If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Bluebell loco crisis deepens

Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by secr1084, Feb 14, 2009.

  1. secr1084

    secr1084 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    "the 3pm train ex SP on Sunday will be cancelled, due to non availability of an engine."

    "It is unfortunate that the 01 failed but you need to remember that the special was programmed long before the U boat went into the works for firebox repairs. These have taken much longer than expected - it was originally promised for early December - and have exacerbated the loco shortage. "

    The above is from the Bluebell yahoo group.
    After the withdrawal of Maunsell TO 1336, this has not be a good start to the year.
     
  2. Lewisb06

    Lewisb06 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    520
    Likes Received:
    1
    Occupation:
    Work for Big railway
    The coulduse the ED....... \:D/
     
  3. cct man

    cct man Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,220
    Likes Received:
    49
    Occupation:
    CONSTRUCTION
    Location:
    LONDON
    Nah,the 08 would be better, especially on the Mets as it has been done before.

    Regards
    Chris Willis ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
     
  4. David

    David Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    water meter reader
    Location:
    Eastbourne
    This is such a pity that this has happened but ultimately predicable. In relation to the U class a relative of mine works for the MLS society and when the U was withdrawn in late November/early December the Bluebell said they hoped to get the engine repaired in time for the xmas period. He examed the loco himself and told me there was little chance of the loco being ready in time for the xmas period, the repairs would take around 2 months at best to complete. Yes the Bluebell have been really unlucky with some of their locos i.e. 34023 withdrawn early, C class spring problems and 34059 taking longer than expected to return to steam but if money was invested into the loco dept. instead of E.G. then cancelling passenger services may not be happening now.
     
  5. cct man

    cct man Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,220
    Likes Received:
    49
    Occupation:
    CONSTRUCTION
    Location:
    LONDON
    Could not agree more David, well said.

    =D> =D>
    Regards
    Chris Willis
     
  6. stepney60

    stepney60 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    The simple fact is the line is in a Catch 22 situation. It has to extend to East Grinstead, or it loses planning rights and will be right back to where it was nearly 20 years ago, with trains running SP - HK only, or it invests in the other infrastructure. I personally don't think that is the fault of the board, EG has to be done to maintain the long-term viability of the line, however the draconian restrictions imposed, coupled with some poor management on a departmental level, have cost the line.

    There has been a general lack of forward planning in many areas. The C&W and loco works, while they may have lacked funds, seem totally unable to decide between themselves what their plan of action is (when I joined as a volunteer, I was told 34059 was six months away. That was spring 2004. You can't tell me that a gap of 5 years is entirely down to unexpected setbacks...), who, for example, can tell me what the next engine to be worked on after 34059 is? Even the works doesn't know!

    "Let's do 847. Oh no, wait, 1178 looks in good order. Oooh, hang on, that H class sure looks nice. But we ought to be doing Camelot first. Mind you, we ought to look at the 9F, but then again..."

    Frankly, the ED is going to have to be used to maintain the service. I personally don't object, but I wonder if the vehementanti-brigade (you know who you are) are prepared to sacrifice train services for the sake of not having the dreaded d****l working service trains?
     
  7. David

    David Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    water meter reader
    Location:
    Eastbourne
    Yes I must admit your pretty much spot on there Chris. It was great initially to read on the Bluebell website that the H class was going to get overhauled when the E4 is finished in the works. But then I thought hang-on, what about 847, 1178, Camelot and apparently the Q class is top of the queue where exactly does the H fit into the overhaul programme? I also remember talking to a Bulleid Society member on the lineside at Giants of Steam 07 and he said 34059 would most definately be ready by Giants 08. Well now we're being told Easter 09 is when S.A.S is hoped to steam. It's a case of the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing sadly.
     
  8. Birchwood

    Birchwood New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why cant they hire in a steam loco?
     
  9. cct man

    cct man Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,220
    Likes Received:
    49
    Occupation:
    CONSTRUCTION
    Location:
    LONDON
    Erm, it has already been stated that this is too expensive, and Bluebell has no money for anything else but the extension and catering vehicles.

    ttfn
    Chris
     
  10. Neil_Scott

    Neil_Scott Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    302
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Railway servant
    Location:
    Worcester
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    An Austerity 0-6-0 would cost about £350 a day, can the Bluebell really afford to lose income at the moment?
     
