Bluebell Motive Power

Yes, that's my feeling (about Martello) and why I think Stepney is probably in the lead by now.

I suspect Stepney's tanks and tank covers are probably original - they certainly still have the blanking plates and holes in them from when the condensing gear was removed. (See e.g. http://www.onlineweb.com/rail/photos/bluebell_railway_2011/P1070011s.jpg - not my photo). Compare with Martello (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WDzpveFz0gk/TIzJ3oPSHcI/AAAAAAAAAZY/dLJfi0IQ8m8/s1600/662 HarmansCross 11Sep10 b web.jpg - also not my photo) which makes me think Martello has at the very least had replacement tank covers in comparatively recent times.

Tom (by the way - not James!)

 

I wonder what, if any, records were kept of engine milages at the KESR in the old days? Bodiam was there for not far short of 50 years before entering BR stock, and although there was a lengthy period out of serivce in the 1930s, it must have racked up more milage than Fenchurch I'd have thought.

 

I understand your point of view, but...

Boxhill and Waddon have already been stuffed and mounted in mechanically as-withdrawn condition, and are likely to remain so for all time. Therefore, one might ask: is it really necessary to "conserve" a third A1X? Would she really be any use to the Bluebell as a static exhibit? Why not just make a thorough photographic record of the existing frames - perhaps even create a digital 3D scan as was done for Penrhyn's Winifred - and then scrap them and replace them? Some might say I'm thinking the unthinkable, but really, what good is a set of scrap-condition frames to anyone? If we kept everything the world would be drowning in junk!

On the other hand, knowing that 488 is likely to need some major renewals at her next overhaul, I'd be all for collecting up whatever bits are removed. Once enough parts have been replaced, a new set of frames could be cut to create a "new" Radial tank (incorporating any still-usable parts from 488), and the worn-out components re-assembled around 488's original frames for static display. The reason I advocate this course for 488 but not Stepney is that 488 is a unique survivor; if we replace almost all her original components, we will effectively destroy the last Adams Radial! Plus, perhaps one could then put the "static" 488 on display in Lyme Regis or Axminster to commemorate the late-lamented branch and promote the Bluebell?

 

Problem with that is, not matter how knackered 488 is, I suspect you'd still be short of a fair number of items for a static exhibit for some years, in the same way some components are totally shot now, some are quite probably good for 20 years plus depending on what they are.

 

I tend to feel that there are a number of different approaches to preservation, that are equally acceptable, but often mutually exclusive. Who follows which route with what loco depends on the nature of the organisation and what the loco is (and more often than not, how much money is around). Broadly speaking I can see four variations:

1 "Stuff and mount", possibly in a museum situation, and possibly not even repainting in order to conserve things "as withdrawn".
2 Carry out a limited restoration and run until condition requires significant replacement and then "stuff and mount".
3 Regard the idea of preservation as including preserving the loco as a running entity, preserving it's utility as well as it's mere existence. This could well involve the same sort of replacements (boiler, wheels, frames, etc) that would have taken place in its previous commercial existence, but also might involve repair techniques unheard of previously (the Bluebell's cylinder repairs recently spring to mind).
4 As in number 3 above, but in addition preserve the idea of development or modification that such locos might have seen had they not been withdrawn when they were, or if they were called to perform the sort of work they have to do today. There are many examples of this, particularly on the narrow gauge - improved blast pipe arrangements at Welshpool, the numerous modifications to locos on the Ffestiniog, whilst a standard gauge example (albeit minor) is the improved lubrication systems on the ex-southern USA tanks to stop them running hot boxes in passenger service.

The Bluebell, by and large, seems to follow the third route, the NRM (generally) has variations on 1 or 2, whilst the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Railway goes the 4th route, with exceptions (eg. Princess (1st route), Livingstone Thompson (2nd route), Palmerston (3rd route).

It will always be a matter of debate as to which route should be taken - for my part I like to see a loco preserved to run, and would be disappointed to see Stepney stuffed and mounted permanently. Having said that I know that not every loco can be kept running all the time, and having out of service locos well kept and on display (such as in the shed at Sheffield Park, or in the SVR's Engine House) whilst waiting their turn, money, opportunity or support adds to the value of the visitor's experience. The varied nature of preservation in the country means that there is a great variety of approaches around for our enjoyment.

Steve B

 

Interesting argument but fundamentally flawed in the case of 488 because probably little of the original survives today. When purchased from the East Kent Railway by the Southern in 1946 it had a new set of frames and an overhauled boiler fitted.
If a loco is going to be used, things will wear out and need replacing, quite often because it is cheaper to replace than repair. It has often been stated on the Forum that the identity of a loco is just a reference number on a piece of paper and I'm sure that it really makes no difference whether most parts date from the 21st century, a few from the twentieth century and perhaps the whistle from the 19th century. If Stepney needs new frames, new wheels, a new boiler and new tanks, does it really matter? Some bits will have survived from before the overhaul and these might have survived from the overhaul before that.

