9017 "Earl of Berkeley"

Bluebell motive power requirements is an interesting diversion away from 9017 and I thank Tom for his in depth explanation. I would draw a difference between 'need' and 'want' in this case. I'd say that the Bluebell want 11-12 locos in traffic but they probably only need about 6 capable of doing all the work. It may be overkill but a big loco can trundle around with a couple of coaches so the small locos are always 'nice to haves'. Being a small loco fan, I'm grateful that they do, though.

I share the opinion that it is not sensible to expect a loco to run for 10 years and would plan on eight. Any extra is a bonus not to be relied on. Mileage is an interesting one touched on by Tom. Mechanically, the reality is going to be down to the number of wheel revolutions so small wheeled locos are not going to give the mileage of the big wheeled ones. I'd be interested to know how many loco miles the Bluebell does in an average year. Looking at their published timetable I can come up with about 26000 miles. Obviously, there are lots of extra miles, not easily accounted for but I doubt that they will get beyond the 35,000 mile mark. Even allowing for 40,000 miles, that is only 400,000 miles over a 10 year period. Using James's 80,000 miles, that only requires five locos to cover it.

As for load limits, 180 tons, plus (say) an 80 ton loco, only requires a tractive effort of about 12,000lb on the 1 in 60 so it is well within the capability of a cl.2 loco. Like Swanrail, I don't consider the Bluebell to be an arduous operation and the locos aren't exactly pushed to their limits, but that's probably sensible with 100 year old machines.

 

I agree with all of that. As I said, its only an idea. If there's enough interest, then there might be a business case for bringing 9017 forward, or taking it 'outside'.

The devil is in the detail....

Ian

 

Well. As I see it. The Blubell.. Has a serious lack of anything (with back up) for Class 4 locomotives upwards! Apart from the U-Boat and 34059! What is currently serviceable on the Top End of the motive power!! To run a Regualr Summer service.. I'd have thought you need a 'Pool' of at least 4 Locomtoives in this power classification!
Further I think that eventually. A lot of the lines all over the UK, will realise that having a lot of "Loco Groups" just dumping engines! Will seriously be have to looked at.. In Court if necesssary???

 

9017 cannot really be regarded an an everyday use loco relied upon to put in 10,000 hard miles per year on 6+ coach trains. It is unique & apart from C of T is the only surviving outside framed GW loco with plenty of scars to underline the actual age of its component parts. The most important thing then is that it is conserved for the future, hopefully part of the time in an active role in line with the above comments.

The most important thing now is that it is securely dry stored undercover, preferably where it can be seen & enjoyed. Is this the case currently?

 

Is there any particular reason why the bluebell aren't interested in getting one of their 3 Standard 4's (ignoring 80151) back in service? 80064 always seems to just sit there with what appears as no current plans to restore her to working order. The bluebell are in an enviable position with 3 Standard 4 tanks plus a 4-6-0 yet the majority are just sitting cold which to me seems a bit of a waste. Would have helped them a lot surely had they not restored two P's and gone for a 4MT tank instead, as nice as the P's are, they aren't going to haul a rake of 5-6 mk1's well!

There are certainly a lot of railways out there that would kill to have either 80064 or 80100 in their fleet that's for sure!

 

80064 is not owned by the Bluebell.
80100 is still in Ex-Barry condition and is planned to be overhauled after 78059/84030
75027 will require a major overhaul and I doubt the funds are available.

 

178 and 323 had funding, and were mostly done by the Loco Working Group. This was a new group with no experience, and by doing the 2 P tanks we learned all sorts of new things including boilersmithing skills like riveting, patch screwing etc. We could do this because 178 and 323 were not on an urgent deadline to be in traffic.

Now we have gained experience, we will be starting work on 541 this weekend.

Pil

 

I'm also glad we work with small locos - much more fun!

