Motive Power

I think you are making too much of the gradient - it's had less practical impact than you might imagine.

For example, the C class was previously limited to 150 tons to Kingscote, and now it is limited to 140tons to EG. But in practical terms, that meant four coaches before, and four coaches now - in other words no difference. Similarly, the P class locos are limited to two vintage bogie coaches to EG - but that was essentially their limit to Kingscote as well, since the allowable 70 ton limit before wasn't enough for three. It is probably only the H class that has in actual practical terms had its limit reduced by a coach.

So - the reason you aren't seeing the C class on four coach trains at the moment is nothing to do with the gradient, and everything to do with the 30% or more increase in passengers meaning we need 6 coach trains right now! So has the character of the line changed? Yes, but it is extra passengers that has led to that change, not steeper gradients - we were always a hilly line.

Everyone would be well advised to re-read Beancounter's post about how a considerable part of the cost of running a heritage railway is fixed, not variable. Look around the railway at the moment and see just how much visible work is going in to things such as repairs to buildings - there's scaffolding everywhere at the moment as the railway catches up on deferred maintenance. All of those expensive repairs going on at Sheffield Park, visible as you walk up station drive, would cost the same whether the train on the other side of the booking hall was the C class with four coaches, or the 9F with six - but they are a lot more affordable if you have six coaches-worth of passengers!

Tom

 

Tom: Barring a winter of diverting "overhaul" resources to maintaining the existing running fleet, where are you likely to be motive power-wise by say next Easter? What do you expect back in service with reasonable certainty?

46118

 

Right, hostage to fortune time:

Large:
847
92212

Medium:
592
263
L150

Small:
178
323
55
3

By spring 2015, you can probably add 73082 and 541 and possibly 34059 to the large list, and remove 92212 and L150.

Tom

 

Somewhere in the mix there, something may happen with B473 and 1638, both of which are classed as stopped, rather than awaiting overhaul.
Daniel

 

I do not understand the bluebell policy on locomotive haulage weights.
140 tonnes for a C class? That is featherweight, is it that knackered that it can't handle more than that?

I understand people saying we don't want to overload things but thats barely asking it to pull its own weight around.

30053 at Swanage hauls 5 coaches without problem and when asked to works 6. Gradients are similar and loadings are more than the Bluebell.
The locomotive does not suffer from this treatment and is a reliable performer, it in fact worked 28 days recently without much more than routine maintence.
Yet we see the Bluebell in the middle of a motive power crisis double heading trains which in the right hands, either locomotive would be able to handle without a problem.
The H tank should be more than capable of it, it has smaller wheels that the M7 and the O2 on the island handles 5 Bogies with out any problems at all.

 

Firstly, you're falling into the trap of assuming all coaches are the same. "Five bogies" on the Island is probably about 140 tons (assuming 28 tons for a vintage bogie carriage). That's not the same as five coaches being maybe 175 - 180 tons, if you assume Mark 1s. Our H class regularly pulls seven coaches on the Bluebell without any problems - but that doesn't mean much if I don't tell you which coaches!

Secondly, do the physics on gradients. Steepest gradient on the Bluebell is 1:55. On the Swanage it is (AFAIK - I stand to be corrected) someting like 1:77.

So, C class with 140 tons load, 82 tons loco and tender. Up a 1:55 that gives (140+82)*2240/55 lbs drag simply due to gravity = just over 9000lbs simply to avoid being pulled backwards down the hill.

An M7 weighs 60 tons. So assume a five coach load of, say, 180 tons (allowing for Mark 1s). Up a 1:77 gradient that gives a gravitational load of (180+60)*2240/77 = just under 7000lbs.

In other words, the C class pulling 140 tons up a 1:55 is working considerably harder than an M7 pulling 180 tons up a 1:77.

Even if the M7 pulls 6 coaches (say 215 tons), the gravitational load is still only 8000lbs [[ (215+60)*2240/77 ]] - so an M7 with six Mark 1s on is still working less hard than our C class pulling 4!

Tom

 

Ah, I see the situation more clearly now, so it appears I have being making to big a deal of gradient, especially since I hadn't really considered the rest of the gradients on the line, and that they aren't exactly easy inclines either, whoops! Well thanks for making it clearer to me Tom, much appreciated.

I do have a couple more question though, if you don't mind. Firstly, what is the load limit for the Terriers and the H Class, and secondly, if you do in the end increase the length of your coach sets to seven, as is often mentioned, what work would that entail (i.e. which stations would require platform extensions, etc.) to achieve it.

