Bluebell Motive Power

We have seen a few more details for loco overhauls but no mention of 34059 - where does that fit in?

 

Boiler away at Crewe. It's not expected to return now until about the beginning of 2016 (so I believe); after that reassembly will be fast tracked. I think 34059 only ran about 14,000 miles in its first incarnation, so mechanically is in very good condition and needs very little attention. The various parts removed in order to remove the boiler have been cleaned up and stored. So I'd expect it in traffic probably around mid 2016, but not before. All subject to usual caveats.

Tom

 

What was the previous expectation of a return, Tom?

Presumably, with the success of Bluebell's appeals, the money to do the job is available when needed, so funding isn't delaying work?

Steven

 

I think the initial hope had been to have the boiler back by about now. However, for various reasons progress at Crewe wasn't as quick as planned, so the decision was taken to ask Crewe to concentrate on the repair of 73082's boiler, which is due back this month.

Finance is always a factor (!) - you can contribute by texting "KUTP59 £3" to 70070 (And gift aid the donation as well)

However, the other factor is workshop space, as well as actual need for locos. At the moment, the workshop has 541 (final stages of reassembly); 928 boiler (the loco is being worked on outside); 73082 (final reassembly) and 592 (boiler repairs). That's pretty much full. So there is a certain amount of juggling to ensure that, when the boiler returns, there is space for reassembly to occur. In essence, capacity at Crewe and release of finance as it becomes available are juggled with workshop capacity and need for locos so hopefully all come together at the same time!

Tom

 

Workshop space was what made me wonder. It sounds as though the plan is to start 80151 before finishing 34059 and that doesn't really make much sense, to me at least!

 

There will be room in the workshop for 80151 once repairs to 592 are complete - probably April 2015 ( 30541 should also be completed before 80151 enters the works), while 34059's boiler is not due back to January 2016. By that time 73082 will be operational.

 

I think you are right that 80151 will commence first - probably spring this year, once repairs to 592 are finished.

Behind the scenes, I think there is juggling of funding (which comes from a variety of sources - for example, 34059 is a Bluebell loco, but 928 and 80151 have their own support groups) and also juggling different types of work to keep staff optimally employed. With boiler work on 541 complete, the work on 928 is in part limited by the rate the MLS can raise money, so the idea would be to have two boilers undergoing boiler work, with staff working between them. (928 is having pretty major surgery, whereas I think at the moment it is thought that 80151's boiler should be in good condition, though ultimately you don't know until you can inspect closely). That leaves the other half of the workshop basically available for one reassembly with space for one in-traffic loco to be undergoing any small-scale running repairs.

It's a real hostage to fortune, but I'd suggest 541 should be ready imminently; 73082 summer 2015; 65 first half of 2016; 80151 and 34059 later in 2016; 928 some time in 2017? a medium loco (9017??) some time in 2018?? Over the same period, we'll lose 1638 (2015); 592 probably before 2017; B473 possibly around 2018; 178 in 2019?? if we are lucky. PH won't be happy, but that suggests a bit of a switch from medium to larger locos - partly design, partly just the ebb and flow of locomotive fortunes I think.

Tom

 

But everyone else will be...

 

But everyone else will be...

Not necessarily! PaulH is correct in much of what he says about inappropriate sized locos being used on many lines, it is just the reason he claims for that being the case that are wrong - it wasn't a case of gricers preferring bigger engines, it simply that this was how the content of Barry scrapyard was skewed. Most of us prefer to see a small engine or two working hard to a big one barely making an effort. Of course, the medium sized engines tend to provide the best of both worlds, and that is why they tend to predominate.

 

I suspect there will remain opportunities for small locos yet! We'll still have B473, 592 and 263 this year, and joined by 65 next year, plus the two Ps.

From a footplate point of view, there is definitely more enjoyment on a small engine working hard. That said, with fairly regular seven coach loads likely next year, class 4 locos will be taxed fairly hard, especially up to East Grinstead - it is only the really big stuff (9F, WC/BB and S15) that very rarely get near to their limit.

Tom

 

How near to the limit do your smaller engines get?

 

I guess it depends how you define "near the limit"

To put in context, a P class with two coaches, which is expected to run to the normal timetable (and non-stop when hauling half the Golden Arrow) requires close to 4,000lbf just to maintain speed against the gravitational load on the climb to Holden Summit, against a nominal TE of 7,800lbf (and that figure would be lower at 25mph). So the loco is working at more than 50% of its available TE on our regular duties - more if you also factor in rolling resistance. (Pulling 6 coaches uphill out of the carriage shed is even more fun!)

The other main issue is the "window" between maximum boiler pressure and what the loco will stall at on account of the brakes coming on or simply not having enough pressure. On the S15 (200psi) it will get over the top of the hill at about 130psi with a six coach load. On a P class, you also need about 130psi to get over the hill, but you only have 160psi to start with, so there is a much narrower window that you have to keep the boiler between. (We are quite sensitive about blowing off in East Grinstead, so the aim is to get to the top of the hill with reduced pressure and plenty of water space, while still (a) actually getting there(!) and (b) not running out of water as the gradient changes from 1:55 up to 1:60 down.)

Subjectively, I'd say that on our normal matching of loco and load, a P with two coaches is working harder than the H with 4, the U with 5/6 with the S15 and 6/7 probably having the most in hand.

Tom

 

Interesting figures, I would imagine but have no statistics to back up my points that some of the narrow gauge engines work much harder and the margin for error when firing is much higher than on the Bluebell. I would be interested to see a small Bluebell engine work on the line though, it's been a few years since I was last there. I find the smaller engines on the FR/WHR more interesting to work on due to the higher demands they place on the crew because of the smaller boilers and less reserve they have compared to Garratts and double-engines.

 

Is it my imagination, or is the use of locomotive whistles and horns banned at EG?

 

Not banned, but only to be used as an emergency warning (for example, if someone walked in front of a moving engine). They aren't used for general warnings, for example when setting off. There was a similar restriction at Kingscote.

Tom

 

I'd have thought it's a little pointless, steam locos make enough noise of their own accord without whistling!

 

Not if you take appropriate noise precautions!

Tom

 

Like making small engines work hard? I guess that's an extra challenge on the footplate then.

 

Yes, but they are not working hard north of the viaduct in either direction, which is the sensitive area.

It all just comes down to the challenges of operating in an urban area, especially one where considerable housing has grown up in the 50 years since there were
steam engines around.

Tom

 

As always, there are lots of issues when setting load limits - not just the necessary TE for the gradients, but water capacity, the steaming capacity, the need to steam heat etc. In general as well, load limits would be set slightly on the conservative side, to allow for a loco near washout, or a crew not having the best of days, poor coal etc. At the moment, great store is being placed on being a "right time railway" which, amongst other things, means not loading locos to their absolute maximum and then being surprised if every now and again they drop time! One feature of the Bluebell (similar I guess to the Ffestiniog) is that most of the gradients are in one direction, so if you are shy of steam early on, it is difficult to recover - even at stations, we only have two minutes at HK and one minute at Kingscote in the up direction, with about 15 minutes between stations. The GA runs non-stop SP to Kingscote in 28 minutes, which includes about 15 minutes without break with the regulator wide open on a P between Tremains and West Hoathly, nearly all of which is 1:75 or steeper - quite an ask on a P tank.

I suspect a P could probably just about manage 3 carriages up the line, but couldn't meet the timetable doing so, and would probably need to take water at Kingscote in the up direction.

Tom