Bluebell Motive Power

Surely the problem is we simply don't need a Terrier, so loaning Boxhill would be a fruitless endeavour?

A D1, on the other hand...

 

It's hard to imagine the Bluebell without Stepney for an extended period. However - in my view, we have left her in black too long, and she is starting to lose her appeal, not helped by the how it seems that TtTE is slowly losing appeal. Meanwhile, increasingly "Bluebell" seems to be becoming our mascot, and is in significantly better condition so far more likely for a quick turnaround when she goes out of service next time. But the Bluebell without the bark of a Terrier - it wouldn't be the same!

That's probably question best directed at Anthony! Seriously, Boxhill has so much significant original provenance that, IMHO, it wouldn't be responsible, even if both parties wished it to happen.

That's actually the sort of thing that people talk about, at least informally. Realistically, a restoration might result in so much new material that a new build + plinth the original would effectively be a viable proposition and again IMHO rather more responsible.

The third option would be to take Fenchurch and Stepney into the works simultaneously, lock the doors and two years later, outshop Stepney and plinth Fenchurch. Stepney, meanwhile, would have mysteriously re-acquired air brakes, condensing gear and A1 style front end...

Tom

 

ETA: James said everything I wanted to say, and said it better.

 

That might depend on how much would need to be replaced. If she's good enough that no significant original material needs to be replaced - if, say, we're talking about the state of 30587 rather than that of 4771 - then it might be possible to get a ticket's worth of service out of her without compromising her originality.

That's a question which is going to face the owners of a lot of older locos in the next decade or so. The eight 'working' Terriers, 'Bellerophon,' FR No. 20, the Beattie well tanks, and the older Manning Wardles in particular can't be far off the ends of their working lives, or not without surgery so major that they would become effectively new engines.

 

I'd be surprised if Boxhill would be considered unless 100% privately funded, Terriers are quite well represented in preservation, that said I'm surprised Cheltenham got done with Repton not long out of traffic and plans in hand for Stowe.

 

"Boxhill" has been something of a poor relation at the NRM since she was moved out of the main hall to make way for the roof renewal works. She's been tucked away in a corner of the 'Magician's Road' building for going on twenty years now, although I think that her paintwork has been refreshed during that period.

 

I think FR20 is essentially there already. Many of the Terriers are also substantially renewed - the IoW pair have new boilers; at least two sets of cylinders were cast fairly recently (one went to the Spa Valley, I think); Fenchurch has one new wheel set (the other two are original) etc etc. The issue with Stepney is she probably needs new frames, which at least psychologically, feels like a big step even though financially and technically it is easier than a new boiler.

From a marketing point of view, and assuming sooner or later we are going to need a new Terrier boiler, I'd like to see a new Stroudley-pattern boiler made (all the surviving working Terriers have the later Marsh-pattern boiler). Put the Stroudley boiler on Fenchurch, paint her improved engine green, and complete the transformation from A1x to A1 that was left only part done at her last serious overhaul. That would give us a more realistic representation of a Terrier in Stroudley livery, while, from a commercial point of view, meaning at least one of them was "yellow".

Tom

 

The two older Mannings (1210 & 1601) are certainly starting to come into this category, although 1210 isn't as bad as 1601, which requires a new cylinder block and is kept going by rolls of sticky tape (well, not quite!) Both have had new boilers this century, though so that aspect has already been attended to. With 1210, AFAIK there is nothing original left above running plate level, apart from the sandboxes and the cab spectacle plate.

 

To David 1984 (since I can't quote anyone)

Who do you think provided the funding for Cheltenham to steam again?

 

I became fairly confused after reading your post! I was fairly sure 178 has just been returned to service a short while ago, so I couldn't make heads or tails of that part of your post (even if there'd been a major failure and she came out of service, surely that couldn't have entailed a major program, as she'd just had one), until the penny dropped and I realized you must have meant 027!

Anyway...

I agree that building a replica of Stepney is probably the way to go, if the frames/etc are so far gone you'd have to have new. The only issue is the wheels and boiler - presumably one couldn't/shouldn't use the ones off Stepney, if she is to be displayed, but it would increase the expense tremendously to have to build them new too.

At least there's already a pattern for the wheels (done when Fenchurch needed a new one)... Too bad there isn't a spare boiler in poor condition one could put on the 'display' Stepney, the way there is with the P's (where ISTR there's a spare boiler in very poor condition - and they've been swapped around anyway)!

Or maybe just having one working Terrier (Fenchurch, if she's eventually put back in service, via accumulating all the good parts from the two in one engine, as you suggest) is all that's needed, really - I'm sure the Bluebell could find better uses for the money which would be put into building a replica! Are the Terriers really that much use operationally any more, anyway?

Noel

 

I think so. Even ignoring the times when we have used the P's as strengtheners in substitute of larger engines this year, we have made quite a lot of use of them on their own - Bluebell specials, Autumn Tints specials, plus use as shunting locos, the carriage shed pilot etc. They would also be potentially useful commercially, if we got into more propitious times and had motive power to spare, for doing driver experience courses, brake van rides at galas etc. Plus, projecting ahead, when we open to Ardingly, one likely possibility is that that line becomes the preserve of a "branch" service using the four wheelers and small engines, leaving the larger engines and bogie carriages for the main line.