I haven't got the most recent numbers to hand, but I think it has been running at about 45,000 miles per year for the last few years. Don't forget we run a lot of specials over and above the two train service timetable - Golden Arrows twice per week gives 3.5 round trips every weekend; Wealden Rambler gives an extra round trip etc etc - these don't necessarily appear in the public timetable. Not to mention galas, photo charters, shunt turns etc.

That gives 450,000 miles in ten years, so if you have 6 engines that means each will average about 75,000 miles between ten-yearly overhauls. But in fact all the locos don't work equally, so if you are to avoid completely hammering locos that bear the brunt of the work (1638, 80151, 592 and until recently 65 etc), then they will either last less than 10 years, or you need rather more than 6 in service.

As you say, it is about protecting 100 year old machinery rather than working everything up to its theoretical limit.

Tom

 

This is getting a way away from 9017, but quite interesting nonetheless!

There is a gradient profile here: http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/map_grad.html from which you'll see most of the line is 1:75, but undulating a bit (so careful control of water level needed, especially when emerging from the tunnel running northbound). The 1:60 is a couple of hundred yards long. The hardest section is from HK northwards: the gradient starts, initially at 1:75 and then 1:63 straight from the end of the platform and continues unabated again at 1:75 until the tunnel. The key skill is to emerge from the tunnel with sufficient pressure not to grind to a shuddering halt before you reach the summit, with sufficient water to be safe, but not with so much fire you struggle to keep it quiet in the stopover at Kingscote. Well, that's the theory anyway!

Tom

 

Another point about the Bluebells loco stud being relatively elderly is that AIUI much work was done in the 20s 30s and after by all lines on reducing the maintenance overhead and increasing time between overhauls... If your line is running say BR Standards and Black Fives or whatever then that would suggest that if you are not achieving a lot more miles between overhauls than the older stock at the Bluebell then maybe you have a maintenance problem...

 

Not having a go at the bluebell (its aunique railway with the stud of vintage locos) but on another thread about the P&D railway, they run a two engine service with only 3 engines! Having only one other loco to overhaul (75014) means i suppose that all the workshop staff are maintaining the 3 runners. The current conversation is about the small praire 4555 and 4588 taking load 9 and 10 up the 1:60 in years gone by. Thats working engines hard...

Conversly, at Toddington with the landslip we currently only run 1 loco on 5 days a week (2 if there a F&D or dining train). We need 3 for this as our trouble is we have no paid fitters and rely on all maintenance being done by volunteers. 7903 after a recent test run was found to have valve trouble and thanks to sterling work by 4 or 5 induvidulas both valves were removed, repared (parts sourced) and replaced (plus minor valve re-setting). All this to have it available for its alloted turn the following week. I'm certainly of the opinion that keeping an engine in steam and running trains for two weeks creates less repair time than running it say 2 on 3 off 1 on etc.

 

There is another aspect to the P&DR operation which is dissimilar from other lines & that is that the locos are crewed by a very limited number of people, nearly all full timers, who may also be directly engaged in maintenance of the fleet.

The operation therefore does not suffer from the worst aspects of a large body of volunteers with a variable level of skills and in some cases limited empathy for the task with some having little input to maintenance.

In no way are these comments intended as a dig at the Bluebell - they are though a factor which will probably be recognised in most steam MPDs.

 

Getting back to 9017 here as promised are the videos of her and 3717 storming Medstead Bank.
Enjoy!:

The duo making a rousing departure from Alton station: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UT8KmIB5HU

then they dig in on the bank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC90Fgp0TzM

 

This not sound like a dig at the Bluebell but going back to the comprasion with the Swanage Railway, our M7 is a class 2 and is worked very hard indded, but there been no mention of her not reaching the end of her ticket. Her last period of operation she reached the end of her ticket. 80078 reached the end of her ticket and didn't seem to have too many probloms.I can understand the idea that engines might not reach the end of their boiler ticket before being withdrawn, but since we seem to manage it either means the Bluebell being conservative with their treatment of engines or we being slightly reckless...