Bluebell Motive Power

Or, being less precious about the whole thing and accepting it is 98% right so doing it anyway. There are plenty of locos wearing liveries that range from slightly wrong in detail to never used in service, like the red 8F. The loco could easily run for a year or two before going on to the next variation.

I shall call this Stepney Smokebox Syndrome from now on.

 

Yes I know I was being cheeky; deliberately so! An ex "Brighton" branchline, going for years, which cannot field an L.B.S.C.R. bogie third. Not so much "Floreat vapor" as "Mea Maxima Culpa". Could it be due to the years the Mark 1 hath eaten?

Paul H

 

There is no red 8F. Not any more.

 

Although the tunnel size on the Met is tight, the platforms seem to have more clearance. ISTR that when the CO/CP stock was delivered to Quainton Rd., a severe speed restriction applied through BR platforms due to the swept out "skirts" of the body panelling, although they fitted fine on LUL lines.

 

I think because there have been very few to be had! For much of the line's existence in preservation, restorations of the kind completed on our bogie first, or the IoWSR third, would have been considered out of the question. To which you can also add that while a fair number of ex-SECR vehicles survived in departmental use into the 1960s and could be bought for preservation, most LBSCR vehicles had gone from the mainland by the 1930s, so any putative restoration would be analgous to a four wheeler, but twice the size and without a ready source of underframes. In the circumstances, it's probably not surprising that most currently operational ex-LBSCR bogie vehicles are to be found on the Isle of Wight (where they could be purchased straight ex-Service), while at the same time we have several ex-SECR bogie vehicles running. FWIW, we have a rather better collection of ex-SECR wagons (mostly ex-Port of Bristol Authority) and ex-SECR locomotives than we have Brighton as well!

When all is said and done, we have I think ten currently operational pre-grouping bogie coaches, all of which are used on a regular basis throughout the year and require maintenance to suit: how many other lines can say similar? There are a number of other vehicles awaiting resources to restore, without having to go hunting around the beaches and cricket pavillions of Southern England just to add to queue!

Tom

 

Without wishing to sound critical of the Bluebell, which is a brilliant line in so many ways, I am rather disappointed just how little use is made of the older carriages, especially when Service 1 is running. I went for a ride with my wife last Monday and while I greatly appreciated 30541's performance, it was rather disappointing that four of the six carriages in use were Mk 1s. I have a life member's first class pass but chose to travel 3rd class in one of the Bulleid coaches. Meanwhile, the Maunsell set plus the hundred seater, birdcage brake and 7598 sat idle in a siding....

 

As you will appreciate I know of one such (and it uses them, day in, day out) The situation Mr. Petley found disappointing will not be encountered there.

Paul H.

 

My understanding is that the reason for not using more vintage stuff midweek is two-fold: mileage and the stated requirements of coach operators.

On a typical week in which service one runs mid week and service two at weekends, the "A" set (non vintage) runs 484 miles and the "B" set (vintage) runs 132 miles. As I understand, the mileage intervals between servicing of vintage carriages is less than for Bulleids / Mark 1s: If the vintage set ran 484 miles in the week, it would be beyond the capacity of the workshop to keep on top of overhauls.

Added to which, a lot of mid week traffic comes from coach parties, the operators of which - so I am led to believe - prefer open saloon corridor coaches. The three Maunsells alone aren't big enough to cater for that traffic while also leaving space for regular passengers. Conceivably, the situation may change when we have a viable 5-6 coach all-Maunsell rake which would be suitable for mid-week running. The current Maunsell set is also short of 1st class accommodation - just two compartments, I think. Current C&W strategy, as far as I am aware, is to concentrate on strengthening the Bulleid and Maunsell sets once work on the three current four wheelers is complete - which would then give us a viable train of 6 four wheelers, albeit "half and half" Brighton and SECR.

I'm reminded a bit of taking a bus ride at Amberley: mid week the operational bus is often something from the 1970 / 80s, with the "nice stuff" reserved for special events and bank holidays. I suspect the situation is very similar - if they ran the pre-war buses every day, they couldn't keep on top of the maintenance.

Tom

 

Which other line has ten currently operational pre-grouping bogie coaches?

Tom

 

I took this photo of sister U Class No 31806 at Alresford on the MHR in 1983, after its first overhaul from Barry condition. This loco is also recorded as running over the MSWJR and Kingham Branch but only once, whereas 31618 was recorded at least 8 times on the Southampton Cheltenham service between 1955 and 1961.

Ex-GWR crews weren't too fond of these 2-6-0s apparently as they were thought to be rather rough riding compared to the Churchward 43xxs but sadly I have no first hand experience!

