Bluebell Motive Power

My answer would be (1) Yes we do need to pick off some of the more difficult targets and (2) show me the money!

The more difficult locos to fix will both cost more, and occupy more time in the workshop, blocking it for other locos. So with money tight, what do you do?

(a) Do the easy ones, but know you are storing up problems for the future?
(b) Or do the difficult ones more slowly, as finances permit, but know you will eventually run out of serviceable locos?
(c) Or do the difficult ones as quickly as you need to, but run up debts to do so?

We've probably steered a course between (a) and (b) but even so are still short of locos (but debt free). It's really easy to sit on the sidelines and identify the problem (I know, I do it!), and I don't think anyone would disagree that SP works has been under-invested for many years. But you can't invest money you don't have...

When member views about the LTP were being canvassed, I made the point that over the (then) previous couple of years, we had raised £1m+ per year through the Trust for the extension. That was a pretty superhuman effort, but there is an argument for saying that unless as a body we gear up to make that the norm rather than the exception, we are going to struggle for locos, carriages and infrastructure repairs. Though my other contention is that the Bluebell is far from unique in being in that position.

Tom

 

Snowdon Mountain Railway perhaps? Can't think of any others in the UK.

 

Torbay & Dartmouth?

 

Wasn't the railbus sold because the KESR made an offer which the Board, struggling with the line's early 80s financial crisis, couldn't refuse? It had IIRC only just been rewired and named after Fred Stuart at the time of the sale. Come to think of it, D9529 was also named just before being sold.

 

Do private lines such as Statfold and Fawley Hill count?

 

I think that both aren't really businesses, are subsidised and also have some volunteers.

 

I can't honestly remember if there was a financial crisis on the NYMR when the Railbus and class 14s were sold, but I don't think the Railbus was seeing much use by the time it was sold, and the Class 14s were not a great success on the NYMR either. The Class 24 was much better suited hence the later acquisition of the two Class 25s and the 24. It was a shame that the second 25 was allowed to get into such a state that it was beyond the NYMR's ability to repair it but diesels have always taken the back seat at the Moors - rightly so, but they are necessary and the core fleet needs to be looked after for times of fire risk.

 

Right, after the diversion into NYMR diesel policy back to Sheffield Park.

With the continuing issues observed in the loco fleet I assume that the SP team are looking critically at boiler chemistry / water quality?

 

Back to matters Bluebell: According to the Special traffic Notice, 1638 is back in service from this weekend.

Also, this weekend only, Atlantic House ("Beachy Shed") will be open both days - come and see progress on our lovely new pre-grouping big class 4 (erm...)

Tom

 

The "Public Train Information" page on the website updated today says 1638 not working until Saturday 22nd June.
But again for this Sunday it states a single "P" is hauling 6 coaches!!!
Does anyone ever proof read this?
Only one thing worse than no information is wrong information.

 

I would have thought that it was pretty obvious to most who have followed the Bluebell works program for the last 15 years or so. I'm sure that some won't like it, but the reality is that both locomotives have worn out fireboxes, witness 21C123 being withdrawn with firebox problems well short of its ten year ticket ending, and 34059 only doing 2 years service. I will be very suprised if 34027 doesn't prove to be a reliable performer.

As for your last ridiculous comment, how do you know I didn't want Bulleids on the railway? I actually really like Bulleids, have great memories of 35027 on the Bluebell, and love the fact that 21C123 is in Southern livery. If I was seriously wealthy, I'd have a couple of MNs restored to to original condition, hopefully with at least one on the Bluebell, complete with brand new fireboxes. Unfortunately I'm not seriously wealthy, so thats unlikely to happen.

Oh, and I've got the guts to put my name to my postings.

Daniel Hicks

 

The Traffic Notice only came out last night, so give the guy updating the page a chance!

The loco roster confirms 1638 this weekend, but also suggests 592 won't be quite ready for next weekend's Edwardian service, sadly.

Tom

 

The "Public Train Information" is only updated once a week.
The point I am making is that for two weeks running it has claimed a single "P" is hauling a six coach set.
Doing it once is careless,twice is ???
But overnight the loco roster has been revised to show that 1638 has been returned to service,and operating alongside the 9F this weekend not the single P.

 

First, I was not commenting on the Bluebell directly per se, more on preservation as a whole. Secondly, there is no obvious answer to the money question but there might be more we can do in the way of planning for a sustainable fleet in the long term. You cite the E4 as an example of something that had substantial boiler work a while ago (I was a cleaner then and remember it well!) and therefore needs less this time round. So should we be planning to invest more at certain times in order that we get the payback in a shorter overhaul next time? This would require some effort put in to assessing current condition of locomotives and then assessing what each needs and balancing that with predicted funds.

I might be doing engineering managers a disservice here (and don't mean any offence if I am) but I agree with your premise that the running of steam engines will only get harder in the next 20 years.

 

No, I had read it as a general call to arms, not specifically to the Bluebell!

