Bluebell Motive Power

If people come to you and you're *in their eyes* unexpectedly closed they probably won't ever come back, so it could be worse than just losing a single visit.

 

I think that is informing the thinking. The fact is, we simply don't know how long the "East Grinstead effect" will last. This coming spring will be our first Jan-Mar season running to EG, and so no-one knows quite how many people will come. Anecdotal I know, but the other day, I visited as a visitor, rather than a volunteer, and we had a six coach train and the wooden train out (both well over 300 seats), both were pretty full and there were cars in the overflow car park as well as the main. And that was a drizzly Sunday in November… Before EG, it was fairly rare for cars to use the overflow car park outside of the high season. Post-EG, I don't think I have seen a weekend day when we haven't had cars there.

Tom

 

Fair point, but if they come expecting steam (and many may not check so carefully first) then a DMMU may be as much of a turn off as not running.

Interesting that the extension to EG has filled the car park. I wonder what that means. Are the visitors going for a day out in EG? I would be fascinating to know how the balance of ticket sales has changed before and after opening.

Regarding the VEP, you're quite right the 33 cant heat it without a modification to the VEP. I am reliably informed that this isn't a huge job and would be reversible. It would be a bigger job to set it up to run train heat off either 3rd rail or ETH, but again not impossible.

 

It means we are running six coach trains in November, for a start! Seriously, I'm sure the commercial people have the analysis, but anecdotally it definitely feels busier at both ends of the line. There have been some quite creative marketing attempts to fill trains that might otherwise be poorly patronised. For example, right now there are christmas shopper specials - £5 return SP or HK to EG, but only if you catch the 09:45 up service and return later than 2.00pm. That effectively draws people to what might otherwise be effectively an ECS working to position a train for the first down service from EG. The commercial people seem to have been much more creative this year with that sort of thinking (there are other examples).

Out of interest, when the MHR opened to Alton, was there an "Alton effect", and did it fade, or was there a permanent increase in traffic?

Tom

 

The evidence would seem to suggest that probably the old rules for the mix of motive power have fallen by the wayside and that bigger engines will gradually become the norm. Perhaps the U boat's time will come again sooner rather than later!

 

I was wondering in part whether the EG effect was to have attracted people in, but if were possible that if the main increase in revenue is seen at the SP end whether this would suggest that the EG effect might not be permanent since I would have that a permanent effect would be see at the EG end.

Alton had a temporary effect I understand on overall numbers for a year or two that settled back to a figure bigger than before the extension but not at the peak seen immediately after. In more recent years (post 2008) our balance has shifted though, from 2/3 starting from Alresford to a 50/50 split.

 

The Bluebell was fantastic (and something special) as an "all steam" railway but it is still fantastic (and something special) without that. So, having accepted the odd diesel (and I'm sure that's all it will ever be), I don't think a DMU will detract at all. Most railways find that passengers actually rather like them - warm in winter, and they have a great view over the driver's shoulder. Personally, I would suggest that the Bluebell should seriously look at getting one to base at the line permanently. You could run it empty up to EG in the morning to form the first southbound working, and/or run it back north in the evening to provide a later last train back to EG, without extending the working day for the steam crews. You could slot in the odd SP-HK shuttle when other trains are not in the way, you could run the odd ride down the Ardingly spur, and in the more distant future it could actually run the Ardingly service on quieter days. You can also use it at short notice to replace a failed steam train, to avoid cancelling an advertised service. What's not to like?

As for the engineering work period being discussed, if it is not seen as practical to service a medium sized steam engine at HK, perhaps to maintain a steam presence you could base a couple of the small tank engines there and offer brake van rides around the station (or down the Ardingly spur again)? Thus anyone arriving at EG and finding a DMU still has an incentive to catch it to HK, with the offer of a steam engine ride (and maybe some rare track) when they get there. It also gives folks at the HK end of the line something to do while they wait. Worth considering?

 

People often say that, but it ignores two things.

The first is, that on current performance, a DMU simply wouldn't be big enough for the first train. It was fairly common over the summer to have 50 -100 people on the 09:45 service ex-SP (that everyone thought would be an ECS) and find another 200 - 250 waiting to join at EG. So the first train off SP needs to be a big one.

Secondly, and the point people often miss - running a DMU plus a steam service would require two crews (because the steam crew would be prepping an engine while the DMU ran the first service). So you don't actually save on volunteers, because you would still need two crews to run four round trips on Saturdays. It's just they would be a diesel crew plus a steam crew, rather than two steam crews. With volunteers tight, I'd suggest getting volunteers for two steam crews who split the diagram would be easier than getting a steam plus a diesel crew. On Sunday, with three trips, we need one volunteer loco crew for the first engine; that would turn into two crews if the first service was diesel, making the volunteering issue worse, not better. You'd also need an extra guard, because the steam guard would have to be signed on and with his / her train before the "diesel" guard had been able to berth the diesel stock and transfer trains.

Tom

 

Do you think that with the surge in passenger numbers as a result of reaching East Grinstead the Bluebell can try to get back to having an all steam railway in the future again? Given the current situation this isn't feasible in the immediate future I understand but surely it is a possibility in the long run?

 

I think the Bluebell will return to all steam hauled scheduled passenger services a bit sooner than "in the long run" as more locos come on stream in the next couple of years. But the days of everything being done by steam are long over. Coal is too expensive, maintenance facilities and manpower are too limited to go back to using steam for regular shunting at HK and also the P Way works. And besides, the switch on and go of a diesel is a hell of a lot more convenient for such work.

The extra income from the surge in passenger numbers for the foreseeable future will probably be going towards catching up with infrastructure maintenance and other projects such as fitting out the new loco lobby, the next phase of operation undercover and taking on additional maintenance staff to deal with additional loco and carriage miles the extension has brought about.

 

Hmm. It may not add much either. Detailed examination of running a DMMU over several years on the MHR shows that it added precisely nothing to the takings. It usually managed just to carry enough additional people to pay for itself, but provided very little additional attraction. Yes people quite like the view, but they would rather be in the steam train if there is one. The heat in winter issue isn't a problem if you make sure the steam heat works! I doubt that trips toward Ardingly etc could make a very compelling case for the cost/complexities (maintenance and driving skills and space to stable etc) that having one permanently would create, and for me, it would detract.

 

Good that steam purely steam services will return soon, shame about the shunting but completely understandable.
While I'm at it, as larger engines are being required for the line as a result of the new extension, would the Ardingly extension provide a chance to run the smaller engines again but with loads that they are more capable of handling with shorter trains?

 

I don't think you should say goodbye to the small engines any time soon. I would imagine the commercial department would be very keen for Stepney to be turned round sharpish as time allows in it's more famous colour scheme (surprised it's stayed black this long TBH), or at least on a rotational basis with Bluebell.

Most of the "small" engines would seem capable of dealing with the longer trains. The H, C, E4, O1 and Dukedog for example would seem perfectly adequate for all but the very high season stuff, and could certainly manage the Arrow / Rambler. Plus having one of the tiddlers in traffic for the likes of the tints specials (and of course the filming) would be eminently sensible.

Granted it might not be great news for something like Fenchurch (I would have included Normandy but with a separate owning group I think she'll be turned round eventually anyway), but who knows?

 

If its gonna return to full steam, shouldn't the vep be given to a railway that's gonna use it. Not gonna have a SECR loco hauling a br emu........

 

The LBSC was an air braked railway. How about the Atlantic and the VEP, summer months only of course

i'll get me coat

 

The current iteration of the LTP still calls for four medium (class 1/2) and two small (class 0) locos, and that is without thinking about Ardingly and what the motive power requirements might be there. So I guess the thinking is that they are here to stay. The medium engines are quite capable of taking the GA / WR and the service train when it is made of the vintage stock, and probably the service train out of season.

As for Terriers: Fenchurch is generally in much better condition than Stepney, though Stepney is the bigger "brand". If we needed a Terrier in service (and, within about five years, we are probably going to need another small loco), then Fenhurch would be much easier to overhaul, on account of the very major overhaul it had about twenty years ago. If you restored Stepney back to a standard where it could take its full share of the traffic, there wouldn't be much left by time you had replaced everything beyond saving. Certainly she would need new cylinders and probably new frames.

Tom

 

The Fenchurch fund are planning to overhaul Fenchurch after Nr 27 is done, and hopefully by 2022. I heard earlier in the year than there is no plan for Stepney, that it is worn out and likely to require a lot of new parts.

The C can haul the Vintage set on its own while the H and 178 hauled it at the opening gala.

 

Do what LUL have done with their 4TC and paint in a faux teak livery. No-one'll notice.

 

Stranger things have happened. B473 ran a special with one of the 5-Bel driving trailers a few years ago - the only air braked loco we had available.

And talking of things Brightonian, I have put up an update about the Brighton Atlantic.

Tom

 

Thats what I heard when someone asked a long standing working member about the Terriers at a Photo Charter ( Not at the Bluebell). The member also said that Stepney might also require a new boiler, wheels and injectors.