Bluebell Railway General Discussion

Duly noted and corrected. I'm pleading a senior moment!

 

Well, technically though 488 is owned by the company, which isn't a charity...

It's a difficult question. I think if we took @Steve's view about being first and foremost an operating railway, you might also take the view that you'd just run the service with BR standards, because they probably have the best balance of operating cost and high mileage between overhauls relative to haulage capacity. You wouldn't contemplate potentially a £750k overhaul of a loco that can probably only pull 3 - 4 coaches. Whatever happens to 488, if it is overhauled, the amortised per seat-mile operating cost is going to be quite high.

It's a difficult question. Personally, I think the locos that survived intact direct from BR to preservation probably require a more curatorial approach than Barry overhauls, in which arguably a lot of the patina of "originality" had disappeared before preservationists ever got near to them. So much of 1638 or 34059 are new that replacing even fairly major components to keep them running seems neither here nor there to me. Whereas with 488 or 72, the equation is more difficult, since the surviving fabric shows considerable evidence of the life they have had, historic repairs and all. Of course, to take one particular example, if it were possible to replace the wheel sets of 488 but preserve the originals (which are of considerable interest in construction) then that might give you the best of both worlds - but that would require yet more museum space. I must admit, I think it would have been fitting to have kept the knackered frames (or at least one side) from No. 27 as a museum exhibit, to preserve the originals and illustrate what the frame of a loco looks like (which is otherwise largely hidden). But where to put it?

There's no absolutely right or wrong answer, but I tend towards feeling more care is needed with locos that came direct to preservation rather than via a scrapyard.

Tom

 

Agreed. That the original boiler is kept, is absolute, although I'm not too sure what could be done with it, as it doesn't present itself as a museum exhibit too well. Additionally, there's the problem of the wrought iron driving wheels, which could not be replicated for obvious reasons. For 30 years, 488 has sat, with however many thousands of everyday visitors filing heedlessly past "Aw look- that's a nice one... Shall we get a ice cream?"
Meaning, in its present state, it means nothing to the public, apart from "don't touch- you'll get dirty".
On the other hand, restored and hauling trains of suitable vintage, it would become a memorable experience for many ordinary folk, as well as many, many enthusiasts, who would give anything to ride behind this wonderful engine again, myself included.
But then I am one of those heretics who would be only too happy to see "Gladstone" live, breathe, and speak again, whatever it took.
To hear the forgotten voice of a Brighton Fast cry eerily out of remote time, like Pharaoh's trumpets...

 

But what happens when the likes of 488, 30072, 75027 etc have spent so long outside, they end up in some sort of scrap yard condition?

 

Well, 488 and 75027 are kept complete, under cover and on display. 30064 (I assume you mean?) is a problem child, it's true. If it were me, I'd have it in the museum, but sectioned like Ellerman Lines. It would hardly be further from restoration to running in that state than it is now. Ultimately though the answer is more under cover storage, not let "complete" locos deteriorate to the extent of the point about originality becoming moot.

Tom

 

Part of the storage question could be answered by loading the items onto restored wagons, thereby giving the wagons a purpose and keeping the items safe and out of the way.

 

Has any thought been given to long term loaning of locos like 30064/the NLR tank/Normandy to railways that can make good use of them?

 

75027 taken at last years GOS. 488/30583 is hidden behind 75027 on the far road, rarely leaves the shed. Repainted in 2019 and at Horsted Keynes in 2019 on a photocharter : -

 

I'll probably get grief for saying this, but when clean, the lined BR black rather suited the radials ....

 

Well, since you've started it I'll lean in. Of course, the done thing is to nod sagely and extol the virtues of pre-grouping liveries where possible. But then, BR lined black is a pre-grouping livery, in every way but the totem and the Gill Sans numbering. I don't think it's entirely surprising that its aesthetic rather suits such pre-group stalwarts as 30583, 30120 and 24, perhaps rather more so than definitely grouping-era liveries like malachite green.

Returns to accidental NatPres exile for personal safety....

 

My apologies Tom, yes I did mean 30064 (I do need to brush up on my knowledge of things that belong to a region, I know little of)
I do happen to agree that more undercover storage is the key but I’m wondering whether the damage has been done regarding certain locomotives like 30064 whilst not having been bought from a scrap yard it may as well have done.
You’ve mentioned bringing the NLR tank back from Barrow Hill, I happen to agree that bringing it back from somewhere that it it was under cover to being
put in the open at Horsted Keynes isn’t a particularly smart move.
I appreciate that there’s only a finite amount of undercover space to store locos and rolling stock, but how long does it take for something that wasn’t in a scrap yard to take as long to restore as something that was?
(Apologies if you think I’m picking on you Tom I appreciate you were just expressing your opinion, just trying to put a counter argument in my own long worded way)

 

I think what we're saying is that our consciences would be much clearer if we put 488 outside to rot for a decade or two before making the decision to overhaul it...

 

It would be a short-term solution, but if the aim of preserving such items is for them to be on display so they can be studied, it doesn't really help.

We've done similar with carriages - I guess it is up to someone to make a viable suggestion (i.e. a realistic display or overhaul proposal).

Disclaimer: I can't speak for the directors or trustees.

Tom

 

30064 isn't brilliant, but unlike a Barry loco, it is at least complete. By contrast, many locos came out of Barry with significant parts (especially non-ferrous parts) missing. So I think there is still difference in scale. Which isn't to downplay how much work would be needed on 30064 if the decision was ever to be made about a restoration.

We really need a facility like 'The Engine Shed" at Highley - SteamWorks kind of does that, but isn't big enough and, in my view, is in the wrong place. I've not seen any definitive statement on how much more storage we need, but I suspect we probably need about one more big storage building somewhere, ideally done as a museum rather than just storage.

It is interesting, in passing, that the Isle of Wight solution was to take their unrestored carriage bodies to storage off the railway - that would be the equivalent to our OP4. I don't know if that was ever seriously considered by us, but I suspect land prices in South East England would probably preclude it.

Tom

 

In a dream world, perhaps a few smaller lines could band together to acquire such a facility, and share the storage space...

 

It has been interesting to follow the discussion in the last two pages of this thread about both the viability and desirability of returning the Adam Radial Tank to working order. There is no doubt that it is a popular engine and if the legitimate conservation issues which Tom has raised do not ultimately stymie a restoration plan, a lot of people - myself included - would be delighted to see it working again, By contrast, 30064 does not generate the same feelings of affection. Besides not being such an attractive loco, there are three other surviving members of its class, plus two Yugoslav half-brothers and furthermore, whereas the Adams will cope with the longer run to East Grinstead and back provided it is given the right load, a shunting tank is of less use. Similar issues also apply to another loco which has been out of action for some years - the North London Tank - although in this case, it is an unique survivor and also has that special albeit rather sad link to Bluebell history being the loco which helped dismantle the section of line north of Horsted Keynes. Both these locos are Bluebell owned, I believe, but if the Bluebell does not wish to dispose of them and Tom's proposal to section the USA doesn't gain much support, the most likely route for either engine to steam again seems to be a long term loan arrangement with another shorter line to overhaul and run the loco in question, although I am very aware that such deals need to be very carefully negotiated.

 

You'd have Princess attacking the Nantmoor ski-slope, you would!

In the case of 488, all questions 'conscience' aside, have you seen the Bluebell's overhaul queue? And they've got one new build nearly complete (Beachy Head), to be followed by a Wainwright E and a major rebuild (84030), over and above keeping enough front line locos available, before you get to the stored larger locos, let alone the little 'uns. It's not as if they've not got a separate group to work through the small stuff (they have), but there's a fair amount of that.

 

I am another that would like to see the Adams Tank back in service - partly sentiment as it was the loco in service on my first visit to the Bluebell in 1965, but also because it is a wonderful looking loco which could do something useful. In those early days it was described as being economical on a short train, but capable of hauling 5 coaches comfortably. This, of course, was only Sheffield Park to Horsted Keynes, and there was not a heavy mk1 in sight. The fact that it is a sole survivor makes me more keen to see it running again.

The NLR tank and the USA tank, as has been noted, are not the most suitable locos for passenger work, but both do have a proven track record of being used as such, as well as being useful in other ways.

And therein lies the rub. It is not realistic to suggest that every loco should be overhauled and in service at the same time - indeed it would be financially questionable to do so. What gets overhauled and when has to be at least part driven by what is needed to provide the public service. Maybe there is something to be said for the main workshop concentrating on the necessary locos, and other groups (as at present) working on the WIBN stuff, like new builds (Beachy Head), major rebuilds (84030), and restorations (27). What gets done by the other groups will inevitably reflect the interests of those involved, and their ability to find the necessary dosh.

Mention has been made of the F&WHR who I believe have a policy of regarding most of their locos as being part of the working fleet, with 2 designated as museum pieces - Princess and Livingston Thompson. There are 2 others that are presently laid up, with "issues" concerning their future overhauls (Mountaineer and Earl of Merionydd). They focus most of the paid workshop effort into maintaining the necessary "front line" fleet, with volunteer groups looking after the others and assisting where necessary. What is commendable is that even the 2 laid up are kept safe and secure, and can be wheeled out for display in reasonably presentable condition. Something that cannot be said for the Bluebell's USA tank...

I'm guessing that the last two years has not done the Bluebell (or anywhere else) any favours financially, and that the emphasis at the moment has to be on survival, rather than WIBN. I, as a spectator, can only express my gratitude to those who make any working steam possible.

Steve B

 

Hear! Hear! We're not yet in a position to judge the long term effects of the damned lurgi. On the upside, it's quite possible the paradigm shift forced on us could produce some positive results, even if it's currently hard to imagine what those might be.

 

Hallelujah! No more needs to be said.

(Incidentally the last couple of years have not been utterly disastrous everywhere, certainly not 2021)