If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Maunsell man, Oct 20, 2009.

  1. Hirn

    Hirn New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    133
    Gender:
    Male
    I think its in with a chance if it hasn't been outside with damp lagging by the outside of the boiler plates - very prone to catch them out long term
    especially the throat plate under the boiler barrel. Stripped bare is better especially if derusted and given a suitable coat of paint.
     
  2. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,563
    Likes Received:
    24,439
    Location:
    21C102
    Probably not the thread for it, but just to answer that question: In the five full years 2014 - 2018 inclusive, which includes all the full years of running to East Grinstead, our mileages and days in operation have averaged just under 35,000 miles per year in just over 600 steam loco operating days per year. (That figure excludes gala visitors from other railways - just our own fleet. Also excludes shunting mileage by the 09). It is made up as follows:
    • Large locos (class 4 or above): 21,620 miles per year, 330 operational days per year
    • Medium locos (class 1 - 3): 10,750 miles per year, 208 operational days
    • Small locos (class 0): 2,370 miles per year, 70 operational days
    So the quick answer is we have duties for all sizes of loco and therefore would aim to rotate the fleet across each group of locos. Currently, that mileage is spread across:
    • 4 large locos (was three for the last few years);
    • 2 medium locos
    • 1 small loco (was two until the beginning of this year).
    My own view is that for reasons of operational resilience and avoiding running excessive mileage on the older locos, we probably need between three and four large; three medium and two small, i.e. we are about one medium and one small loco short of where we would ideally be. Of course, locos come in and out of traffic all the time, so the picture changes, but if you look at what is in the workshop and compare with how far currently operational locos are through their tickets, the large loco situation looks quite healthy to me for the next few years, but the key requirement is for medium locos.

    There is an argument that while a large loco can work a medium duty, the opposite isn't the case; so since this isn't an exact science, slightly over provisioning large locos is probably better than a shortfall in terms of the ability to deliver the service. In that respect, "small large" locos like the Maunsell Q are particularly valuable, since they can if required manage six carriages on our gradients, but will also work a lightweight train very economically. Given the current large loco position, I can see the Q in particular increasingly covering the "medium" duties currently shared between the H and the O1 to reduce the burden on those locos - for much of the last year or so, we have needed two medium locos in service every weekend with only two available, which leaves no resilience.

    Within those parameters, the desire really is just to rotate around: I wouldn't necessarily assign a rank order (well, I would - but that is personal preference, not operational usefulness!)

    As always, this is a personal view and not an official position.

    Tom
     
  3. martin1656

    martin1656 Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    11,674
    Likes Received:
    6,315
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St Leonards
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Operationally though I would imagine an A12 would be more useful than an T1 due to better water and coal capacity, but at the cost of possible reduced traffic effort, plus the relatively small boiler would need to be working at maximum output on the 1 in 75 , just out of interest if you were to do a comparison of an SECR E class, and an Adams A12, which has the better adhesion weight and capacity ?
     
  4. 30854

    30854 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    3,855
    Likes Received:
    3,794
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Am I the only one who thinks either an A12 or T1 (either IMO would be excellent projects) are rather be more suited to Swanage?

    On Bluebell metals, like Harry Hill said ..... I like the E ..... and I like the K. Which one to choose? There's only one way to find out ... :)
     
    60835 and JMJR1000 like this.
  5. weltrol

    weltrol Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    230
    Build both...;)
     
    Spinner and JMJR1000 like this.
  6. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,563
    Likes Received:
    24,439
    Location:
    21C102
    As others have said, an A12 or T1 isn't likely to arise from the Bluebell. (I'd also point out that from our point of view at least, our loco diagrams for smaller locos are generally built round the need to come on shed at least once during the day either for coal or to clear the ashpan or both; so in practical terms coal and water capacity isn't a particular limit for preferring an A12 over a T1. I'd also note that our ruling grade is 1 in 55, not 1 in 75...)

