Bluebell Motive Power

Probably not much use for anything over light duties, but I imagine the Radial Tank would be very popular with enthusiasts, but please, get rid of that awful stovepipe it's ran with in pres and fit a lipped chimney.

Fair point 80151 is far more useful, but trouble is those who would stump up for 488 probably won't for a standard tank.

 

Erm... Why?

Tom

 

I remember it double heading with Stepney on a number of ocassions. I expect it would have to be used with a P or a Terrier although it could manage the Lounge car set - 3 Mark 1's.

 

Agreed. 488 would almost certaintly attract more donations from people who are not memebers than 80151.

 

See photo of Tyseley's Pannier taken last year http://paulsimpson.zenfolio.com/p679582083/h4a207632#h4a207632.

See also Met 1 and 5521 bunker to bunker at Epping and Ongar http://paulsimpson.zenfolio.com/p165473580/h6abe6d11#h6abe6d11

 

Tom asks why. I have to say that I agree with David1984, but it is a purely personal taste. I would be glad to see 488 back in any guise - there are some fond childhood memories for me concerning her. Here is a link to a picture of it with the Drummond chimney which I think makes it far more elegant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F...d_Park_geograph-2982220-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg.

Steve B

 

The Adam's chimney is right for the Adams boiler the loco carries, at least as currently turned out in LSWR livery.

Some Radial tanks carried Drummond boilers (most easily recognised by virtue of having their safety valves on the dome, not adjacent to the cab) anhd generally would have carried a Drummond chimney in that form. I'm sure someone can find a photo (especially late in BR?) of a loco with Drummond chimney and Adams boiler, or vice versa, but I think in general the Drummond chimney would go with a Drummond boiler. Certainly the stovepipe chimney is correct for the loco's current form.

I did look up the boiler and livery history of 488 from study of photos and elsewhwere: I'm away from notes right now so I may get this wrong, but as I recall, the loco came back into SR ownership in 1946 with an Adams boiler, and then fairly quickly went for an extensive overhaul. It got a Drummond boiler (as I remember) at that time; was then repainted into BR livery; and finally got its Adam's boiler back at its last overhaul shortly before she was withdrawn. Most of the BR-era photos show her with Drummond boiler and chimney. So if the photographers want a proper BR-era recreation, they'll need to stump up for a new boiler as well Also worth remembering that, in common with most Adams locos which received Drummond boilers, they were always reckobned to be worse steamers than when carrying original boilers. So performance-wise - be careful what you wish for!

As far as I am aware, when she was first preserved, the Bluebell had the choice of all three of the tanks and chose 488 because she was the loco that was substantially closest to her original form.

Tom

 

It's just personal taste with that one, I've yet to see any loco that looks good with a drainpipe instead of a lipped chimney, I know how I'd prefer to see 488, but someone else can open that can of worms!.

 

We'll have you down as first donor to the "buy a new Drummond-pattern boiler" then.

Tom

 

Such a shame that no one else preserved the other two.

 

But if all three had been preserved, where would the rarity value be, and associated clamour by enthusiasts to see 488 restored?

More seriously, with the benefit of hindsight and a time-travel machine with a carrying capacity of 100+ tons, there are a few things no doubt we'd liked to have saved at the time. A couple more E4s would be nice. Beachy Head. 80154. The LSWR gate stock. The companion carriage to 1503 (the LNWR Obo) would be a must. As well as the other half-dozen SECR hundred seaters stored in the Ardingly siding that were rejected because they had such enormous faults preventing their use in service as a few broken windows...

Tom

 

Good point, Tom. On the one hand, there are people, including Peter Townend, who would have liked to see Mallard in steam for the recent celebrations, notwithstanding the presence of 3 other main-line registered A4s, while on the other, Didcot have a number of locos which back in the late 60s looked like being the only survivors of the class - 6998, 7808, 6697, for instance - and which, thanks to Barry Scrapyard, are now far from unique, so there is no clamour, at least that I am aware of, for them to be returned to steam. Whether the Adams Radial Tank is closer to an A4 or a GWR 56xx in terms of its appeal is a moot point (Oh, and before anyone jumps down my neck, I've got nothing against 56xxs - in fact, with 6695 and 6619 now both resident in the south of England, I've come quite to appreciate them!)

not to mention a K Class, and the class(es) which come top of my personal list of Southern locos I wish had survived into preservation - the SECR D1 and E1 4-40s. Still, with the Bluebell starting collecting stock as early as 1960, I for one am thankful for what was saved, both on the loco and carriage front. There are a good few preserved lines which would have been the preserve of pre-1948 carriages (or in some cases, pre-1923 non-corridor compartment stock) right into the 1960s, but which now have to settle for Mk I stock because authentic older vehicles were not available by the time they started up. I'm thankful that on all the many journeys I have made on the Bluebell, only twice have I ever had to travel in a Mk I. Apart from the IoWSR, I can't think of any other standard gauge line running ex-BR motive power line where anyone could make a claim like this. Still, it is encouraging that other lines as well as the Bluebell are taking on the restoration of old stock that ended up being built into bungalows, chicken coops, etc. It's good for people to have a chance to discover that there was life, on both the loco and carriage front, before 1948!