 

I don't think that is quite true about 488's frames. 0125 and 0520 had new frames, cylinders, fireboxes, springs, tyres and well tanks in 1930 prior to entering service on the Lyme branch, but 488, by virtue of its time off the SR, didn't. When it was bought by the SR in 1946, it had a very thorough overhaul at Eastleigh, but it seems the frames weren't changed at that time - there is still evidence of a crude frame repair that was probably carried out while owned by Colonel Stephens. So it is highly likely that the frames are original. The wheels are also certainly original, which is one of the likely problem areas if a restoration is ever attempted. She did get a Drummond boiler at the 1946 overhaul, but this was changed back to an Adam's pattern one in the late 1950s before withdrawal by BR.

Tom

 

I can't offer proof positive against that but I remember reading an article on the Adams Radials many years ago and it very much sticks in my mind that the article stated that, when the SR purchased the loco it had a thorough rebuild at Eastleigh, including the provision of new frames. That was my source but I accept that such articles can be wrong.

 

Had to have a laugh at the last few comments Stuffed & mounted sounds like something from the Karma Sutra.

 

With steam engines?...

I must have lived a sheltered life...

 

Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink, Say no MORE!

 

Well there was a documentary on Channel 4 a few years back about men who...erm...get jiggy with their cars.

Rule 34 applies, methinks.

 

I was thinking of it as a long-term project! Plus, there is always the option of using wooden or thin steel plate dummy parts to fill any gaps.

Even if her frames were replaced in 1946, they are still the last pre-preservation set of Adams' "Radial" frames in existence, and thus, I would argue they are worthy of conservation. I think, when discussing a "conservation" approach to railway heritage, it is better to interpret "original" as meaning "pre-preservation" rather than the loco's original build date. Of course, components will always be replaced during an engines working life; the ethical debate is whether we continue to do that in preservation, because modern components will often be made using modern materials or methods (or metric measurements), and because we then lose evidence of accidents or repairs undertaken during its working life (like 488's frame repair discussed above).

Drifting slightly off-topic, I think it is particularly useful to apply this thinking to Flying Scotsman, sometimes criticised for having "hardly any original parts left". It's true, there are very few 1923 components left on her now - but major components such as the frames and wheels are certainly "original" in that they are pre-preservation. I suppose one then enters a grey area with the boiler and cylinders, however - which are pre-preservation, but not carried by 4472 until after preservation!

 

Widening this debate further, operating heritage railways have a dilemma with both their locomotives and rolling stock. Such railways aren't museums and they need an operating fleet which has to be reliable and suitable. As such, there will be a need for parts, both large and small, to be replaced from time to time. If a line has to be drawn, whee do you draw that line? Taking the Bluebell (to keep it on topic) do you only include the more modern locos in your service fleet and stuff and mount the centenarian ones? (And that is a moving goalpost, if ever there was one.) That would see all the small tanks and most of the 0-6-0's set aside, Do you only use locomotives where more than one example exists, meaning the one-offs become simply museum pieces because, if used, parts will require replacement? Add the Dukedog and the Q to the list, then. Do you stuff and mount the smaller locos because they are not as useful as the larger ones? that is a bit narrow minded.
Personally, I don't have a problem with replacing frames, boilers or anything else on an operational loco as long as the essence remains the same and I'm a strong believer in the fact that the majority of locos should be used if the owners so wish - There are exceptions to prove the rule, though; Coppernob comes to mind! If the frames of 488 (for example) are so important, they can be preserved in their own right.

 

Isn't an equally, if not more, crucial distinction between parts that were what we would now call consumables, and parts that are not. If you consider things like fire bars and brake shoes for instance, that I assume would be regularly replaced in service, then there seems little worth in attempting to keep them running on an operational locomotive. If we are seeking to conserve a locomotive as an operational entity then is it right to try and keep worn out consumables lingering on as long as possible, or should they be replaced as soon as they would have been replaced back in the day?

The difficulty of course is that there was really very little of a steam engine that was not a consumable - at least if you consider Swindon works practice, which is the only one I have any kind of knowledge of. But taking a GWR example, there surely can be nothing special about, say, the boiler or tender that just happened to be the last of maybe a dozen or so that the locomotive carried, or the cylinder, which were often replaced at least once in a locomotive's life or, well, just about everything really.