    But just for comparison with a Wainwright E; and comparing the T1 with a Wainwright H:

    Loco and tender weight
    Adams A12 - between about 66 and 80 tons; there was a big variation in tenders. The locos were about 42 - 44 tons depending on batch.
    Wainwright E - 91t 7cwt
    Adams T1 - 53t 0cwt
    Wainwright H - 54t 8cwt

    Adhesion:
    Adams A12 - 31t 9 cwt - 32 t 0 cwt (depending on batch)
    Wainwright E - 34t 18cwt
    Adams T1 - 35t 3cwt
    Wainwright H - 33t 12cwt

    Tractive Effort
    Adams A12 - 15,700lbf
    Wainwright E - 18,400lbf
    Adams T1 - 17,100lbf
    Wainwright H - 17,360lbf

    Grate area
    Adams A12 - 17 sq ft
    Wainwright E - 21.25 sq ft
    Adams T1 - 17 sq ft
    Wainwright H - 16.67 sq ft

    Heating surface
    Adams A12 - 1,231 - 1,248 sq ft (depending on batch)
    Wainwright E - 1,532 sq ft
    Adams T1 - 1,231 sq ft
    Wainwright H - 1,105 sq ft

    So playing "loco top trumps", not a lot to choose between a T1 and the H (which is a known quantity); the A12 suffers by virtue of lower tractive effort due to larger wheels and also having to drag a tender round that is equivalent to a pre-grouping bogie coach knocked off the load. Were I choosing to build a loco round that boiler (I'm not ...), the A12 would be a unique prospect in the way that the T1 wouldn't be and thereby possibly more fundable; but the T1 would be a more practical proposition for a heritage line, and cheaper to build as well.

    The Wainwright E is an altogether bigger loco, particularly with regard the boiler..

    For our line, boiler power is at a premium because of the sustained gradients. One of the things that surprised me on the Beattie Well Tank was just how free steaming it was, since I had in my mind its being a very small loco. But the boiler was essentially identical to that on "Calbourne", and it effectively had that kind of 0-4-4T performance, but squeezed into a smaller loco giving very low coal and water capacity and a cramped cab.

    Tom
     
    andrewshimmin likes this.
  7. 30854

    30854 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    3,855
    Likes Received:
    3,794
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    For Pete's sake @weltrol ..... we need to leave sommat, beyond the eternal livery debate, for generations as yet unborn to get their teeth into! :)
     
  8. The Saggin' Dragon

    The Saggin' Dragon Part of the furniture Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    14,799
    Likes Received:
    5,047
    Location:
    1012 / 60158
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    That is a big variation; did some of them run with 'water carts'?
     
  9. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,563
    Likes Received:
    24,439
    Location:
    21C102
    No, but some of them ran with ancient Beattie tenders of about 1800 gallons capacity, right through to much larger tenders of over 3000 gallons. About six or seven tons difference in water, plus a couple of tons variation in coal, plus a couple of tons (at least) in structure gives a difference of about 12 tons in tender between the lightest and heaviest, plus up to a couple of tons variation in the locos depending on batch.

    Tom
     
    2392 and The Saggin' Dragon like this.
  10. Rumpole

    Rumpole Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    368
    Occupation:
    Tea-Maker
    Location:
    34105
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    No, you’re not...!
     
  11. MuzTrem

    MuzTrem Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    656
    But then, Swanage doesn't yet have period LSWR coaches to run them with. The Bluebell does, albeit two of them are still awaiting restoration...! :p
     
  12. JMJR1000

    JMJR1000 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    378
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cleethorpes
    Ah but there we have the conundrum, the Bluebell only has two examples of LSWR locos, one being a touch too small to use with the coaches and the other unlikely to be running again anytime soon. Plus simply put it would seem to me the Bluebell is far more interested in presenting other pr-grouping companies such as the SECR and the LBCR, which is fair enough as they simply put have much more in way of locos and coaches to represent those companies over the LSWR.