  11. david1984

    david1984 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,910
    Likes Received:
    1,387
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Birmingham
    Surely if money is tight, then logic dictates that the next loco into the works is the one in the best condition (so costs less in theory) that can handle all traffic (no point messing about with a Terrier or P when you need power for 5 or 6 coaches) rather than anyone favourites or how long it has been in the queue ?, granted some have waited longer than others, but your priority seems to be getting something working above anything else.
     
  12. Neil_Scott

    Neil_Scott Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    302
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Railway servant
    Location:
    Worcester
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Fine enough now but what about 5 years down the line?

    A long-term plan now, would help identify and eradicate any future motive power problems and would be pro-active rather than reactionary. If a locomotive needs to be hired-in to cover for a short-fall then the cost should be absorbed rather than constantly shuffling cards in the overhaul stakes.
     
  13. michaelh

    michaelh Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,080
    Likes Received:
    1,291
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Very comfortably early retired
    Location:
    1029
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I think this is all planned by those on the Bluebell who want diesels there running trains - such as the Chairman who wants a "Thumper"

    I don't think there's been a lack of forward planning - on the contrary, this steam loco shortage has been planned for several years - how convenient that first the 08 and then the ED was immediately available
     
  14. stepney60

    stepney60 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is, they've already done that. They found a list of engines in good nick and did them, the problem is they were 80151, 1638, the C class and the Dukedog. Some engines were done heavily, the E4 and O1 spring to mind, but most were done quickly about 5-10 years ago to cover shortages then. The engines in worse condition were pushed to the back of the queue, now they're the only options and the overhauls are both more expensive and take longer, which leaves shortfalls. As I pointed out, 34059 was supposed to be straight-forward, it's now been in the workshops for about 5 and a half years. Someone in the works once told me that they reckoned if engines could be churned out every 18 months up to about 2010, the line could cope. However, since then (Spring 2004), what have we had? 1638, which by all accounts won't last 10 years anyway. 592, spends 90% of it's time having something repaired in the 'shops. And that's about it.

    I recently dug up a statement sent out in around 2006 from the loco department (about the time the first shunter arrived) listing the details. It envisaged (IIRC) 34059 coming out "soon", being replaced by 847, that being out by the end of 2007. Meanwhile, the North london Tank was recalled to be overhauled for the lighter work. That arrived back in late 2005, was moved behind the platform at Sheffield Park and, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't moved since.

    Put it this way, a brief summary of the Bluebell loco fleet as I see it right now...

    1638, 9017, 80151, 65 - doing most of the work, increased wear and tear, increasing reliability issues
    672 - handy but not powerful enough
    592 - hugely unreliable
    34059 - schedule gets put back 6 months every 6 months
    21C123 - never worked well, frankly is shagged (that's a technical term I believe)
    488, 323, 27, 55 - either put in the "too difficult" file or of little use
    178 - being worked on, about as much use day to day as 672 (i.e. looks nice for the kiddies, maybe manages shortened vintage train)
    263 - the new flavour of the month. Within 6 months will be deemed either of little use or "too difficult"
    96 - not seen as needed now we have a nice little diesel to play with instead, farmed out
    1618, 75027, 541 - seemingly forgotten about
    928 - everyone keeps talking about doing it. Never gets done.
    847 - hopeful provided 34059 doesn't clog the works for to much longer.
    73082, 92240 - supposedly good, but no-one seems overly bothered about finding out
    58850 - no-one rightly knows
    Baxter - currently being worked on. Fat lot of good she'll be...

    So there you have it. The line, allegedly, needs four engines of class 4 or above to work the scheduled service. Currently, it has two, will increase to three when 34059 comes out. The problem is the line doesn't have enough of these to start with. By my reckoning of decent sized engines, it has 11. A handy number. But currently one is being worked on seriously and one being preliminary worked on. That's four at a push. Of the others, two are shunted away in a shed out of the way, three down the headshunt even further out of the way. One goes back and forth from shed to yard when work seems keen, then interest wanes again, and the other is dead as a door-nail in need of (probably) a new firebox, or at least some serious work to the current one. It's all well and good having all these nice, vintage tank engines all over the place, but of eff all use when the line gets longer and trains get heavier.

