Bluebell Railway General Discussion

Neither Mark 1 is part of the core fleet. The objective is to concentrate in-house overhaul capacity to carriages defined as core, in particular Maunsells and Bulleids. So although there may well be acquisitions of Mark 1s for strategic purposes (such as the ex-NRM BG, acquired for catering reasons), my understanding is that the aim is to reduce the Mark 1 fleet down over time, probably to just one rake (plus perhaps a couple of spares). The two Mark 1 s listed would by our standards require an overhaul, so it makes sense to put them up for disposal now rather than either undertake an overhaul ourselves on vehicles not seen as strategic; or to wait until they decay. At the moment both vehicles are in good condition, indeed in one case was still in traffic earlier this year.

Their future depends on who comes forward to express an interest. I can see railways currently operating, say a mix of Mark 2s and / or DMU centre cars, might find Mark 1 SOs quite attractive; likewise a railway looking to extend its fleet.

Tom

 

Why would I not be surprised to find someone like Saphos snap them up?

 

Or for holiday lets!

 

Dartmouth may well hire number 13 out, they don't seem to use it during the summer season anymore and have hired it out to Swanage over Christmas before.

 

Speaking of Bluebell carriages I see LSWR No. 1520 is being modelled by EFE in its current guise as part of a 4 coach pack:

https://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/84694/E86011-EFE-Rail-LSWR-Cross-Country-4-Coach-Pack---LSWR

(Other retailers including Bluebell shop are available )

Regards,

Dan

 

But, it's also complicated by the fact that if you book online there's a hefty booking fee, so the difference is not actually anything like £2.50 per ticket...

 

Don't think so - Swanage have got No.14 themselves.
Anyway, the Devon Belle Observation Cars are no use for dining, they're set up as observation saloons. That's why we weren't interested in No.14 when it was being shipped back from the US.

 

Yes, the stock being for sale is nothing to do with ensuring the railway is a going concern, and everything to do with a change in personnel on the board, with the previous board's ultimate aim of having 8 Pullmans (yes, 8, another two were being lined up to come!!) scaled back to a manageable, affordable, staff-able, sensible, and highly profitable Pullman train of 4 cars (giving three plus one free for maintenance for half the year, once Car 36 has been brought into service) plus the new BG acting as Kitchen/support. And of those 4 Cars, three are of high seating capacity. 42 seats in Car 36 is much more useful than 22 in Aquila, especially given the estimate of the £600k cost of overhauling Aquila's body.
The two Mk.1s for sale are now out of service, after many years use on the Bluebell. They're still in good shape (the SO was only withdrawn at the end of July), but there is a universal consensus that, whilst we plan to retain one Mk.1 set (rather than two) we'd prefer to spend our time and money overhauling the likes of Hundred Seater 971, and Bulleids and Maunsells. There's zero chance of the Mk.1s being scrapped with the scrap value a fraction of the money we expect them to fetch. Other railways are already interested/inspecting them.

 

Swanage hired no. 13 one Christmas season when no. 14 was out of service.

Sent from my SM-A137F using Tapatalk

 

£600k for Aquila's overhaul? That's the first time I've seen a figure quoted, Richard, which now puts the whole matter into sharp relief. That really is an eye-watering amount, even more than Carina's full rebuild was quoted at, IIRC.
So the touted aim of a 5-car GA was actually only a part of the story. I'm frankly amazed that the Board, even for one moment considered that 8 Pullmans could ever be anything but a monumental liability.
Thanks for throwing some light on the matter.

 

I guess one are the days it would be nice to do someday so we,ll accumulate for the future to now we need to maximise what we've got to survive and keep going what we've got, hence rationalisation going on in many railways.

 

Are there any concrete plans for any overhauls of a pregrouping coach outside of the Brighton Stroudleys?

 

The most refreshing part of this new policy to me is the desire to focus on vintage stock, rather than relying on the easy option of Mk 1s. If only a few other lines would set themselves a similar goal! I'm quite aware, of course, that it's not an option for many lines, but for those who could do so it should be part of their USP.

 

Agree 10,000% but would observe that a few already do and one has done so for over fifty years.

 

Paulthehitch can you stop trumping your bloody railway every time? It comes across as really snobby.

 

Trump ? Hopefully not.

 

That one for over 50 years didn’t really have much choice though did it?

I will say it could have made the IOWSR equivalent of ‘Operation Coachbelle’ rather interesting.

 

I don't think it is a "new" policy - the Long Term Plan has for many years set out the C&W objective, which includes creating a number of representative carriage sets including "BR Standard Mark 1 Steam Stock", plus a "short train of mainly BR Mk1 specifically for catering purposes"; and policy should be to deliver those objectives. (The Rolling Stock Collection Policy states "The Railway must provide the carriages necessary to operate its existing and future train services. The overall policy for the carriage fleet is to provide full trains of vehicles from each major design era of the steam age from the 1880's to the 1960's, and within this to provide a wide range of heritage travel experience from third class commuting through to Pullman luxury.")

What I think has changed (and @RichardSalmon may correct me here as he is much closer to the action) is that there is a renewed focus on concentrating resources specifically on what the LTP says, rather than expending resources on additional Mark 1s acquired for tactical convenience but which are not contributing to the core delivery of the Long Term Plan. So I see it not so much as a new policy, and more the company focusing on delivering what the existing policy actually requires. In particular, I think we are moving towards not the total elimination of Mark 1s, but only having a single Mark 1 passenger set (plus the catering vehicles); rather than two Mark 1 passenger sets.

The views of a certain Heritage Railway Director about a membership body being increasingly assertive in requiring the operating company to follow the society wishes possibly can't be printed

Tom

 

I really don't want to prolong this issue but it seems indeed there was an alternative. Some air braked electric trailer carriages were available. Thank goodness the difficult option was selected.

 

That's fair enough, and Mk 1's do have a part to play in representing carriages of the steam era, just not the overwhelmingly dominant part they currently have! I was also careful to point out that most railways did not have the opportunity to major on pre-Mk 1 stock because they were too late on the scene. What is disappointing is those lines that could do more refusing to do so. I won't name names!

One of the unfortunate consequences of the structural reforms advocated on this forum is that, if the example he is familiar with, have put in place what seems to me to be a significant divide between the owning society and the operating subsidiary, with the power in reality being heavily concentrated with the turkeys in the subsidiary company - and if hard decisions come to be required, do turkeys vote for christmas?