Bluebell Motive Power

From the Bluebell e-Newsletter:

LOCO UPDATE: A NEW PLAN FOR "SIR ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR"

Since the Railway opened again at the start of February, our services have been handled by numbers 73082, 592, and 473, with No. 323 acting as pilot and running a service train one weekend when the C class was unavailable.

Our Q class had a successful trip at the Mid-Hants Railway gala, and since returning to Sheffield Park, a boiler washout has taken place along with other maintenance tasks such as brake adjustment.

Inside the Works, the H class has had two boiler stays changed, some rivets on the frames replaced, the small ends and crossheads re-bushed, and the driving axle journals polished. The pistons have been removed for new rings to be fitted, the "D" valves skimmed, and the valve faces re-ground. Classed as "heavy maintenance," this work will keep the loco fit for service.

Work continues on No. 80151 inside the Works, with the fabrication and fitting of new frame stretchers and repairs to the base of the coal bunker. Off-site, the new tyres are being fitted to the loco's wheels, and all being well, these should be returned to Sheffield Park next month.

The boiler overhaul on No. 34059 "Sir Archibald Sinclair," underway at LNWR Crewe, suffered a setback in late January. In the course of removing some platework--which involved cutting through an old weld repair--a visual inspection of the joint revealed flaws in the weld. A full non-destructive test inspection of other weld repairs in the firebox, some of which date back to BR days, revealed a number of other flaws. This finding was verified through independent inspection by two different companies.

Accordingly, the decision has been made that the most cost-effective and reliable course of action is to replace the entire inner firebox, rather than try to salvage what good material remains with the need to add further welds between old and new material.

With LNWR Crewe's current workload, and its focus on the repair of its own locos, a change in strategy has taken place: a new firebox will be ordered from the South Devon Railway, which will complete its construction and fitting. This completed firebox will then be returned to Sheffield Park, where the boiler stays and tubes can be fitted and the boiler re-fitted to the frames in our own workshop. This plan gives greater control over completion timescales and costs, and it best utilises our own in-house skills and resources.

This news is disappointing, but it is better to find such issues now rather than having the loco run for a short period before suffering another sequence of firebox problems. The immediate future therefore will see the final outer firebox platework completed at LNWR Crewe. It is anticipated that the boiler will return to Sheffield Park towards the beginning of 2017, so the overhaul can be completed by the end of 2017.

By Chris Hunford, Locomotive Director

 

That is a bit of a setback isn't it. Well at least it should be complete in the not to distant future. I feel quite sorry for 21c123 as she has been sitting around not running for a good 8 years, and these locomotives that have not been waiting so long are getting done first, guess it is to do with the costs, what needs doing and the fact the bullied society are in charge of when and what happens to it. And as they own Sir Archibald Sinclair aswell obviously they thought it would be better to have that completed first.

 

34059 is owned by the Bluebell Railway.

Tom

 

Oh is it well it is with 21c123 and Normandy on the bulleid society website, i know they are based at the railway and work is carried out by them and various other places, but i thought it was actually owned by the bullied society.

 

The Maunsell Society have something similar where 1638 is Bluebell owned but was put on a 99 year lease to them by the railway when it's restoration was completed in 2006.

 

Things sure are complicated in deepest Sussex!

PH

 

For those of us who love the Bluebell most for its wonderful collection of little old locos, the delay in the return of a big newer one, of a type which can be seen almost anywhere (!) is not unalloyed bad news...

 

I feel sorry for those waiting well over 8 years and still waiting such as 30064,488,NL tank,80064....

 

I wouldnt hold your breath! 'Archie' is unfortunately a major cock up when originally returned to service. A few heads rolled as a result.

As a bit of an aside, on Rugby Test Plant in the 1950s, a Bulleid Pacific MN with thermic syphons was tested against the example without thermic syphons, and no difference could be detected. The boiler/firebox overhaul costs of the Bulleid Pacifics would be considerably reduced if the thermic/Nicholson syphons were ommited.

cheers,
Julian

 

I love the Bluebell but sometimes I don't get the reasoning behind some locos being chosen over others. For example you have the NL tank and USA tank which could be overhauled over 27 and with the 9F in good condition it seems a bit strange not to tackle that one.

Last time I was on the line the NL tank was hidden in the carriage siding at Horsted almost hidden out of sight while the USA was looking in a bit of a state up the headshunt at Leamland Bridge. The 9F was having red oxide paint applied a few years back but was never finished and is now in the yard at Sheffield Park having spent a fair time at Horsted with 75027.

