Bluebell Railway General Discussion

I don’t think there was a plan to buy and then scrap in that way. The mk2s were a stopgap when extra carriages were needed and mk1s not available or maybe too expensive. Most of the mk2s became part of the green train and were sold as part of that train. Some are probably still running as a result. They fell out of favour really because of how much more difficult they are to repair than a mk1.

 

One of the many disadvantages of the early Mk2 coaches is that they were either vac. braked or air braked. It is not possible to dual brake then as was done to Mk1s, so for current heritage use they lack the flexability of their predecessors.

The some of the former vac braked Green Train Mk2s were on the Steam Dreams operation out of Southall until it was sold to another operator last summer. They are now at Carnforth but where possible it seems that Mk1s are used in preference. Carnforth also has some air braked Mk2s which are mainly used during the summer months on the afternoon Jacobite service, which is diagrammed for a dual braked steam loco.

Peter

 

I heard the plan was to standardise on Mk2s and get rid of all Mk1s apart from catering vehicles.

Thankfully subsequent management saw sense and started buying up Mk1s again, getting rid of the Mk2s.

A lot of the Mk2s are still going with WCRC, I rode on 5200 on a rail tour last year.

 

Dean Forest Railway purchased two Mark 2s a year or two back - one of them had to have work done on the brakes. Update to post. They have a Mark 2 and a Mark 2a which I understand was converted to be dual braked.

 

I wonder why such a conversion is so rare with Mk2s and so common with Mk1s then. Or was the coach concerned just converted from air to vacuum rather than being dual braked? It is a genuine question as this is not a subject that I know a lot about.

Peter

 

At the time it was proposed, I remember a lot of people telling the DFR that such a conversion to dual braking was simply not possible on an air braked Mk2.

However they (or should I say their contractors) obviously found a way to do it.

 

The RPSI northern rake is made up of all MK2 carriages, vac braked, with central locking and painted in lined green, they do look quite smart.

 

Happy New Year to you, Peter.
A vacuum braked vehicle (coach or wagon) essentially requires a brake shaft because of the size and weight of the brake cylinder, which has to be supported from the frames on trunnions. There’s also a need to get a mechanical advantage so the brake cylinder lever is always longer than the lever attached to the brake linkage. With a cross shaft it is an easy matter to fit a second lever and an air brake cylinder and dual brake. With air brakes the cylinders are relatively small and light and can easily be incorporated into the pull rods of the brake linkage so no cross shaft and a much simpler and cheaper system. Therefore to fit vacuum brakes requires substantial modifications to the whole brake system with the fitting of a cross shaft and cylinder trunnions to a chassis not designed to take them plus alterations to the brake linkage.

 

An update on the blog (for 1 January) which has pictures and updates of four current C&W projects:

• SR Maunsell “Hastings-line” brake third No. 3687
• K type Pullman car No. 54 (which reaches it's centenary this year).
• SR Engineers’ Wagon DS62002
• SR Bulleid-era 5-plank goods wagon No. 12058

All four should enter traffic this year.

See https://www.bluebell-railway.com/brps/whats_new/ for January 1st.

Tom

 

The update before has something of interest too, as it says 6989 is staying on the line for a good part of this year. Did wonder what the situation was as it was due back after Giants.

 

The update also shows that Maunsell 2356 has left the line. Where has this now gone to?

 

End of the summer - hopefully 34059 should be available by then.

 

Well according to some wibble on social media, this coach, 3x LMS Sleepers, a Mark 1 sleeper, and the TPO coach ended up in a scrapyard, which if true was to the surprise to people at the Bluebell who through the new owners were intending for them to remain intact.

 

Even if bodies are beyond saving, underframes can always be overhauled and reused, especially if there is an grounded body somewhere, that could use that underframe, or if there is a missing link, somewhere in an historic coach collection having an underframe, that could be used , with a reconstructed body could be a way to fill that gap,

 

Bit late for that if the chassis has been recycled for steel.

 

I think the answer is that all the coaches have been available to buyers for a very long time (think I read a decade for the TPO), without any takers or realistic chances of restoration. And I’m assuming that means nobody wanted the underframes either… It’s a shame as I’m sure none of us want to see things that were bought for restoration to be scrapped, but it seems to be the only option if the railway needs the space…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sad but true. I think the TPO had been available for sale for the best part of thirty years with no takers. Ultimately I think what has forced their departure (at least the Maunsell's) is the need to get to the Ardingly spur for stabilisation work on the embankment.

Tom

 

Well I admit don't care about the TPO and the sleepers as there are others about. And they were not very useful to carry passengers.

But 2356 was the very last Southern Railway TK, a very common type seen across the region. If restored it could have offered a useful 64 seats. And yet the best that could been offered was to send it to the breakers? with not even the opportunity to at least get some spears for other coaches?

 

I would assume that if it was known to be going to scrap the coach would be stripped of useful items, that is if it hadn't already over the years.

 

No question it’s a real shame - but ultimately, there’s not enough money, not enough time, not enough volunteers, and not enough undercover space to keep it for future generations…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk