Bluebell Motive Power

Pity that the chance to preserve a K class mogul was not taken though I do appreciate the circumstances at the time. The steaming capacity of the smaller locomotives could be improved but I could understand a reluctance to do it. A standard Class 4 mogul would also be useful. It is a pity this situation was not recognised sooner, a Stanier 8f would meet all Bluebell requirements in terms of being able to deal with loads on the extension. Maybe taking advantage of the ex-Turkey specimens would have been a good decision.
A better long term plan is needed to supply the railway with the motive power it now needs. You want to deal with seven Mark Ones on a 1 in 55 and so, by and large, have made redundant the bulk of your existing locomotive stock. And you want to be loyal to your region? You do have a problem. You are going to require a new build or two and "Beachy Head" is not going to meet your needs. In the short term maybe the NRM would let the railway have loan of the "Flying Dustbin" once more. True, you would have to fund the overhaul but that would be buy you some time, you will have to hire in, double head with your small engines from time to time. To say it is going to cost is an understatement.

 

As usual Steven, an excellently balanced post.

 

There does seem to be an interesting diversity amongst the experts here! On the one hand, we are being told that a 100+ year old class 2 class should easily cope with six on up a 1:55 gradient; then practically in the next breath that we should have bought a Turkish 8f to cope with our heavier trains...

On the subject of loco fleet: we have a nice big one. So the problem isn't lack of locos (of any size - we have five tiny 0-6-0Ts for Obo specials and even more class 5+ locos to pull big loads up the hill, as well as a goodly number in between). The problem is restoring them quick enough, which costs money. Why buy a Turkish 8f that needs restoration, or offer to restore the NRM's Charlie, when our capacity issue is getting locos into service, not having the locos in the first place?

Bottom line is simply money to put into overhauls, and what that money buys, both in the short term and strategically in building capacity. You know where to donate...

Tom

 

Finance, tends to be the issue as you've identified. My local line, the SVR, has had it's problem in the last few years but the problem isn't the lack of adequate locomotives but finding the necessary finance to overhaul the out-of-ticket engines in the engine house and/or at Bridgnorth. Perhaps it's becoming a common issue and a generational one.

 

Mishap with computer. See revised posting below!

PH

 

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried! My concern is to ensure that people's hard work survives for another generation and that we avoid wastefulness. So the stuff needs to be properly looked after and reserves built up so the unexpected can be coped with. As an example of the unexpected, the large bill faced by the Mid-Hants for overbridge repair is just one example.

If running a branch line train with Class 8 motive power because "we want to" means the carriages go unpainted or the upholstery moquette is no more than a stain on the backing (as I have encountered) then it is obvious a re-think is needed.

PH

 

It's true that the passenger revenue comes primarily from the general public rather than enthusiasts - but I think railways are re-learning the lesson that they need enthusiast income for anything other than day to day running costs - eg East Grinstead for the Bluebell and the current SVR Share Offer which has raised £1.68m - most I suspect from enthusiasts.

 

Michael - I understand where you are coming from and the proportion of such funds from enthusiasts will be much greater than the fare-box proportion - but remember that the initial Share Issue for the Wensleydale raised over £1 million for what was at the time a community railway project, without any immediate intention to use steam as far as I can recall.

It is horses for courses - some specialist appeals (to restore a particular type of signal or obscure piece of Rolling Stock, for example) will almost certainly grab the enthusiast attention primarily, but general appeals or share issues to improve commercialfacilities may well not.

The local community and those with a love of the area where the Railway runs can be just as important as "enthusiasts". I haven't said enthusiasts aren't important, but care must be taken in wasteful expenditure perceived to satisfy a certain group. As I have already said, in many ways, I suspect the enthusiast can appreciate a small loco struggling with a reasonable length train more than the general public, and the "big guests" are often brought in on the back of general public revenue expectation, not specifically enthusiasts - PaulH probably speaks for quite a few enthusiasts in saying a mainline express loco on 5 coaches on a sleepy branch-line does nothing for him!

Steven

 

Isn't much of this largely due to the fact that repairing or replacing items which were ten-a-penny even 30 years ago is now fiendishly expensive? Maybe time for the owners of a ubiquitous, useful class (say the 4MT tanks) to club together and get a batch of boilers /cylinders / whatever falls over most commonly? I know it's easier to say than do, obviously...

 

I do believe that's happening some respects. Aren't the cylinders for 82045 being cast along with a new one for 76079? BR Standard Locomotive Owners Group seem to be a good 'trade' organisation at getting parts for owners of such locomotives. As no doubt other people have said before, some engines that came out of BR were probably in not terrible condition and allowed for 20-30 years of gentle wear on preserved railways until they needed major components replacing. Some engines benefited from having well organised owning groups or railways that took into account the cost of wear while others have not.

 

I have notices that Bachmann have just announced that they will be doing a 00 scale model of beachy head for 2015

 

There is certainly joint provision / procurement of parts between the 82045 and 84030 groups, and a while back there was a joint order for Terrier cylinder blocks between railways. There is also co-operation between C&W groups on different railways, for example in joint ordering of particular patterns of moquette in quantities that are more economical than the small batch that any one railway might need. Though to set against that, on the Bluebell at least, is the fact that we do have rather a lot of unique engines. Not much commonality between the E4 and the H when needing to produce patterns for a new cylinder block!