 

apart from the SR buffer stocks, replacement chimney, some steam valves and injectors and bits of steel on the lower parts of the cab sides, there is very little on STEPNEY that isnt original or dates after 1912.

this is quite remarkable on an elderly loco.

when you consider say DOLGOCH and TALYLLYN on the TR, and PRINCE on the FR there is very very little remaining from the original locos. the LIVINGSTON THOMPSON FR loco is an excellent example as to how perhaps things should have been done with DOLGOCH and TALYLLYN and PRINCE - so much of both DOLGOCH and TALYLLYN was replaced that the originals could (perhaps should) have been left as museum pieces.

the terriers are a different category entirely being extremely well designed and robustly built. excellent economical locos that deserve (as the IOWSR decided) to be kept in service.

cheers,
julian

 

Here, here! If the Bluebell Railway can still find some use for the Ps, then they can certainly accommodate the Terriers, BOTH of them. As someone has already sensibly stated on this thread, having another Terrier plinthed is unnecessary, we already have two perfectly original examples preserved in the National Railway Museum in York and the Canadian railway museum respectively

Plus, the idea of having Stepney, widely still regarded as the flagship of the railway, stuffed and mounted is, to me at least, unthinkable. Stepney is an intergral part of the railway and, as pointed out by many on several occasions, can still prove itself useful. Now theres no denying that when Stepney does have its next overhaul, its not going to come easy, and its certainly not going to come cheap... but after all the good service its put in, not to mention the fame and popularity it's gained and subsequently brought to the railway, I think it deserves the best from the Bluebell line, don't you...?

Of course, there are those who will persist in stating that Stepney, along with Fenchurch and many of the other small engines on the line, just don't have as much scope for usefulness as they used to. There's no escaping the fact that the extension to East Granstead, and the subsequent rise in paseenger numbers, has effected their regular/generally usage on the line in all seasons of the year. But there is a solution to this issue, one that could put the small engines like Stepney to full regular and practical usage again, although it's probably a few years down the line yet... the westward extension to Ardingly. It is an idea that I along with others have suggested before on this forum, making the branch a preserve for the Terriers, Ps and other small elder engines, along with the vintage four wheel carriages. It will give them a proper useful purpose to serve to, and as a bonus will give the railway a good insentive to keep a good number of their smaller engines operational, just as they have been doing for some time now. Everybody wins.

 

That's rather putting the cart before the horse.

If we go to Ardingly, it needs to stack up financially on its own merits. If it turns out that the most financially efficient way to operate the service is as a branch service with small engine and Victorian carriages - that would be great. But choosing to go to Ardingly simply as a mechanism to find a use for small engines that have been superseded on the "mainline" is a recipe for financial pain.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a great lover of small engines: lots of my most memorable footplate days have been on P tanks and Terriers. I also believe that even on the current operation, there is room for one or two such engines operational at any one time. But ultimately we have to make money. At most that probably means not more than one engine operational at any one time if the sole operational reason for that engine is as a mascot or flagship. Moreover, regardless of future operational use, the next restoration of Stepney is likely to be eye-watering for such a small engine, and given the future traffic potential that really means funding it by a separate appeal, or else tucking it away somewhere and doing it very much on an ad-hoc basis as and when resources and workshop capacity allow. All my opinion, of course.

Tom

 

The long term plan see http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/soc/ltp.html lists amongst the aims : -

LB&SCR stock from the Stroudley and Craven eras.
SECR non-bogie stock from the LCDR and SER companies.

I remember reading somewhere they are aiming for a set of 6 of each which would be within the capabilities of the Terrier's and the P's.

 

That's an interesting bit of the plan.

Our four wheelers seem to work out at about 12 tons, given the steel under frames. Six of them makes 72 tons, which is no longer within the load limit for a P class! Perhaps in the light of experience - and given that having six such carriages, even a mixed rake, is some years away, maybe we will ease that restriction, though at some point water might then start to become an issue. I've fired a 72 ton train behind Bluebell as far as Kingscote (Birdcage + 100 seater + LBSC 4 wheel 1st) and it was fine, but definitely working hard. The last pull up to Holden summit might be taxing with that load! Especially in slippery conditions.

A Terrier (or at least Fenchurch) is allowed ten tons more, so presumably Fenchurch (with its big cylinders) would be OK. Interesting restoration decision to make at that point with regard Stepney: given that she needs new cylinders, do you put 12" ones on that she has now, or 13" as built, or 14" as Fenchurch has? If you assume that the next restoration will be so thorough as to enable her to perform to her full traffic potential, I'd have thought 14" cylinders would be necessary if you want her to take 6 four wheelers to East Grinstead.

What we really need was a D tank - bigger boiler, more TE and more water capacity. Now, what's this FaceBook thing people keep talking about?

Tom