Bluebell Railway General Discussion

Thanks for that Tom. Is set B still the rake of BR Mk1 green stock, with nothing else attached please?

And at what time is the Wealden Rambler due back into H Keynes on Saturday please.

Many thanks in adavance,

Bryan

 

Set B is the Victorian set (sadly for your photo aspirations!). Set A is the green Mark 1s.

The Rambler gets to HK at 15:20 in the down direction, planned to go through Platform 2. Assuming no last minute swaps, that means 80151 smokebox first.

Tom

 

Thanks anyway for taking the time to reply Tom, much appreciated.

Plenty of work to do here on my South African Steam loco memoirs book!

Bryan

 

Each heritage railway has its own niche where it excels, the Bluebell is unsurpassed with its collection of vintage locos and rolling stock. Yesterday's charter with Fenchurch was a good illustration of that. A few results from the day show what I mean

 

Needless to say I have an inbox filling with submissions for the next issue of Bluebell Times! (As running foreman last Sunday I also had a small part to play in ensuring that 80151, 72 and the carriages were left in the right place and ready to go for the 3am book on times for loco crews!)

It has been interesting seeing some entirely new perspectives opened up by having south facing locos, notably heading south from Imberhorne Lane and the tunnel (your third and fourth photos respectively).

Tom

 

It certainly was different and no sun in the face around midday! I didn’t submit anything to you because Mr Cable was there so you would have just got two of everything!

 

Season tickets - for the summer holidays. I think this is a new thing. You are more or less in the black after two visits.



Tom

 

A pleasant day in the Sussex countryside on Sunday. 2999 sounded and looked good, even if a tad out of place on green Mk.1 stock. 65 on the vintage set was very nice.
2026-04-19 GWR SAINT 4-6-0 2999 HORSTED HOUSE FARM - BLUEBELL RLY 040 by KING COBRA 92, on Flickr

2026-04-19 SER 65 O1 0-6-0 FRESHFIELD BANK - BLUEBELL RLY 118 by KING COBRA 92, on Flickr

2026-04-19 BR 5MT 4-6-0 73050 FRESHFIELD BANK - BLUEBELL RLY 137 by KING COBRA 92, on Flickr

 

If anybody is intending to visit this weekend, the loco allocations have been changed to try and reduce the fire risk.

Saturday:
80151 - A/GAD
73082 - B
2999 - WR

Sunday:
80151 - A
73082 - B
2999 - GAL

 

It feels like fire risk season starts earlier and earlier each year...

 

Your Nene Valley credentials shining a bit too brightly there… you're in Camelot country now…

Simon

 

I see in another thread that the LSWR Brake Third 1520 is going to be carrying passengers at Hopetown, Darlington. Is it going away for long?

Peter

 

SECR O1 No. 65 hauls a goods train on Saturday 16th May as part of the Bluebell's Road Meets Rail event. This may very well be its last goods train seen on a public operation day prior to withdrawal for overhaul in 2027. - 32424 and 80151 are on passenger services on that weekend https://www.bluebell-railway.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Road-Meets-Rail.pdf

 

I saw on a facebook page some petition regarding some changes to the structure of the railway. Can anyone provide a factual acount of a) what's intended and b) why it's controversial?

 

The society and the plc are currently companies limited by guarantee and by shares respectively.

The proposal is to combine them as a single charitable community benefit society, that would own and operate the railway.

There is a Q&A on it in the latest Bluebell News.

 

As @Paul42 says, it has been covered in the most recent issue of Bluebell News and also in communications to members about the upcoming Society AGM. The proposal is a structural change that will in effect merge the current PLC and Society as a single Charitable Community Benefit Society (CCBS) - that can't happen directly, so there is a series of enabling moves that have to happen (and be approved by the relevant PLC shareholders and BRPS members) at various general meetings, with the aim being that the new structure is in place towards the end of 2027.

There are three main benefits AIUI. Firstly, there is a financial benefit - things like business rates and some software will be reduced for a charity, and potentially Gift Aid becomes permissible on fares. Secondly, having a single board should lead to quicker decision making. Thirdly, historically the railway has been unable to obtain some grants because its charitable part - the Trust - does not own the railway's assets.

Having attended an open meeting on the proposals (which was attended by a sizeable number of mostly volunteers) I was reassured by what is being proposed. I think it is right to expand on that a bit, particularly because in the context of some other railways, I have been somewhat sceptical of some of the financial benefits of a charitable structure, and the potential (I suspect rather illusory) restrictions on how the charity acts and is governed. In particular, two significant things provided reassurance in this case: the ultimate CCBS will have to provide a Community Benefit, and that benefit can be written explicitly to be framed around the preservation and operation of a heritage railway. That is somewhat different from some alternative models of charitable company. Secondly, it can also be enshrined in the founding articles of the CCBS that the members will be directly involved in electing directors (as they currently do with BRPS trustees) and other constitutional matters. So I think that, for example, two of the things that have been a particular bone of contention in the NYMR case (does the railway have preservation of a historic railway as its core mission; and are the membership engaged and involved in decision making where it matters?) have been addressed.

The privileges afforded to existing BRPS life members (primarily free lifetime 1st class travel) will also be preserved, but if the motion at the next BRPS AGM goes through, new life memberships will no longer be available. That feels reasonable to me; existing life members are not disadvantaged as far as I can see. Likewise, there is little practical impact on volunteering.

Tom

 

Having gone through many reorganisation at work in my lifetime (now retired) even when the benefits far outweigh the positives there will be a small percentage who will resist change and want things to carry on as they were. Hopefully people will sensibly weigh up things for themselves and only follow the minority if they then come to the same conclusion.

Sent from my SM-A556B using Tapatalk

 

As a life member I realise that after time I become a burden on the BRPS so I offset that through donations/purchases when I visit. Life members though do give an injection of capital when they join so maybe up the fee rather than abolish?

 

I think the burden question is difficult, and requires a proper assessment of value. For example, many of the costs are of postage and printing - costs that could be ameliorated by making then so no printed materials are sent to life members.

I saw the EGM notice and my immediate reaction was “buy now while I can”. Mrs 35b was not keen, pointing out it’s a decade since I was last there and…