I always feel that these locomotives look very impressive in BR lined black and Southern Maunsell green. We are lucky to have any!

From the archives, sister loco 31809 is seen on a Cheltenham Southampton train at Marlborough (MSWJR) in August 1958.

 

Ah Yes! I see you did use the word "bogie". But that is just a litle bit of a nitpick. Whether the vehicles concerned had four, six, eight or twelve wheels they are all over 91 years old and are all in service day in, day out.

PH

 

You really do like moving the goalposts somewhat...!

I am presuming that you must mean the North Norfolk Railway - off the top of my head they have ex-GNR rolling stock fitting both descriptions? Failing that there's the Kent & East Sussex Railway which has a great number of bogie, and smaller, pre-grouping carriages. Otherwise I'm flummoxed.

I'm not sure why you are quite so critical when there's been some reasonable explanations given for the current situation either. Railway Preservation isn't perfect - if it was, you wouldn't have a Dukedog at the Bluebell or a Bulleid Pacific in the Midlands, or ex-LNER teaks on the Seven Valley Railway. Yet here we are and that's that. I'm just glad they survived and have been restored.

 

Of course, I should add there's one railway where some of its everyday rolling stock is over 100 years old. I fear you would dismiss it from this conversation because it's narrow gauge - but put it this way: the Talyllyn Railway certainly fits your world view in some respects and I suspect not so much in others!

No preserved railway is absolutely perfect but it's a pragmatic and also idealist movement we're involved in - to expect joined up thinking of the likes you are suggesting is to expect everyone to think in exactly the same manner at the same time and also have the funds and inclination to make it happen, at the same time. I'm not suggesting cooperation isn't possible or the order of the day, but it may be unrealistic to expect absolute perfection and absolute matching up of locomotives and rolling stock.

 

I won't comment on the painting in case Gary is reading.....

On the stepboards you may have a point. I know that the reason that one of the reasons that the A stock sent for scrap at Eastleigh went by road was its width. But the IWR ran many Metropolitan 8 wheelers between Ryde & Ventnor so, with some gauging work, it might be feasible.

Nick

 

Well you have guessed quite wrongly. I overlooked the word "bogie" in Jamessquared's posting, hence my comments.
There is no tourist railway that is 100% authentic and very unlikely that there ever will be although the Vale of Rheidol must come close. All we can hope for is that it is a reasonably authentic experience bearing in mind the need to provide for disabled passengers etc. and I am not in the least bothered where in the country they come from.

I share John Petley's thoughts about irritation when a certain railway choses to keep its interesting and attractive stuff in the siding whilst operating vehicles which give no impression of the secondary railway of the past. If there is anything less attractive than a Mk.1 buffet car (a sort of mobile NAAFI canteen) then I cannot imagine it.

PH

 

Why the heck would I "dismiss" the T.R. from this conversation? I don't belong to it but the line does a far better job in giving people the opportunity of sampling rolling stock of a previous generation than the great majority of standard gauge lines and this without waiting for special events.

PH

 

Interesting you mention the Vale of Rheidol. I was there a few weeks ago. I acknowledge the rolling stock and locomotive choices are authentic, but what of the infrastructure? How much of that also fits in with the rolling stock?

I suspect the London Bridge building that has been designed and will be built won't add to the period - rather take away from the rolling stock's age and authenticity. The whole scene on the Bluebell isn't just the locomotive and rolling stock: it's the infrastructure too.

I suspect, as per usual, we're coming at this from different vantage points and different desires - I wish for Butler Henderson in GCR livery, pulling restored Barnum stock, going at it on the Great Central whilst the O4 in a matching period guise passes with a period goods train - it's an unrealistic expectation, even if (with all the will and money in the world) it's technically possible.

Put simply, I was expecting you to move the goalposts (again) and perhaps say arbitrarily "oh but we're talking standard gauge here..."

Yes, I pre-empted. Unnecessarily. I admit it! However previous experience with conversing with you Paul has led me to expect that I'm afraid.

 

Try a class 350, 375, 377, 158 or a carriage in virtually any contemporary DMU or EMU running on the national network!

 

Bear in mind, though, that they were originally built to accommodate broad gauge track...so they may have less headroom, but they are not short of width!

 

Paul, I've lost count of the number of times when you've condemned "gricers" for supporting new-build locomotive schemes which, allegedly, will not be practical for the preserved railways they are intended to run on (notably the Brighton Atlantic.

Yet you have no qualms about expressing your "irritation" with railways which decide to look make less use of their older coaches, even when a volunteer from the said railway has carefully explained that there are very valid operational reasons for doing so.

Pot...kettle...black...?