 

On the extension of platforms: East Grinstead was built to cope with seven coach trains; Kingscote was extended when it was restored in the early 1990s; Horsted Keynes are already long enough, so that leaves Sheffield Park. It's not a completely simple project. Firstly, by extending north (there is no room to the south) you start to get towards the river, which has both environmental concerns and also will probably require building up the ground levels. Secondly, there are signalling issues. To extend north, the starter signals have to move (and the water column, for that matter!) but that probably means moving the down home to maintain clearance; in turn the gap between the home and up advanced starter will need extending to fit a seven coach train plus loco; that pushes the advanced starter back but that means probably moving the down outer home to maintain a suitable clearance. All of those signal moves also need moves to the breaks between track circuits. So a lot of work! There is also contained within the LTP the desire to reinstate the north signal box; and a footbridge at the north end of platform. So I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of programme that joins all three projects, because there are dependencies between them.

As for load limits: The H class is currently allowed 135 tons I think. (Worth remembering that the H is considerably smaller than the C class - it has the boiler from an O1). I don't think we have a load limit for a Terrier over the extension. Stepney is effectively on special measures with a limit that is defined by the condition of the loco, not the notional haulage power. And Fenchurch wasn't running when the extension opened, so I don't think there is a limit. But based on what went before, it is likely to be about 10 tons more than a P class.

Tom

 

As far as I understand it, the 6 coach length is limited only by the platforms at Sheffield Park, Horsted Keynes can I believe cope with & coaches, and Kingscote had its platforms lengthened before we opened to there in 1994. Infact if I recall correctly, we can actually pass 14 coach trains at Kingscote, although only 7 coaches would be within theplatforms. East Grinstead has been built to 7 coach length. Of course, the problem at Sheffield Park isn't just the platform length, but the signalling positions that will need to be moved too. Lengthening the platforms will probably come after the signalling rebuild and relocation of the signal box from the platform where it was placed by the Southern Railway in an early economy drive.
Daniel

 

The Bluebell is not 1:55 for much at all and its not something to say really, it is an average of 1:75 with various undulations and lots of downhill in one direction.
Of course I wasn't assuming that all coaches weigh the same.

Swanage has a brief period of 1:52 followed by an average of 1:76 with climbs in both directions to Harmans Cross.

Whatever maths you like to play with, 5 Coaches would not test the C class too much and 6 you would just need a good crew on.
If this was BR I can tell you now any shedmaster would have put a C out on 5 or 6.
I would be more than happy to take her out on that load, safe in the knowledge I wouldn't be damaging her.

 

But then you're not the one either doing or paying for the maintenance for it to run heavier loads and thus incurring more wear and tear

 

You standard gauge lot are namby pamby! Think mile of 1 in 29 with multiple check railed reverse curves (W&LLR) Or Welsh Highland with its umpteen miles of 1 in 40. Both would think "Huh!" about 1 in 52 and the size of motive power deemed necessary to haul modest loads thereon.

Cynical me shares Disraeli's oft quoted thoughts about statistics and wonders whether there is a widespread attempt to justify the use of big chuffers on the standard gauge because certain people like playing with them. The bean counters really do need to get a grip on this.

PH

 

Lightweight stock hauled by Garrats, equivalent to double heading and you can cope with 1 in 40

 

If this goes on, you'll be advising we use a single P class on a six coach rake of mark 1s, right up to the point when the force that can be applied to the rail is mathematically incapable of overcoming gravity's pull - at which point we go sliding to a crumpled heap in Kingscote...

The C class is a BR class 2, with about 19,000lbs of TE, and it needs to exert just about half that figure on the rail simply to maintain speed hauling a modest 140-ton train up our gradients. 007 might know a BR shedmaster that would send one out with a 220+ ton load on a 1:55 gradient, but I'd be surprised, even with the repair resources of Ashford to support rapid maintenance as things wore out.

Also worth noting that on our Chatham engines, when run at their maximum load at 25mph, the injector just keeps up with the boiler on the 1:75, but a single injector doesn't keep up on the 1:55. Not a problem, but that suggests to me that we are running them pretty close to the steaming capacity they were designed to run at: had they been designed to run harder, they'd have put bigger injectors on them! But I'd be doubtful the boiler would keep up with the steaming rate of running a lot harder than we do.