 

Lucky you! A visitor to the Bluebell is most likely to travel on a rake comprising mainly Mk.1's and, forgive me Bluebell people, a particularly tired and frayed one at that. It does the railway no favours at all, especially to an enthusiast who knows just what it parked away in the carriage shed.

Paul H.

 

I would do the opposite with a time machine.I would transport myself back to about 1953 and sample everything on the mainline.If I could take my current pensions with me I would be quite rich by 1950s standards!!
Regarding coaching stock it has always amazed me how much has been preserved at The Bluebell,IOWSR and K&ESR of Southern Railway and its constituents. There must be more of these preserved than from any of the other "Big Four"

 

Not entirely true ... On a two train day, one rake will be guaranteed not to contain any Mark 1s; currently it will probably either be Mets / 4 wheelers; or the SR Maunsell / pre-grouping set. The other set will be a mixture of Mark 1s and Bulleids, (with possibly the Obo on the back). So there is no need to travel on Mark 1, and at weekends, only a minority of seats are in Mark 1s.

On a one-train day, the core rake is a mix of Mark 1 and Bulleid vehicles, so again there is no absolute need to travel in a Mark 1.

As for the especially shabby one - I suspect it is probably the wheelchair accessible vehicle, which is in service pretty much every operating day - 169,000 miles in the last ten years. We sorely need the second wheelchair accessible Mark 1 to be finished so 5034 can get some TLC. But rightly or wrongly, we have continued to run that vehicle so we always have wheelchair accommodation available on each operating day. The plan is to have wheelchair accommodation available on each train, and we are slowly getting there.

This is the loco thread, but the increased mileages are starting to make the C&W creak a bit as well. Fortunately they are further ahead than the loco on covered accommodation, but still need more resources for restoration. Trimming is a particular area where more skilled people are needed, so I believe.

Tom

 

Ah, the "missed opportunity" window of about 1959 to 1969 as so much heritage (locomotives, carriages, wagons, lines, stations, furniture etc.) was lost before the preservation movement at large had really had a chance to establish itself. So many "what if's"...

 

Thank goodness for whoever came up with the idea of using so many pre-grouping 4 wheelers as cottages / chicken coops / stables...

 

OK, here's the gen on 488 that I worked out some months ago, which shows that in later life she did run with Adams boiler and Drummond chimney - but only for a very short period in that form and also in BR livery. The only bit that I am not sure of from the following is the East Kent Railway livery - I have hypothesized green, but some discussion on the Bluebell Yahoo group suggested maybe blue - which would be a nice change!

Checking DL Bradley gives the following, as far as I can tell. Since I'm sure photters will be asking "can we paint her black?" the answer is yes - but if you want to keep the Adams boiler, technically only with the later BR emblem to represent her in her last two years of service. Before that, and if you want the early BR logo, or Bulleid Sunshine livery, you need to cough up for a Drummond boiler


Built March 1885. Adams' passenger livery at the time was "Pea Green" with black borders edged by a finer white line; black boiler bands with a thin white line either side; black frames outside and tan inside; vermillion buffer beams; buff interior to cab with black exterior roof.

Drummond livery - technically called "Royal Green" but, according to Bradley, was probably only marginally darker than the Adams Pea green. The formulae for the two paints was near identical. However, the Drummond lining was more ornate. At that time, passenger engines lasted an average of 26 months between repaints, so presumably 488 was first repainted into this livery sometime in the mid to late 1890s.
March 1914 - Struck off capital stock and therefore renumbered in the duplicate list as 0488.

Urie livery was referred to as "sage green" but was actually an olive green colour. This was first introduced in December 1914 (and presumably took a while to propagate through all engines). However, by June 1914, 0488 was laid up out of work, so I am not convinced that she was ever painted in Urie livery in LSWR service - unless someone has evidence?

September 1917 - sold by LSWR to Ministry of Munitions; painted green and sent to RN General Salvage Depot, Ridham (near Sittingbourne). A photo of July 1938 appears to show her in a lined livery that could well be the later LSWR livery (but lettered EKR) so possibly when it was "painted green", that means into the then current LSWR passenger livery (i.e. the Urie Sage Green). Adams boiler but Drummond chimney and no casing round the safety valves.

ca. April 1921 - sold to East Kent Railway and renumbered as EKR No. 5

March 1946 purchased by SR from EKR and sent for repair

November 1946 - Painted plain black, Bulleid "sunshine" lettering, numbered 3488 (which is what 488 would have been, had it survived into SR ownership and been renumbered from the LSWR duplicate list); Drummond boiler fitted (with safety valves on the dome) and Drummond chimney

October 1949 - painted lined black, early BR emblem. Renumbered 30583. A second Drummond boiler was fitted which lasted until 1953, whereupon the first was fitted again until February 1959.

February 1959 - Adams pattern boiler refitted

A photo of 1959 shows BR lined black, Drummond chimney, Adam's boiler, later-style BR emblem

Withdrawn July 1961 and sent to Eastleigh, from where it was later purchased by the Bluebell. Final mileage before coming to the Bluebell was an incredible 1,504,703 miles.

 

Granted no one would truly know until it's taken to bits, but is there any thought on what 488's boiler may be like ?, is there a general opinion that's it's likely to be not too bad or somewhat knackered ?.

 

The line that has been consistently reported on here is that is is completely knackered, not just somewhat!