    The choice should be clear, either invest in the works, or contract out. The line tries to do the first and claims it can't afford the second. But frankly, it won't have a choice in the near future, especially if something curtails either 80151 or 1638. But the really galling thing is that people have seen this coming for years, long before the push to EG started in earnest. I remember someone right back in the late 1990s when I was down there saying "we're gonna have problems in ten years if they don't pull their finger out". But no-one seems to have done anything about it. Or if they have, it hasn't worked.

    And if you think this is bad, just imagine if we hadn't re-discovered 65 and had never been given 80151... :smt107
     
  15. stepney60

    stepney60 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now now, Michael. I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next man. However, from what I've seen, that kind of forward planning is way too advanced for some... ;-) :-$
     
  16. David

    David Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    water meter reader
    Location:
    Eastbourne
    Yep that is a superb summary of what's been happening at the Bluebell Chris, especially about the North London Tank - supposedly brought back for a fast track overhaul 2 years ago, still sitting behind Platform 2 at S.P now forgotton about. Somone surely on the board of directors must stand up and be accountable for this mess.
     
  17. Neil_Scott

    Neil_Scott Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    302
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Railway servant
    Location:
    Worcester
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I don't see 80064 or 80100 in that list which any forward looking railway would bite their left leg off to have in their 'reserve' list.
     
  18. David

    David Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    water meter reader
    Location:
    Eastbourne
    80064 is owned by a private group so as a result probably isn't high in the overhaul queue and 80100 is still in Barry wreck condition so that will take many years to return to steam. I think once the Standard 2mt Tank conversion is finished the group will tackle 80100.
     
  19. Neil_Scott

    Neil_Scott Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    302
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Railway servant
    Location:
    Worcester
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Why should 80064 be in an a position to be overhauled because it's owned by a private hire company? Is it the only private hire company to own a locomotive on the Bluebell? Surely a railway of the Bluebell's size know all about private groups that own locomotives.

    Hard to see why an agreement between the locomotive owners and the railway for a very, very useful locomotive couldn't and shouldn't be agreed.
     
  20. stepney60

    stepney60 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    80100 is deemed in better condition than 80064 (an engine in bits doesn't need dismantling, you see), I actually suggested flogging it a few years back on the Bluebell group and was treated as an anti-Christ...

    "What, sell that? What about all the people who worked so hard to bring her to the line?"

    Oh yes, because seeing it tarpaulined over in a heap must give them real job satisfaction, eh? I sort of buy the idea that the line doesn't have one and needs one, but if the last train had been hauled by something else there would be nothing like the clamour to have one I bet.

    80064 is (or last I heard) was owned by a group from the old Dart Valley railway, whether they still own it or not I'm not sure.

    As to holding someone accountable? Sorry David, but welcome to the real world. Come the AGM they'll all get back in comfortably, probably unopposed because no-one else can put accross their viewpoint. The magazine won't allow it, there have been accusations that the chat group is moderated, so how do you get to the grass-roots members who don't see what's really happening? They're quite content to stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la I can't hear you" and blindly let the same people back in, because "they're doing alright". And we see from this thread what a truly wonderful job they are doing. It's virtually impossible to oppose them in any serious way, as your avenues are restricted at every turn.

    Some of you might know that I have, in my time, often defended the railway and the management from people on here, so hopefully you will realise the seriousness of my concern in bringing this up and talking about it in this way. I genuinely fear that within a decade, the Bluebell will be a shadow of it's former self. And I know certain of you out there (both posting members and outsiders) won't take very kindly to this and will moan as per usual about people being biased and not volunteering. Well the way the line is losing volunteers hand-over-fist, the words rats and sinking ships spring to mind. And the sooner people pull their heads out from between their knees and look at things frankly, honestly and genuinely question things, the line will continue going nowhere fast.
     

Share This Page