Bluebell Motive Power

I happened to mention pre-grouping bogie coaches simply because we were discussing those in an LBSCR context. If you wish to move the goalposts, we have around 20 wooden bodied coaches in service currently and one or more will be in service every day, including mid week.

That doesn't get round the issue though of the difficulties of keeping so many carriages in traffic, together with the operational need for seats, which is rather "peaky". For example, historically, our busiest train has been the 11.00am from SP. That is still the case, but now we have the additional issue that a train that is often full on the way up with passengers aiming to do the round trip meets what turns out to be our busiest period at EG: thus the 12am down can often get pretty full. That in turn means running large trains (and concomitant larger motive power) which may only be really full on one of their three round trips: the 11am up / 12am down. You could probably knock a couple of carriages off after the first round trip, but you have still provisioned a larger loco in any case so no saving there; in addition the additional shunting to reform the set for the next day would add time at one end of the day or the other, probably sufficient to require a split duty - so you need more crews. Keeping the set together is operationally easier, but all adds to the carriage mileage.

The point is, none of this is easy! Decisions in one area (for example, reduce mileage by splitting sets in the middle of the day) have knock-on consequences elsewhere (for example, in numbers of loco crew required). Even the IoWSR, who do a better job than most, were down to just three bogie coaches earlier in the year and resorted to running mixed bogie / four wheel sets simply to keep "the show on the road", as it were. That's not a criticism of the IoWSR, but simply to say that the maintenance overheads of running all vintage against a weekly carriage mileage that can run to over 1000 train-miles per week during the school holidays is considerable. By time you balance in the need to have wheelchair access (we have two converted Mark 1s and a converted Victorian coach, but currently no wheelchair facility in the Edwardian, Maunsell or Bulleid coaches); sufficient first class but not too much (the Victorian and Edwardian sets have too much; the Maunsells too little; the Mark 1s probably too much) etc. etc, and carriage rostering becomes a bit of a juggling act to provide sufficient seats while keeping up with routine inspections and maintenance!

This summer, things haven't been helped by the enforced absence of the Mets: latest photos from Horsted Keynes indicate that 387 is back on its bogies and probably will soon be able to return to traffic - just in time for its annual Summer Holiday "up the smoke"! So that has put additional pressure on the Maunsells and Edwardian carriages that probably won't ease for a while. Some of the slightly odd vintage sets that have been out this year just go to show how close to the wire we have been running at times: to pretend that it is feasible to run vintage sets midweek as well is, I'm afraid, at the moment simply gricerish whimsy.

Of course, a few years ago we were tight for locos, but that situation - while still not ideal - has definitely eased this year to the extent that for the first time in many years, we haven't (touch wood) needed to supplement the fleet with a long-term visitor for the summer. So I am sure we will get through this carriage situation as well. There's a lot to look forward to in the mid-term, since it may be possible to provision a complete Bulleid or Maunsell set alternating on Set A, with Victorian or Edwardian sets alternating on Set B. But that is still realistically a decade or so in the future I'd imagine.

And, in case anyone wants to know what our trains look like, this is the "B" set last weekend, or indeed on many weekend this year: (not my photo; via http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/whats_new.html). When all is said and done, not a bad train to ride in...

Tom

 

It depends utterly whether you regard the comments made as reasons or excuses.

PH

 

You just can't leave it can you? The Bluebell is one of the best railways around for heritage coaching stock, and you're still not happy!

 

It is but only if you go on the right day.

PH

 

Words fail me. You have someone engaged in the operational running of the railway giving reasonable explanations and yet you still choose to be antagonistic.

What exactly is your problem Paul? I just don't get it. I perfectly accept there's an alternate point of view to everything but you've moved the goalposts a number of times in this thread and refuse to be reasoned with. Do you just enjoy being unpleasant? I like to think the best of people but it's really very difficult with you here.

 

I am afraid words fail me as well. The only "goalpost" moved (horrible cliche like "level playing field") was when I overlooked the word "bogie" in one posting which was acknowledged by me. Otherwise the goalpost moving comes from those who read what they want me to say rather than what I actually do say.

Just watch you when someone takes a "pop" at E. Thpmpson!

PH

 

Paul, the two quotes I've posted above read very antagonistic to me. Was that your intention? If not - what was your intention? Humour me.

 

Paul, what is your problem? You've had all the reasons fully explained yet you refuse to accept that there is ANY reason not to run particular coaches on particular days.

