Bluebell Railway General Discussion

Why.....

 

Oh and am sober......just drinking a milky coffee....

 

So you think Bernard would rather have seen the railway close or run a skeleton service than use a diesel, do you?

I still firmly believe in pragmatism over sentimentality myself.

 

I thing pragmatism is the only way which is the view the board looks to have taken all other railways use a diesel on thunderbird duties or if they don't have enough steam locos to cover the trips. There is no outrage when this is done on the SVR or NYMR people except it is better to do this then cancel train.

 

hi Ruston906,
for more years than i care to remember the Bluebell prided itself in having a policy of all passenger trains being steam hauled. this was one of the things that made the Bluebell special and unique among the preserved railways. it was also something that Bernard Holden took great pride in. whether these things matter in the overall scheme of things im not sure, other than i personally wont ride behind a diesel loco. i understand the reasons for the problems the Bluebell is currently experiencing, but im sad that these problems have occurred and i know that if Bernard was still alive he would share my views. i know that a lot of fellow Bluebell members share these views. i have supported the Bluebell in many ways for very many years and will continue to do so. but i do feel sad about this month. hopefully things will improve very soon. i know the workshop staff are working very very hard and sorting things out.
cheers,
julian

 

Have the Bluebell created their own problems? In order to save money by not removing all of the tip, they are now putting a strain on the very elderly steam locomotives that they use to run most of the services. Was enough thought given to this prior to the decision to leave a mini Lickey incline at Imberhorne?

 

What choice did the Bluebell have though?
I'm sure they would have loved to have removed the whole tip and restored the line to it's original condition, but with the forthcoming changes to the waste disposal laws, and the funds available, they undoubtedly did the best they could.
After the effort put in to restore the link, people should really stop carping on and allow the Bluebell some time to consolidate their position.

 

As other posters have mentioned, the decision to only remove so much waste from the cutting floor was one taken with time, money, and legislative changes in mind, and even if resources were diverted from motive power expenditure to finish the job, they must have thought it a balanced decision. If nothing else, passenger numbers appear to justify the effort.
Maybe now is the time to be booking a longish term class 4 or 5 loco for the 2014 season while they are hopefully available, and spending the winter pressing on with as much loco overhaul as they can.
I recall some years ago the Severn Valley being down to just one 0-6-0 tank for a period one summer, due in that instance to water supplies causing havoc with boilers. The SVR came through that and lives on in strength, as will the Bluebell.

46118

 

It's sentimentality that fuelled the heritage railway movement in the first place. If pragmatism ruled when it all started, nothing would have got off the ground.
The Bluebell is currently between a rock and a hard place and will have to do whatever is necessary to run a service. This does not mean however that Bernard would have been happy with a diesel service.

 

I have seen a post elsewhere which compares train loadings SP to Kingscote with Kingscote to EG. (can't seem to find it at the moment) and the only significantly affected loco was the H. The ruling gradients over the line as a whole are fairly steep anyway.

The real issue Bluebell have is sucess not gradients. Opening to EG has swelled passenger numbers meaning longer trains are needed and hence larger locos.

It is a shame that the reiance on steam has had to be pragmatically reduced. Members were made aware in the Bluebell News (member for over 30 years) that there would need to be a period of consolidation folowing the opening to EG. Perhaps we are all expecting too much too soon from a railway which has had to proritise to achieve a core goal.

Loco failures are not a new thing. The SVR Gala (working member) has been remodelled to compensate for the failure of 70000, 777 and now 850. These things happen. An organisation shows its strength by how it copes and i am confident both Bluebell and SVR will cope.

 

With one loco on long term loan (34053) and one loco on short term loan (5643) at the moment.

 

How in the past have Bluebell handled short term loco failures? Although a member for many years have not visited when there has been a failure. For example finding a leaky tube on lighting up. With no time to prepare another loco did they cancell, run with the leak or have lit up a spare loco every running day?

I know failures happen close to train times. Working an SVR service the allocated loco was borrowed at Bewdley for a Bridgenorth failure as we could be rescued by a 20 from Kidderminster. We were late but the train did run and I did not get complaints from passengers.

 

I do actually think we should belt up now and let the Bluebell sort itself out. However there are two things that need to be said, one Bluebell specific and one not.

Firstly did the Bluebell's "nothing but steam including shunting" era have a part to play in increasing wear and tear to a degree which was not realised by those in charge?

Secondly (and here the Bluebell are far from unique) the more that has to be spent on hiring locomotives and now carriages, the less there is available to spend on bringing the "home team" up to scratch.

PH

 

A little of topic but for anyone interested I've just finished a set of slide scans from a photo charter back on 22/2/2005 with the E4 in lined black. Here is the link - https://picasaweb.google.com/105454...bellRailway2222005?authuser=0&feat=directlink

Cheers

 

Very true Paul - I can have sympathy with the first comment and wholeheartedly endorse the second - thinking that "hire it all in" is the answer can lead to a realisation not just that it isn't but also that you have to take some unpalatable decisions to break the vicious cycle thereby created a few years down the line. I say that not as a criticism of the Bluebell (as I don't know enough of the line's circumstances to presume to comment) but as a general truth.

Steven

 

It was a surprise to me, as a non member, just how much I resented seeing diesels scattered round the place last time I visited. I remember thinking that they could at least have been stuffed away on a siding somewhere out of sight.

Whilst pragmatically and practically I accept the near necessity, emotionally and illogically it detracted significantly from the visit.

 

Seems my wish came true.

 

The real problem is that the bluebell dont have enough larger engines in ticket for their needs, most engines that were restored back 10 -15 years ago used up the residue life from their last overhauls before withdrawal, and now need far more work and the cost goes up, add into this that any funds the railway had would have been put into the extension, so i would guess that loco repairs were put off or patched up, to see them out till a full overhaul could be done . whilst previously 2 small engines might have got them by, you cant expect the P classes or terrier to slog them selves to bits on the extended service .

 

One thing some people are forgetting is the dodgy batch of stay bolts that have affected the return to traffic of a number of locos and not just on the Bluebell. AFAIK the S15 would already have been back in traffic had it not been for this problem.