So realistically, we will always probably find a use for one or two small (class 0) engines at any time, with potentially five to choose from. In an ideal world I suspect we would want at least one of 323 and 55 always running to fill one of those vacancies, and one of 72, 178 and 27 filling the other.

Tom

 

thanks tom for your reply!
i am surprised that STEPNEY's frames are as you say in bad order. they were made of very expensive monkbridge iron and the terriers have never been known for frame problems hence their longevity. if the horns are loose then that's the sort of problem the works ought to have dealt with rather than it becoming a problem that is glossed over. no loco should ever be allowed to work with loose horns. apart from this, i cant imagine what other problems may have arisen with the frames. i think your assessment is somewhat pessimistic - i sincerely hope. the terriers are a very clever design of William Stroudley - extremely well thought out with lots of little details that have ensured that they are so long lasting. apart from a slight widening of the frames at the rear behind the rear axle, the IOW terriers have no frame problems at all, and are in top notch condition and earn their keep hence the justification of 2 new boilers.
i cant imagine The Bluebell with STEPNEY permanently 'stuffed', and it would be a very sad day IMHO if this came about.
cheers,
julian

 

An interesting thought and one I've made myself before now. I think painting her into black was absolutely the right thing to do in 2010 for the anniversary, but that was nearly 4 years ago now. I would hope if she is to be retired then a fuss is made of her one last time and she's given a proper coat of Stroudley yellow to go on display. I've heard a few kids when I've been down at the line asking "where's Stepney?" when it's right in front of them but in the "wrong" colour.

It's one of the reasons why I'm of the opinion Flying Scotsman should always remain in Apple Green at virtually any cost, it's too iconic to muck about with IMHO.

 

People have debated ad nauseam how much of a certain NRM-owned Gresley Pacific was actually part of that engine when it was working on the LNER in apple green livery. I also wonder how much of the current 34046 Braunton was part of the engine of that number when withdrawn from Bournemouth shed 48 years ago - probably not a great deal!

 

It's fair to say most loco's pre 1930 and many post are like Triggers Broom - 17 new heads and 14 new handles.

Worth it IMO, you can't appreciate the attraction and power of steam, staring at a life expired, cold exhibit.

 

I looked up the mileage for Stepney - 1,396,027 up to withdrawal from BR in 1960, so I would imagine comfortably over 1.5 million miles by now - that's a pretty big mileage for a small-wheeled loco. To put that in proportionate terms, an A4 would have to rack up over 2.5 million miles to have had the same number of cycles of the frame flexing with each wheel revolution. So while as a class they may not have been known for frame problems, that's still a pretty huge mileage to have run. She's also the best part of 140 years old, so it is maybe not a total surprise she is showing her age!

With regard Trigger's broom: Stepney's cylinders are the 12" variety, and probably date from 1907 when the motor gear was added and smaller cylinders fitted. The boiler is also clearly new (ca. 1912, when she became an A1x). As for the rest - it would take archaeology to determine! When Fenchurch was restored most recently, there was quite a lot of evidence that significant components are still original from 1872; notable are the frames (where there is evidence of the holes needed for the original sander, designed to pass clear of the wooden brake blocks); and the upper part of the cab (which still has evidence of of the hole where the passenger communication gear was fitted). Most interestingly, the tanks on Fenchurch still have a blanking plate where the steam balance pipe ran between the tanks in front of the cab (part of the condensing gear). This was a very early fixture to be removed, and was only fitted to the first six Terriers in any case, suggesting that on Fenchurch, the tanks are still the original ones from 1872.

Tom

 

How does that compare with the mileages of the other seven non-static Terriers?

 

Mileage up to withdrawal from BR:

32662 (Martello - Bressingham) - 1,505,955
32678 (Knowle - KESR) - 1,411,436
32655 (Stepney - Bluebell) - 1,396,027
32650 (Whitechapel - Spa Valley) - 1,271,019
32640 (W11 Newport, IoWSR) - 1,164,724
32636 (Fenchurch - Bluebell) - 1,109,513

I don't have a mileage for any of the others; notably 32646 (current W8 - Freshwater) and 32670 (Current KESR 5 Bodiam).

Fenchurch is low on account of the fact that it spent a lot of its life shunting at Newhaven Harbour, with a low (but hard) daily mileage.

Given the length of time it has been active in preservation, I wouldn't mind betting that the current mileage of Stepney probably leads the pack - it will be close, in any case, between Stepney, Martello and Knowle.

Tom

 

Cheers James. Surely Martello must have lagged behind a bit in preservation, having been static until about ten years ago and since then mostly used at Bressingham or loaned out to centres such as Isfield and Castle Hedingham with quite short running lines. Bodiam's pre-preservation mileage must be almost as low as that of Fenchurch.