Roy Watts warns of more diesels on the Bluebell

That point is correct but they do use diesels. There must be a market otherwise they would not use them. If the diesel side on a railway looses money then the railway would probably drop them (eg MHR Diesel gala). The above railways have been using diesels for many many years now.

Dan,
Using diesels IS part of preservation whether people like it or not.
The question is are people preserving or just play with trains?
It all depends what people of that railway want.
If they want to preserve a railway before diesels existed....fine...
But is they are wanting to recreate the 50's and 60's then diesels have to have a place.

 

I'm not disputing that - I was merely pointing out that passenger numbers would be pretty high anyway due to the nature of the catchment area the railways are located in.

I'm not disputing that either - diesel traction is a fundamental part of preservation. What I am saying is that before diesel traction was introduced, everything on the railways was done by steam power, with the exception of horse shunting. Something which until the 08 arrived was recreated at the Bluebell. Now bringing in the 08 has probably saved us a lot of money both through cost of use and reducing wear and tear on the existing steam fleet, something which was a major boost when the railway was in the throes of a locomotive shortage.

In my opinion (note that is my opinion, therefore can be right or wrong in other peoples eyes) 'playing trains' and 'preservation' work hand in hand, governed only by the limits of finance, manpower and imagination.

I won't say anything else on the matter as I have already broken my cardinal rule of not getting involved with this topic. Suffice to say it is Sunday morning and I am bored rigid waiting for an event this afternoon to start.

Regards,

Dan

 

There's the answer then - forget diesels, get a team of horses in.

Given the amount of hoity-toity Pony Club types in East Sussex, nobody could dispute that horses aren't 'appropriate traction' for the Bluebell.

 

Always gives me a chuckle how some Bluebell members view using a diesel on non passenger service work as a sign of the impending apocolypse...

They are a handy workmans tool which will help you achieve your aims quicker long term, steam will always resign supreme on passenger services as this is what the public wants.

 

You are way off the mark if you think that the NYMR uses diesels because there is a market. It is generally accepted by all and sundry that the public do not want a diesel loco at the head of its train. We get a definite walking away of a noticeable amount of prospective passengers if they find a diesel on the front before they buy their tickets. The NYMR uses diesels occasionally on its passenger trains. It is generally to cover for a steam failure and just occasionally for convenience. The odd train is rostered for diesel haulage on summer saturdays to cater for the so-called diesel market. I don't think that they are overly successful in terms of increased passenger numbers. The Railway does use 350's for its routine shunting but it doesn't have any similar sized steam locos that it could use instead.

Tell me the name of one largely diesel railway that is successful?

 

Well the Mid Norfolk Railway seems to go from strength to strength as well as the rapidly expanding Ecclesbourne Valley Railway. Both are essentially all diesel lines.
Also lines like the KWVR are able to mix steam and diesel trains without the world ending.

Tim

 

No, because that'd be cutting your nose off to spite your face. Logic dictates you use the diesels for the job steam doesn't have to do (e.g. Thursday shunt in winter, working engineers trains to / from the tip / extension railhead) and keep the steam for the revenue earning turns. It's pointless going to the expense of firing up a kettle when it's pulling a train which won't make any money back.

 

steam/diesel/mixed or ...

The Bluebell did very well to manage "steam-only" for so long, and I for one much prefer steam over diesel, but occasional diesel workings (even in passenger service), as well as being an economically and operationally pragmatic solution, won't destroy the Bluebell effect for the majority of fare-paying visitors, and may even bring in more on occasions.

Of course for the ultimate in efficiency, why not go electric? The only question that would then remain is "third-rail or overhead?"

(rapidy seeks sanctuary in darkest depths of Sharpthorne Tunnel ...)

 

There is the option of 'battery electric'.

 

The BB have and do manage well with their "steam only" policy.

It is their choice and they shouldnt be critisied for having that policy and like wise shouldt be critisied if they decide to have a diesel or two. If they did decide to have a diesel it wont change them at all. It would still be the BB.
What gets my goat is when people say the railway would go down hill if they had a diesel there and they would refuse to go there and visit...very childish and a narrow minded attitude....

 

Whether the Mid Norfolk and the Ecclesbourne Valley Railways can be described as successful is a matter of opinion.

The Worth Valley do indeed run their morning shoppers service with a diesel but the main visitors timetable is steam throughout.

 

Steady on, Martin. One thing at a time, eh? A whole outbreak of common sense all at once will probably just confuse the serial frothers... ;-)

 

If and when the Bluebell dose invest in a diesel loco maybe they should look at some think like a class 14 Teddy bear. This type of loco would blend in a bit better with steam locos and would not look so out of place at the Bluebell. Not my cup of tea but some people like them.

 

I think a multi purpose diesal for the Bluebell is a good thing. The general public is only concerned what is actually pulling them for the majority of their visit. I say this as perhaps it may be necessary to run an earlier diesal service up to East Grinstead to collect the first passengers travelling via East Grinstead to the Bluebell to connect with their 11am service from Sheffield Park,who knows?
Also in the off peak running when only one engine is in steam,what happens if their is a problem the other end of the line to Sheffield Park?. I know if I was a passenger I would rather be picked up by a diesal than waiting a couple of hours stranded at Kingscote waiting for an engine to be hurriedly got ready to steam.
As long as the majority of passenger services are steam hauled which I think they always will be at the Bluebell, then whats the problem?
As for the Ardingly branch when it finally is done,what about making that vintage electric traction,there will need to be a reason for the public to get off at Horsted Keynes,so the branch line needs to be different!
All the best,Tim Ashton

 

Since the Bluebell doesn't run a "one engine in steam" service, there will always be a loco in steam to rescue a failure even if that means taking it of the other service train or the diner.
What many people here are failing to realise is the Bluebell would need to invest in new infrastructure if they are to have a permanent diesel presence and that is money they don't have; every spare pound is going on the extension. Then there is the matter of space, something that is in short supply at the moment with a lot of stock stored out in the open and on the Ardingly branch spur. So any new building projects will be for C&W, not a fledgling diesel department.

 

If the BB were to hire in a 37, 20, 47 & 55 for a 2 day diesel gala. They would be overwhelmed for those 2 days. I am sure they could charge a premium to cover transport costs, and be quids in.

On the other hand, why?
Just to satisfy a few people who like to colour in their Rail Atlases for the class of loco they have travelled over lines!

 

The 73 on the Directors saloon caused a few heads to turn and much interest at Sheffield Park. Cant say I would want to travel behind a diesel to often but I cant see a reason not to have one. What is the point of flogging a steam engine on mundane duties out of the public eye? By all account the 73 was a great success, one charter paid for its hire and its fuel for all the tip trips.