Tom

 

Wot yer needs is Lempor (with associated spark arrestor). It can be fitted into a traditional chimney with some loss of theoretical efficiency.

Paul H

 

Tom - cant agree more. Also even if the injectors did perform you risk running short of water between stations. By the way is Horsted water still banned?

Incidentally the heavyest Mk1 I have recorded is W1667, an RB, at 39ton

 

Stuff the bean counters. The only way Heritage railways survive is the volunteers and the donors - in other words the enthusiasts. There may be one or two tourist railways that can survive without enthusiasts, but for the rest, keeping the enthusiasts interested is vital. It's the enthusiasts who want more than the minimum sized locos on the maximum sized trains on the shortest lines possible. They want as much line as they can get running a mix of loco sizes from small to pretty darn huge and trains to suit. Will the railways all go bust if the enthusiasts are catered for? maybe, maybe not, depends how much the enthusiasts are prepared to put in, but you can bet that will be a lot less for a boring railway than for a railway with ambitions.

It seems that your guiding principles are ;-

Control heritage railways centrally, in order to -

Reduce duplicated effort both in stock building and renovation, and in locations, together with -

Reducing line lengths to the minimum for a viable service and reducing loco sizes to the minimum and the trains to the maximum for those locos.

So, Nationalise, Rationalise and Minimise.

Sound suspiciously like the story of British Railways for at least 40 years from 1947 - and look where that got them......

 

Lplus - Nail. Head. Hit. The greatest threat to heritage railways is not using a Black 5 when a Jinty will do, it's failing to encourage sufficient new volunteers.

 

Can't really compare narrow gauge, plenty of whose stock is capable of being shunted by hand, basically being all wood bar the frames.

I suspect the small/medium sized loco's will come back into usefulness when the motive power situation eases, on busier days it could be an option to run an additional 2nd or 3rd short formed train in addition to 1/2 six coach rakes.

 

I suspect there may be a couple of exceptions, but most heritage railways the enthusiasts amongst their fare paying passengers as between 10% and 20%. Given the narrowness of the margins, that is still as vital as the non-enthusiast balance, but if you "stuff the Bean-counters" (and those who know me will say I look more than adequately stuffed as it is!), you "stuff the Railway" just as much as if you "stuff the engineers". In fact, going bust could be a quicker way to stop a Railway than infrastructure failure or lack of locos.

If your assumption is that all volunteers are enthusiasts, that is an interesting debate. An interest in and appreciation of Railways is probably important for volunteers, but I have always felt that the most loyal volunteers would make poor avid enthusiasts as their commitment to their railway would preclude much in the way of attending events and other Railways. For example, I have probably visited one other UK Railway in the past year and not done a Railtour for years. That said, for many volunteers, being a part of a heritage railway is probably an aim to experience being part of the past. "Authenticity" matters, but it is also a worthwhile organisation to be be part of - a "family" and often a source of both paid and pleasure, but also a source of friendship and strength in times of trouble, whether Railway related or not.

I suspect much of this can also apply to donors - some love an individual Railway, others all things Railways, many a specific aspect - the donor to a coach appeal would never consider helping a loco overhaul or extension, for example.

Of course, this doesn't mean that all enthusiast/volunteers like big locos - I can think of one driver I know who always prefers the challenge of a smaller loco. "Being part of the past" may well mean smaller locos of the type that would have run on the line in BR days. Something different, big or otherwise, can be an attraction but I would actually say that use of larger locos tends to come from what is available or, commercially, perception of public appeal (and that perception is often correct).

One of the strengths of the heritage railway sector is it means many things to many people and can be all things to all men at many times. I see people ask whether a Railway is a museum, a means of transport, a living history group, a "theme park" or a means of exploring the area it runs through, as though it can be only one. My answer is "all of the above"!

That may mean running the right big locos, accepting the extra costs but realising they are there and that extra income is needed - be it from longer trains, being able to attach a dining option or the appeal to more passengers of the big loco - from them running.

Railways who always run over-sized locos on trains with a couple of passengers per coach on every trip will hit difficulties but use of a "star guest" on a longer than normal train should be able to produce a return - or why do? Railways also probably need to over-size their motive power a little to ensure that they can always cope with the load, don't cause havoc by stalling in poor rail-head conditions and aren't permanently having the last ounce of power beaten out of them, but just running big locos, if others are available, because other people do it is probably not permanently sustainable!

Steven