    Plus I would suspect that if the Swanage play their cards right, the T3's restoration will be the perfect catalyst to get the ball rolling on restoring their LSWR coaching stock, and perhaps acquire more from elsewhere if any other LSWR carriages survive.
    A great shame in remembering what happened to the restaurant ironclad coach at the Mid-Hants a few years ago though now that I think about it, a terrible loss heritage wise...
     
  13. flying scotsman123

    flying scotsman123 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    6,510
    Likes Received:
    7,338
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    The Bluebell have already loaned out a coach to be restored and run, perhaps in time a similar arrangement for some of their LSWR carriages could be come to...
    Yes we're back to fantasy train sets again, but ah well.
     
  14. JMJR1000

    JMJR1000 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    378
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cleethorpes
    Now that is a possibility, but I suppose one would have to consider does it benefit either party in any way? I'm sure the Bluebell is justly proud of the work they've done with that LSWR brake coach recently. For the other 2 unrestored coaches it could be doable in theory, the Swanage Railway restoring them at their own expense in return for loaning them so many years.

    Personally though, I've never been sure what benefit that has to the railway restoring the coaches in question myself. After all fact is in the end, after all the work and expense you put in, you know your gonna have to give the coaches back and suddenly your down a couple valuable assets to your railway at tome point or another. So I could never see the point of it myself. But still not something that shouldn't be ruled out if there were thoughts towards that.

    Perhaps if a certain Adams Radial Tank was included in this theorised loan to sweeten the deal, I reckon that would make a most interesting and appetising arrangement for sure~. ;) But again drifting into fantasy land/WIBN territory here.
     
    flying scotsman123 likes this.
  15. jma1009

    jma1009 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    637
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    ynysddu south wales
    JMJR1000,

    Don't forget there are a number of ex LBSCR coaches at Eastleigh from Michael Camp's farm on Hayling Island - donated to the Watercress Line.

    If things were thought of differently, the Dukedog would be re-located to somewhere more 'fitting', and the GNR Directors Saloon relocated to say the NYMR via it's separate Trust... but that is how things are, and one day I hope to see 'Beachy Head' haul a restored LBSCR Directors Saloon!

    Cheers,

    Julian
     
  16. JMJR1000

    JMJR1000 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    378
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cleethorpes
    Oh I didn't know about those carriages on the Mid-Hants, though lord knows when they'll get round to restoring those.

    Indeed I'd agree we don't want to be going down that path of discussing what would be more fitting where again, it's a well trodden path that's simply fruitless.

    Certainly I hope to see just that sight someday too! Surely the LBSCR Directors Saloon has to be given it's due soon, to have a far more location appropriate Directors Saloon up and running.
     
  17. MuzTrem

    MuzTrem Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    656
    I think part of the Bluebell's great strength is that it has representatives of all the SR's pre-grouping constituents. As wonderful as it is to see locomotives and stock on their home territory, I think there is also something very special about bringing things from different places together to tell a bigger story. In just the same way as somewhere like the British Museum markets itself as a "universal museum" of all nations and cultures, the Bluebell could become a comprehensive working museum telling the complete story of the Southern Railway and its predecessors. (I realise that "universal museums" are now considered problematic because so many of their exhibits were acquired by dubious means during the colonial era - fortunately that is not a problem at the Bluebell!)

    Admittedly, the LSWR will never be as well-represented at Sheffield Park as the SECR or LBSCR, but all the same...the idea of a railway being able to turn out complete LSWR, LBSCR and SECR trains and run them alongside each other is, to me, absolutely mouth-watering.
     
    andrewshimmin, JMJR1000 and jnc like this.
  18. MuzTrem

    MuzTrem Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    656
    I quite agree that it would be wonderful to see the directors saloon running again! I can see why it is not a priority for the railway, though. At least it is now undercover, which will hopefully arrest further deterioration until its time comes. I think once the saloon is up and running, that would be the moment to consider back-dating 32424 to LBSCR condition...the Bluebell will probably never be able to field a complete train of LBSCR bogie stock (sadly!) but having one appropriate vehicle to hang behind the tender would be a good start.
     