Tom

 

Really there are three groups that preserved railways cater for. The railways general expenditure is just about covered by the travelling public, who expect a interesting looking steam loco, good clean carriages, a few things to see and good facilities (toilets, picnic areas etc). The population local to the line are also vitally important, although less so financially. This local community supports the railways, provides a percentage of the workforce and acts as a provider of a certain amount of free publicity and some of the travelling public. The third group is the enthusiasts/members. This group basically provide the workforce, and the money for all the extras. In return they get to participate in operations, and have a say on what goes on. This is the group that creates the variety on a railway, as they all have differing interests, and fund those interests to varying levels.

In terms of the Bluebell, the paying passengers basically allow the trains to run, the community supports the railway, and the enthusiasts/members pay for the things that make Bluebell different from the norm, thus providing more variety for the paying passengers, which acts as an incentive for them to visit. While Paul might feel that the railway should only be using class 4 engines and standard coaches, the enthusiasts/members don't want that, and thus contribute the money and skills to provide the variety. The railways coaching stock is a perfect example of this. In the late 80s/early90stheoperating department bought in a whole lot of MK1s as they were cheap, and provided corridor stock, which they believed was what the public wanted. However, the membership set to work on numerous pre-grouping vintage carriages (Mets, Brighton Bogie etc). By the late 90s these came into service, and proved immensly popular with the travelling public,who saw them as incredibly interesting and totally different. Since then, a whole new market of vintage train operations has sprung up, considerably adding to the bottom line. The point is that the enthusiasts/members will provide the funding/labour to maintain what they want in service, especially if it is seen as popular with the public.

Bluebell would be a very different place if had it adhered to the kind of policy Paul advocates, and as a result would probably be back to running a few trains between Sheffield Park and Horsted Keynes by now. Certainly there wouldn't be the 13 pre grouping coaches in service, all stored under cover in facilities that the members have largely fundraised for and built.

I know what railway I want to see, and it ain't what would have been if we'd kept running only Mk1s.

Daniel

 

Big Al above makes a good point about keeping your fleet in good shape. Allied to this is trying to get away from the "heavy overhaul" run it into the ground over the next ten years, and then store it for "X years".. insert your own figure for "x".

On the SVR we have just seen 43106 have a five year "intermediate", at which it has gained a new boiler certificate. 42968 has just come to the end of a ten year spell, but I think the bottom half is in reasonable order. 1501 likewise needed boiler work but had not long had the bottom half fettled so required relatively little attention in that department.I recall comments that the WSR have a relatively small fleet, but with regular attention are not allowed to get to that "run into the ground" state .
I know "finance" comes into it, but if our Heritage lines want to see working steam long into the future--and in the absence of a deep-pockets benefactor--then there has to be an ongoing sustainable plan to keep such service fleet engines in good order and not end up "clapped-out" as such.

46118

 

Given that the SVR has 26 locos on the line and a maximum requirement for 10(?) working locos, then by implication 60% of the fleet is going to be out of service at any time and with 1 or 2 locos being outshopped each year, do the maths to find "x"

 

Which is the sort of maths that is always worth outlining to the "why don't you restore xxx?" brigade.

On the Bluebell, we have 30 locos and a requirement for 10 in service.

So, assuming each loco can run ten years in traffic, that means you have to outshop a loco every year. However, 10 years is probably a bit ambitious; an average of eight years might be more realistic. So that means five locos every four years, or one every nine to ten months. Assuming we have three under overhaul at any one time, which is about our workshop capacity, especially allowing some space for minor repairs to the running fleet means each loco needs to take about 30 months under overhaul.

We have thirty locos, so ignoring the niceties of small-medium-large, that means at any time we would have ten locos in traffic, three under overhaul and seventeen out of traffic on display at any one time. Or converted into time, each loco will be in traffic only about 1/3 of the time - the other 2/3 of the time it will be under overhaul or, more likely, on static display.

The capacity gap we have is getting a loco overhauled every 9-10 months; it's not about a lack of locos per se.

Tom

 

10 engines? How many do you run on a given day?

 

4 Large (Class 4+) For peak season 6 coach trains, 2 required per day, 1 on washout, 1 undergoing maintenance
3 Medium (Class 1-3) For off-peak services, Golden Arrow, Wealden Rambler. 1 Required most weekends, 2 if a shorter service train is running
2 Small (P/Terrier) Observation car specials, light off-peak services, carriage heating in Santa season and other such duties.
1 Microscopic (Baxter) Novelty value, demonstration goods trains (if they make a return), Ardingly brake van rides.

Oh wouldn't life be fabulous if the Bluebell could field a full fleet like that !

--Edit -- Having thought about it, in about 2015 the Bluebell won't be far off this ideal! 847, 541, 73082 (maybe 34059) 263, B473, 592 (if she's still serviceable) 178, 323 and Baxter.

 

Agreed - on the SVR, the output is probably 3 locos every 2 years so not dissimilar to the Bluebell.