I'm not normally one for a bit of a rant on here but it seems a shame so many locos have been sent up to Horsted Keynes (the NL tank, USA tank, Sharpthorn, 75027 and 80100 all spring to mind) but most aren't in public sight. Hopefully that'll change when Sheffield Park loco shed gets redeveloped.

 

That's as may be, but I suspect the main reason it isn't done is that it would constitute a significant design modification, since there's no history of it having been done on a WC/BB boiler and possibly no surviving design details of how it was done for the MN. As a result, you might even end up having to CE mark the damn thing (yes, you can be compelled to do that with modified legacy equipment if it falls within the scope of a relevant directive), so suddenly there's a need to go through the whole design proving it to modern standards. It can be done for some boilers at least, as various new boilers to largely existing designs have proven, but it would be interesting to know how much getting the design approval cost the Patriot team, for instance.

I can sympathise with the Bluebell's plight; having disappeared down the rabbit hole of dodgy welds on old equipment once too often. Early NDT is rarely wasted if there's no historic QA/test documentation, but hindsight is always clearest. In the meantime, whatever your feelings on small/large locomotives, the Bluebell has spent a lot of money on restoring an engine that keeps avoiding earning its keep, so I wish them all speed in getting it sorted out.

 

8126,

I do agree with your sentiments, but against this must be the firebox costs for Blackmore Vale and 'Archie'. A well prepared analysis and paperwork for firebox for a Bulleid BB and WC Pacific without the added costly complication of thermic syphons ought to re-pay itself many times over. I dont suggest it is easy, but there was a MN without thermic syphons. So there is a precedent. I cannot see any advantage in fitting thermic syphons for a Bulleid Pacific trundling along at max 25 mph on the Bluebell, and at Rugby (and on the road) on full out tests on the MN's there was no difference either.

It is about time the preservation movement tackled this problem once and for all.

cheers,
Julian

 

The test results actually showed a greater efficiency for the non-syphon boiler but it was considered to be within the realms of experimental error. Something like 1.5% from memory. I still wonder why BR continued to fit thermic syphons after these tests. And why Bulleid loco owners still do.

 

To hold the brick arch up??

 

How did the LNER & LMS pacifics cope without one, then? Not to mention various BR standard locos.

 

It was my poor attempt at humour Steve. It was probably a case that nobody could be bothered to change the design in the latter days of BR steam, and during the preservation era, until recently, a lack of resource or the will to do a re-design.

 

Apologies then. I thought you were being semi-serious as I have heard that comment before as a serious suggestion.

 

I'm not involved, so I can't state concrete facts, however, I did pose this question a while back. The answer I received was that overhaul strategy was based on the amount of work needed, the funds available to do that work, and the use the loco would return. The NL tank and USA would both be great shunting engines, but they couldn't deal with the A set service there. (The Yank theoretically has the power, but lacks water capacity, and ask the KESR crews about ride quality!) Sharpthorn would be a "nice to have", but is in danger of being a grandfather's axe, depending on how bad it is. 75027 I don't know about. 80100 (and the Yank) are owned by the company, and the company has had other places to put it's funds lately. I am given to understand that 80064 needs serious firebox work, and the owning group do not have the funds at present. I believe there is also a policy of only having one "big" engine (9F, Blackmoor/more or Sir Archibald) in ticket at once, as they are a bit big for what is needed versus the overhaul costs. It is definitely a shame that locos sit around for ages without overhaul, though. Has the Bluebell explored loaning engines out for overhaul and running?

 

"Stamford" is on loan elsewhere.

I'm not really sure how viable loaning out other locos is. As I've said before, across the whole of preservation, my view is that there isn't a shortage of locos, but a shortage of restoration capacity. So moving an out-of-traffic loco to another site is far from a guarantee that it would necessarily get restored, even if a mutually advantageous deal could be done. Amongst the Bluebell locos, most of those owned by the company which are waiting a long time (such as the Adams Radial, 75027 etc), it is because they require significant resources to restore. Probably the one exception to that is the 9F, but as you have mentioned, we really need only one of Sir Archie / Blackmore Vale / 9F in traffic at any one time, and Sir Archie is the current choice.

As with carriages, more undercover storage would be a boon, but there is a limit to how many big projects you can undertake and fund simultaneously: currently the big project is underway at HK for the carriages, which is now under construction but still needs additional funding to complete. There is a Heritage Lottery stage 1 pass to develop a scheme for the engine shed at SP, though that in itself doesn't come with a lot of extra storage space.

Tom

 

Tom, forgive me but are you not being a trifle disingenuous!(?) We both belong to a certain railway who has let out a loco. on a ten year restoration loan which has led to a machine which would otherwise have been stuck unused in a siding being restored to use. It's one of the "right" size too.

Paul H