  19. gwalkeriow

    gwalkeriow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired.
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer

    Well I just happen to know where there are four air braked LBSCR bogie coaches :)
     
  20. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,563
    Likes Received:
    24,439
    Location:
    21C102
    On the question of pre-grouping carriages, and looking at what is likely; what is possible; what’s unlikely and what is impossible.

    In our context, a “train” has to include first, third, brake vehicles; and ideally a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.

    We currently have three operational Victorian LCDR Carriages, and a train of around half a dozen (possibly with one or two SER vehicles) is eminently feasible. The LCDR carriages have a big restoration advantage of being robust and fairly simple in construction. The three existing carriages include brake, third and wheelchair vehicles, so a first (likely an SER vehicle) and probably one or two more thirds would be required. There is a complete LCDR brake and an SER 3rd body and an SER brake available.

    We have one operational Victorian LBSCR carriage, with two more nearing the end of a restoration. Again, a five coach train of Stroudley / Billinton vehicles is possible. The existing carriage is a first, and those in the works are a third and a brake third. So that suggests the need for another brake third to give the classic Stroudley “brake each end” appearance; that might be a viable candidate to restore as wheelchair accessible vehicle rather than as a brake. In addition you’d need another all third. Those five coaches are all available.

    A birdcage trio set is the archetypal Southern branch line train, in use for over forty years from the Edwardian period onwards. One brake is already restored: there is a debate about how best to complete that set. Three other brakes are available; a hundred seater could form a centre coach, and there is also a tri-composite available. However, as I understand, there is no complete match, so a train would probably be at best representative rather than a restoration of a specific set. Conceivably, one of the hundred seaters could become the wheelchair accessible vehicle by removing one partition and putting in double doors, akin to the wheelchair accessible LBSCR carriage on the Isle of Wight.

    After that, things get more problematic. There are four LSWR carriages; however one is a family saloon from the 1870s; one the lavatory brake 3rd from the Edwardian era (currently in service, but infrequently used due to low capacity); one a corridor carriage of similar vintage; one a Southern Railway rebuild of an LSWR carriage on a longer underframe. It’s unlikely they would ever have been seen together. Realistically, I suspect the best option is to use the corridor coach as a “swinger” to augment the Maunsell set; use 320 with the Brighton bogie first and SECR 100 seater; with the Victorian family saloon maybe becoming an additional wheelchair access carriage, perhaps to give that form of accommodation to another set such as the Mets. But all that is a long way off. What we can’t produce is a coherent LSWR “train”, just a set of vehicles which are individually interesting.

    Then to the realms of the impossible: there is one LBSCR bogie 1st operational, running on a LNWR underframe. As is well known, the SR phased out loco-hauled LBSCR carriages early, with most being scrapped or converted to electric stock, and a number going to the Isle of Wight. So as @gwalkeriow reminds us, there are four LBSCR bogie carriages running at Havenstreet, but the opportunities to do similar at Sheffield Park are non existent. If you want to see 32424 running with LBSCR carriages, best lobby for Wootton headshunt to be extended!

    Apart from the above, we have odd vehicles - the LNWR Obo (probably the highest mileage carriage on the railway); GNR Directors’ saloon; the Mets all operational; and “Constance” (SE&CR ‘Gilbert Car’ Pullman) and the LBSCR Saloon being the two most significant “special saloons” awaiting restoration. The four Craven era carriages I think would be best tackled as new build rather than restoration.

    All of that takes time, money and people of course. More I suspect than I will see in my lifetime unless there is a massive upswing in resources. As for matching carriages to locos - it’s a nice dream! But probably unrealistic because of the pressure just to keep any loco and carriages operational, never mind aligning maintenance cycles which are fundamentally different.

    Finally a small reminder: for BRPS members, the long term plan is up for revision, and suggestions for revision are currently being canvassed. So if you profoundly disagree with policy, now is the opportunity to make a case as to why.

    Tom
     

Share This Page