I suspect our management at least do have a pretty clear idea of what the specific problems are with each engine in our fleet, and therefore how much work is needed on each: certainly, major things such as tyre profile (and therefore whether tyres would last another ten years or not); frame cracks; thickness of cylinders (an increasing problem for our internal cylinder locos); firebox issues (boilers are inspected annually while in traffic, so you end up with quite a good picture of what state they are in), as well as any catastrophic issues which caused a loco to fail and would definitely need repairing if the engine came back into service (for example, as I recall, a main steam pipe failure was the specific reason the USA tank came out of traffic years ago, so you know that a replacement for that will definitely be on the list if a decision was taken on a repair).

Given the above, I think they have a pretty clear idea of which locos are "simple" and which "difficult" and also where it might be possible to get some use out of a loco quickly, at the expense of maybe longer life (for example, running the C class even with known worn cylinders - it's easy to criticise that decision, but on the other hand we got 5 good years from a very useful engine, and after a repair, she will likely last to the end of her 10 year ticket. Part of the delay in repairs has been with external contractors delivering refurbished components late).

Accurate costs of actually doing an overhaul are hard to come by in the public domain, even by close reading of the society accounts, and in any case depend on how much you contract out and how much you do in house; how much volunteers can do and how much is paid staff etc; as well as the condition. But for a decent sized class 4+ loco, even a relatively simple repair never seems to give a figure of less than about £250k, and it could ramp up to double that for a complex case. Again, on our line, where really we need to turn out one loco per year, that figure of £250k - £500k is what we really need to invest, every year, in loco restoration just to stand still. Other large lines like the SVR, WSR, NYMR would probably need an at least equivalent figure. As enthusiasts, we need to start reckoning on that as the price we have to pay for our hobby - the fare income alone never seems to cover it!

Tom

 

I've been watching this discussion with interest, and Tom, as ever, seems to have both the inside knowledge and a touch of realism in what he says. In addition to what he has said, I seem to remember reading somewhere linked to the Bluebell (although I can't remember where it was, or how official it was) that a view would also be taken, when considering what work needed to be done to return a loco to traffic, how much life remained in different components and that sometimes work was not carried out, even though it might mean that a loco wouldn't last the whole ten years without major work, in order that full value was got from the partly worn parts. Similar to what we do with our cars - we don't replace the steering joints or tyres for the MOT when there is still 9 months wear left in them. Obviously there has to be something of a balance there - you wouldn't want to spend huge amounts on a boiler, just for it to stand idle after a year whilst patterns are made to cast new cylinders. As has been mentioned in several threads on Nat Pres a ten year boiler ticket is slightly arbitrary. Some of the narrow gauge lines regularly do major work on their locos on a yearly basis (probably because they work harder size for size), and I recall something similar on the Bluebell in the early 70's with the 2 P's (27 and 323) where they received what were described as "intermediate overhauls" pretty much every winter. Bearing in mind the fact that they provided the mainstay of the service much of the time, with the only "big" loco serviceable being a very worn Birch Grove, they probably needed it!

As Tom has said, boilers are becoming the big issue for most railways now. Like undercover accommodation for rolling stock, investment in such things doesn't have the same attraction as an extension might do, but if we neglect such things now then the future of many lines as venues for steam will be very bleak.

Steve B

 

In terms of ex BR locos, I think that it is fairly reasonable to say that their boilers were generally in pretty good condition (there's always the exception, though) and that the first, and probably the second overhaul. would benefit from this. When you get into the next overhaul, though, the big work kicks in and boiler overhauls fly into the six figure realm, bringing loco overhauls (mechanical and boiler) into the £500K figure. Once that hurdle has been overcome, the next overhauls are going to drop back a bit in real terms, probably for the next twenty years. That seems to be a cycle that is becoming more and more esatablished.

In this respect, a current, but unrestored, ex Barry loco is going to be a relatively cheap option IF it has the major missing parts, such as coupling & connecting rods and valve gear, available. In this respect, 80100 + a few donor parts from 80064/80151 might be a cheap and cheerful restoration to help out. However, in the last analysis, it is only putting off the judgement day!

 

It will be intersting to find out what the state of the boiler barrels on 75027, 80064, 80100 and 80151 is. It is possible that all will require two new barrel sections. As I have stated in a previous post, I feel there is something not right about the steel used to make the boiler barrels on these two classes of loco. 80002 is interesting. It was bought out of BR service and, although it has had inner firebox problems, the boiler appears OK. It is the only Derby built Std 4 tank preserved. I've had no report about the state of 80135's boiler yet. Have you any info about it, Steve?

 

I understand NDT on the boiler barrel is one of the few remaining areas of inspection needed on 80135. The barrel looks poor to the untrained eye but may be fine. A new steel inner box was fitted at the last overhaul and needed some nursing to get 10 years, so a new copper inner box is going in this time, and the steel outer side sheets are being renewed to avoid future problems.

75029 had the front ring replaced and a new strip welded into the bottom of the back ring at the last "intermediate" overhaul a couple of years back, and that was never at Barry.

As I understand it from the engineers, there are many factors that affect boiler condition occurring almost from the moment the loco is built, so tracing problems back to the materials used is not always straightforward.

Steven

 

Sadly not quite as easy as that, in that 80151, 80064 and 80100 have different owners, so sharing components between them is not necessarily simple. Only 80100 is Bluebell-owned.

I believe that, in a fairly low-key way, a number of components for 80100 have been acquired or refurbished pending the day when a concerted effort is made to overhaul her.

Tom