Bluebell Motive Power

Ahhh fair enough, it further says in the caption that the loco wasn't universally welcomed by the S&D staff which was no surprise given the frosty relationship between the S&D and GWR. But it's still a cracking photo of the Castle storming away from Bath back to London with the green coaches in tow. So no reason a Castle can't come to the Bluebell now lol

 

Oh dear! I should have know better than to mention the GWR on this thread - guaranteed to stir up a hornet's nest!

I don't think Great Western fans have done too badly in the last 12 months as far as the Bluebell is concerned - 3650, 3205 and 5521/L150 have all done a stint.

However, when it comes to outside-cylindered engines, I watched 5199 pass through Kingscote station when stepped in to help out with a motive power shortage in 2008, and to my eyes, it looked to be a pretty tight fit. Never mind the problems of anything with a copper cap trying to run through to EG via the Oxted line, would any outside-cylindered GWR tender engine actually be able to run on the Bluebell itself?

 

Aren't the Castles less wide over the cylinders than a Hall? I think 5043 has gone places her two cylinder stable mates haven't been able to.

 

GWR?

G...W...R..?

What fresh hell is this?

I agree with the up thread comments on the B1, K1 and K4, be good to see them down south of the Thames for once.

Of course with precedent on the Brighton line there was a famous visit by a certain A3 back in the 1960s. Is she that much bigger than Tornado?

 

Before my time, but we've had the K4 before haven't we (mid 90s?). Not that I'm saying it wouldn't be nice to have it again!

 

I think so, but you would need to talk to the Tyseley people for a definitive answer on that. 5043 has been substituted for 4965 on this Saturday's trip to Ely, but Ben Mason of VT has stated that it is because "There is an issue with Hall-class locos in the gauging computer that we are working to rectify. Unfortunately, we will not have the hiccup resolved in time to clear the Hall for this route." - in other words. the issue is the gauging computer rather than the Hall being less gauge-friendly than a Castle, at least on this particular route.

Someone at the Bluebell (not sure who it was, but he seemed to know his stuff) did tell me that the Castles from 5013 onwards would be able to run on the Bluebell. but 5043 (and 7029, when ready) would only appear at the head of a railtour, which quite apart from raising issues about clearances north of EG, is extremely unlikely on the grounds that Vintage Trains tend to start their trips at Birmingham and are not keen on the sort of mega-long day needed to get to Sussex and back. That leaves 5029 which, like other Jeremy Hosking engines, would mosy likely be allowed to run on a heritage line, but only an NR-conected line (i.e., no low loader) so again, we're back to that tight clearance under the Redhill- Tonbridge line, and probably a few other places too. When 5043 ran to Salisbury via Basingstoke in April, it had a number of extra speed restrictions imposed on it due to tight clearances that do not apply to any other engine.

 

Castles are narrower over the cylinders that Halls, Manors are supposedly the biggest issue for gauging as being similar to Halls in 2 large outside cylinders, they hang at a different height.

Was Reading - Redhill a LSWR line ? (unsure without looking it up), they needed pretty large clearances themselves for certain types (witness gauging issues with Sir Lamiel today), the LBSCR origin of the Bluebell is a different story.

 

Do you mean 2013 as in the year rather than 5013 the Castle ?, I don't recall any major dimension changes in the frames/cylinders during the classes production run.

 

They will just have to adjust the platforms on the Bluebell , so 4079 fits, 4079 should hopefully return to service it 2015 ( and hopefully will be allowed to travel by low loader).

 

Ex-SER and then SECR, remarkably enough - a long straggly incursion by the South Eastern into South Western territory (it was SECR, but with LSWR running powers, from Wokingham to Reading).

Did mean that those GWR men at Reading could peep over the fence and see some proper engines, though...

Tom

 

Very curious it had sufficient clearances to allow Manors of all things then with those origins, presumably the superior toys over the fence proved too much temptation to resist

 

Yes we have indeed - October-November 1996

I'm only repeating what I was told, but I wasn't aware of any changes to 5013 and onwards either.

 

Yeah, ten minutes on the naughty step for that one...

Tom

 

5013 was a significant number in Castle production terms, seems unlikley to be a typo. There were the dished rather than joggled frames that came in with 4093 (other than the Abbeys), and 5013 on had the fire iron tunnel and slightly different *inside* cylinders, plus were built with the HB boiler with different water spaces, but ignorant as I am of the technical details I don't see that affecting gauging... In practice I suppose when we talk about pre 5013 castle in practice it just means Pendennis as Caerphilly is unlikely to come out and play.

AIUI the Redhill line was regularly used by GWR locos so presumably there were contracts involved and they were required to maintain it to the GWR loading gauge.

 

That's what I mean Jim, the class had modifications like any other, but can't think of any that affected width.

 

As Tom said Reading - Redhill was SER who arguably had the tightest loading gauge of the constituents of the Southern. For example LSW King Arthurs didnt work SER section as the SER alocated ones were smaller especially over the cab. Was it more a case of using locos which fitted rather than a larger loading gauge. There is a picture in the Mitchell and Smith book Guildford to Redhill of Mogul 6302 in Guildford where the clearance between platform and cylinders look measurable with a green rizla.

 

Going by the sounds of it there could be some GWR steam on the Bluebell next year beyond L150 and 9017 although not along the lines of a Manor, Hall, Castle etc thats being suggested above but one of the 0-6-2 'Taffy' Tank engines. Seems to have come up on the Bluebell Facebook page yesterday although its still subject to change.

 

I think you're making the assumption that the whole of the SER was maintained to the same loading gauge, and from what I understand that may be a brave assumption.

It doesn't seem unlikely to me that the contractual arrangements which must have existed between SR and GWR would have had clauses about gauging. Presumably, as 43s and Manors seem to have neen mainly used, there were also weight restrictions.

And we do know there were at least two structure gauges on the SER because of the Hastings line fraud.

 

5643 and 5619 are on hire to the SVR and NNR respectively at the moment, but certainly the arrangement with 5643 lasts only until the New Year. I've no idea about 5619.

It this is true, it really would amount to a 56xx takeover of the Southern, with 6695 at Swanage and 6619 on the K&ESR!