Your well trotted out example of the IOWSR is an exception - they have no choice, but they are also a smaller concern so less coaches to maintain overall. If you've been told several times that older coaches need more maintenence per mile, what's so difficult about that? Or do you volunteer in a C+W maintenence team?

And bringing up Thompson has no bearing on this discussion, so not quite sure why you needed to mention it at all...

 

Some inaccuracies are less than intrusive than others, a double chimneyed A4 in LNER guise doesn't look too bad, 60103 in BR Spec & LNER livery and 48624 looked like a dogs dinner though.

 

If you start from the position that only the W&LLR and the IoWSR get it right then you will begin to understand where Paul is coming from.

 

Right, last reply to you on this topic. If you regard disagreement with you as antagonistic, then so be it. The reference to E. Thompson was as a reference to an example of a thread which became antagonistic.

PH

 

Do they ?, the Austrian stock with the balcony ends is very attractive to passengers, but something less than authentic.

 

I've tried that and that doesn't work either, as IIRC Paul thinks highly of the P&D or whatever they're called this week too!

 

And so bringing it up again wasn't antagonistic? And presumably, telling us all that well explained reasons are "just excuses" isn't either then?

 

No-where gets it right all the time. There is a lot of wonderful work which goes on in heritage railways but also IMHO a fair bit of less than wonderful decision making.

One thing that cannot be denied in the case of both examples referred to by you is that their finances are firmly in the black.

PH

 

This is all getting a tad silly, and not least personal............ any danger things can be wound in, and topic resumed?.........

 

Gladly I will take your advice. Hopefully others will as well.

 

But I haven't had this argument with Paul for at least a few months!

 

I find it difficult to accept that there is a singular "right" way of doing things in railway preservation, not least because there's so many different factors at work. Where to begin?

Different business models? Different people from different backgrounds, interests and experience? Different amounts of money and different things to pay for? The differences in maintenance of a standard gauge compared to a narrow gauge railway? The availability of period rolling stock and people with the skills to restore them in the area or local to the railway? The number of paying customers? The sundries of steam locomotives including coal and water (dependent on size of loco, train, timetable, etc etc). The facilities available for rebuilding/maintenance/storage and the difference between all of those things between standard and narrow gauge? The limiting factors of national rail links and road links?

Stop me when I hit on exactly when we stop trying to compare preserved railways based on authenticity?

I get there are very reasonable and desirable (and noble) aims for authenticity. Heck, I want to see locomotives and matching rolling stock in a period location too. However I can't help but feel the last few pages suddenly became an excuse to criticise the Bluebell Railway specifically. Paul's point as I understand it is that the Bluebell Railway aren't good enough at running their pre-grouping rolling stock, in addition to being critical of them not having specific LBSCR pre-grouping stock which may or may not have been available to them in the past. He was given a very reasonable explanation for the former for which he altered his view based on the number of wheels the carriages had, simply because he missed the word "bogie"...?

And for the record, if having Ivatt Tanks on the IoSWR is authentic then perhaps I've missed the point Paul is making too. Oh, and perhaps having the balcony coaches on the W&LLR in addition to years of the Sierra Leone steam loco, and Monarch displayed out in the open is authentic too...

(My caveat is I have visited and enjoyed both of those railways for the effort that goes into the more authentic parts - but I'm not going to get hung up on the inauthentic bits where practical considerations have to take over. Sorry for that).

I don't know, I like consistency in debate and to be frank the change in viewpoint and the asides to the Thompson thread are examples of red herrings in my book. Stick to the core of the debate which is - well, I'm not even sure now! Is it that there's very few railways which "get it right" in Paul's book?

 

My remark was tongue in cheek but you bring up a valid point. Paul gives the impression - to me at least - that the W&LLR and the IoWSR get it right where others get it wrong. He makes a big play of authenticity yet to be authentic the Welshpool could only ever run the one passenger rake, i.e. the Pickerings. The railway however lives in the real world and has assembled an excellent collection of locos and rolling stock from far and wide to enable them to run sufficient trains to meet passenger demand as well as give some variety and spare capacity. Well done them I say. Likewise there should be neither Austerities nor Ivatts running on the IoWSR if authenticity was the watchword but the railway can't rely on just the one O2 and a couple of Terriers so extra motive power had to come from somewhere and the railway has given a home to locos that never ran on the Island. Fair play to them. But let another line take a similar stance and Paul seems to disapprove.