Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

What! When dosh has been thrown at this project when it could have gone towards the D.3 or C.2x (or both) which, IMHO, it should have done for practical reasons. (I am sorry if this is straying uncomfortably close to "wouldn't it be nice"!)

P.H.

 

Perhaps so, though unlike those two, the H2 project has the clear benefit of having an existing boiler available.

 

Not quite the right one though, although admittedly rather closer than the "Austerity" boiler which lurks under the cladding of the replica of broad gauge "Lord of the Isles".

PH

 

The question of whether it will go mainline or not is perhaps not the most pressing one to ask, a better one would be whether it will in fact be able visit ANY other heritage railway, particularly since virtually none of the Bluebell engines have visited elsewhere (apart from a couple exceptions like the K&ESR and the IWR). Though to be fair to the Bluebell Railway, it has been said their motive power has been running on thin resources for some time, as most of the line's income had been focused on the East Granstead extension.

 

So true, at least the boiler used for the H2 is virtually identical in overall proportion and size, give or take a few slight differences, if any.

 

Apart from the Dukedog going to Llangollen and the Severn Valley, 178 going to Tanfield, 323 going to the Battlefield Line, Birch Grove going to the Isle of Wight and the Mid Hants, Stepney going to the Mid Hants and the KESR, 65 going to the KESR, Fenchurch going to the Isle of Wight and Museumstoomtram Hoorn Medemblik, Baxter going to Beamish, it's true that virtually none of the Bluebell engines have visited elsewhere in the last few years ...

Tom

 

32473 came to the SVR as well in the early 00s. As much as I would love too see the atlantic stretch her legs elsewhere. It will give me yet another excuse to come and visit.

 

Okay, perhaps I over exaggerated my claim a little bit, though to be fair apart from the Dukedog and Birch Grove, the bigger engines have remained home, but again that's perfectly understandable as the railway has needed of all of them to it's disposal, especially now.

 

Though I would admittedly be curious to know how often the tends to welcome visiting engines as well, as that appears to be a rarity in itself.

Far as I know anyway...

 

Again, almost none - the only visiting locos I can remember in the last few years are a GWR small prairie, a big prairie, a Collett goods, an auto tank, a 56xx, a Stanier Jubilee, Black 5, Bulleid Merchant Navy, a couple of unrebuilt light pacifics, a couple of rebuilt light pacifics, an S&DJR 7F, a King Arthur, a Metropolitan Railway 0-4-4T, about three Terriers, a P tank, an Ivatt class 2 tank, a BR Standard class 2 tender engine, a Fairburn 2-6-4T, A Peppercorn A1, Blue Circle and FR20.

@Southernman99 has it right: if people want to see Beachy Head run elsewhere, then the logical steps are 1) get her finished 2) allow a suitable period running at the Bluebell while interest is highest and then 3) see who if anyone requests her as a visitor. Let's complete step 1 first! I suspect all groups constructing new builds that are attached to a host railway would say something similar.

Tom

 

Nice civil reply there Tom, I feared I cocked up with this whole visiting/visitor affair, apologies I'll shut up about it now...

On a side note, I am very much excited to see Beachy Head completed, though I won't dare ask when you'd reckon it be finished... It will be finished when it's finished I'm sure.

 

Apologies for brusqueness...

Date - as you say, finished when it is finished, and that is dependent on a range of factors, one of which is money. But judging what is left to do and the rate the loco is generating funds, round about 2018-19 looks quite achievable I would have thought. <disclaimer>That is my guess, not an official project estimate</disclaimer>

Tom

 

It will certainly be interesting to see how it overall performs when completed, particularly since I recall someone mentioning it's boiler has a bit more grunt then the originals did.

I'm sure it will look grand with the Maunsell carriages, though I suspect if PH was there observing it, he'd be shaking his head, mumbling of the impracticality and cost of this overly fanciful project...

Especially if, heavens above, it's double heading with a Merchant Navy or even the P2...!
Oh the insensible horror...

 

As built, the Brighton Atlantics had lower pressure and larger cylinders than their GNR forebears, though in time the boiler pressure on the Brighton engines was raised from 180psi to 200psi, and I think that is the form that Beachy Head will have - i.e. largher cylinders and higher pressure.

Tom

 

Quite so, save I do not mumble. Heritage railways need rescuing from undue romanticism as well as well as giving a bit more attention to authenticity.

P.H.

 

Quite so, save I do not mumble. Heritage railways need rescuing from undue romanticism as well as well as giving a bit more attention to authenticity.

P.H.

 

It gets better! There have been two black fives: 44932 on a railtour and 45231 on hire over Winter 2013/14, also two BR standard 2 78xxx tender engines: 78022 from the Worth Valley and 78019 from the GCR and two small prairies: 4561 from the West Somerset (spring 1996) and 5521/L150 from the Flour Mill. Going a bit further back, Caley 419 visited in 1982 along with an "Austerity" from the K&ESR. In 1995, Ivatt 46443 paid a visit. Green Arrow (running as 60800) turned up in October 2003 and The Great Marquess (running as 3442) in 1996. The J52 also paid a visit, but I can't emember when. There was also 92212 in 2013, 80080 in 1998 and Maude on a filming contract somewhen (again, date escapes me).

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

 

Manners!!
P.H.

 

I don't suppose there will ever be a meeting of minds between Paul and I on this one!

What I would say, on the commercial front: the significant costs in a new build are in the design and manufacture of components, rather than in the raw material costs. Given that, there is not likely to be a huge difference between a 100 ton two-cylinder inside motion 4-4-2 tender engine, and a 70 ton two-cylinder inside motion 0-6-0 goods engine: the 30-odd ton of difference of raw steel is only a few thousand pounds in a ca. £1 million project, probably no more than 1% of the project cost. There is very little in the way of expensive components to be designed, drawn, cast, forged and machined that is on an H2 that isn't on a C2x or D3: wheels, cylinders, motion, brakes ... where's the saving in manufacturing costs on the smaller loco?

Given that, constructing Beachy Head specifically (which had the advantage of a ready made boiler, which is one of the significantly expensive components both at a raw materials and manufacturing cost level) is likely to be net cheaper for the railway than a C2x. To which you can add that enthusiasts may all be misguided fools with romantic gricerish notions, but since those are the misguided fools who are funding it, if they show a preference for funding big named express locos, which is teh commercially more logical project to take on?

In other words, if what you want is to actually see a loco constructed, I think an H2 will end up cheaper and funded quicker than a C2x would have done - which even a hard-headed accountant would have to say is a good thing? And once constructed, I doubt there is much difference in daily running cost, and in any case, coal is a relatively small part of the overall equation - the killer cost in running railways is long-term maintenance, not daily coal and oil, and those maintenance costs can be reduced by not working locos close to their physical limit.

Tom