Bluebell Motive Power

There is a plan to restore it, after 84030. And as it's the only one of the three P4 tanks that is railway owned, it makes sense to keep hold of it.

 

I'm confused by the last two posts - by 88100 I thought the writer meant 80100, not a P class loco, and I was under the impression that the third P is currently being worked on!

 

Sorry! Should have made myself clearer. P4 is a sometimes used (Southern specific) informal name for a BR Class 4 tank. In keeping with the Southern tradition of a class designation of a letter followed by a number.

 

The Fairburn tanks, and the 80xxx tanks that followed, were sometimes called P4s down here, especially on the central division (ex-LBSCR). I believe when the Fairburns were introduced, platforms had P4 painted on them to show the stopping point relative to the water crane. I think the name is a simple reversal of 4P to fit the Brighton tradition of letter plus number class names; when the 80xxx tanks were introduced, they kept the name as they were so similar.

As for a plan to loan out 80100 for overhaul by another railway - that's a new one on me. The next Standard tank to be overhauled will be 80151.

Tom

 

Thanks for the date on 88100. I was hoping there was a plan for the loco. But the idea I heard about the loco being leased did seem another way to seeing the loco steam again in the next five to ten years and the BB still had ownership of the loco. I wonder if other railways or groups have considered leasing unrestored loco to other groups with the aim to seeing the loco steam again within their life time. It doesn't seem a bad idea to me.

 

We discussed it upthread in relation to the Dukedog, but the principal is the same. It would be very hard to cost, and almost certainly not in the interest of the railway taking on the loan, at least not without financial or component support from the donor. The one example I can think of is the East Somerset Railway who are overhauling the IoWSR's Ivatt tender engine in exchange for a loan period of running, but they are being supported by the IoWSR AFAIK - financially, they aren't doing it all on their own.

Tom

 

In Dick Riley's book Brighton Line Album, there's a picture of a Fairburn tank at Sheffield Park, and "P4" painted on the platform edge. The text accompanying the picture confirms Matt35027's comment - all three pre-grouping Southern companies used the letter/number system for classifying locomotives, so "4P" became "P4" - at least on the former LBSCR system. I must admit, I didn't know that the 80xxx tanks were also called "P4"s - after all, they were originally 4MTs, not 4Ps. Still, that one of the pleasures of this forum - its members provide a wealth of information I never knew from elsewhere (as another example, I never realised that the Drummond 8-wheel "watercart" tenders were actually bogie tenders until someone mentioned it on a thread here.) Mind you, what practical use it is to know such facts is another matter, but it's still quite fascinating.

 

The thing to factor in about 80100 is that it is the only standard tank which is owned by the Bluebell, the others are owned by third parties and, as ever, there is always a risk they may choose to go elsewhere, however unlikely it may appear. I have heard rumours of it being tackled by the 84030 team once that's completed, but we're looking end of this decade for that at best I'd wager.

I've also heard talk that it might actually be an easier turnaround than 80064, but how true that is is open to debate.

 

Has anything much happened with 84030? Last week, the frames, at least, seemed no different from the last time I was at Sheffield Park ( last year). As a matter of interest, some bits were fastened with UNC bolts. Do the Bluebell mix'n'match BSW, UNC & metric on their locos?

 

And then there's 45212, which has been the subject of two 'restore and run' agreements.

 

Not a project I am very close to, but the latest updates are collected here (most recent was August this year).

http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/loco_news/oh_84030.html

As for the bolts - pass, I'm afraid.

Tom

 

If 80064 was to be overhauled in replace of 88100 what's the point in keeping 88100. The loco arrived at the BB back in 1978 which isn't far off forty years ago. Every year that goes by the bigger the overhaul bill will become and I would think there would be less chance in seeing the loco steam again. I understand about the easier option but surely we shouldn't always look at the easy option. If that was the case the early pioneers wouldn't of taken on some of our preserved railways we have today and if you think about it we wouldn't have 60163 Tornado gracing the main line if people took the easier option.

 

This is the point:

Keith

PS: It's 80100 not 88100!

 

While on the subject, what's happening with 80064 ?, seems to have been static for years and (without hard searching at least) no plans for that to change anytime soon.

 

Its privately owned.

 

The flaw in this plan though, is the assumption that there would be another line ready and willing to take on the restoration of a loco that doesn't even belong to them in the first place. Most of the lines with the resources and funding to do this have got queues of their own engines ready to restore. The lines that would most have the need of a spare Standard 4 are likely to be the ones without the funding or resources to do this quickly.

The KWVR black five is a different situation because Riley was specifically after a 5, and had the work, funding and facilities to overhaul it.

I think the idea that 'if you aren't going to overhaul it in 5 years you should let somebody else do it' is nearly always a fallacy-it will only work if there is a group wanting restore it, who have the finance that the first line don't.

 

Thanks, But what I mean is, are there any plans for it that are known, or is the owner keeping his cards close to his chest so to speak ?.

 

Actually David it is owner(s), and that and the fact that the owners are getting on a bit to say the least are the stumbling blocks and nobody can agree.

I also suspect that some of the owners have passed on by now.

Regards
CW:

 

Didn"t 80064 used to be at Buckfastleigh many moons ago or am i thinking of another locomotive.

 

It certainly did, it originally visited the Bluebell in the 1980s (part of the 30th anniversary of closure I believe, the line wanted a standard tank to play 80154 for a while) and came back a few years later on a more permanent basis. Don't think it has ever run though after it returned.