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.

Bluebell Matters

Discussion in 'Heritage railways & Centres in the Uk' started by Jamessquared, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. 35B

    35B Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,372
    Likes Received:
    3,308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I assume you aren't referring to those in black that are effectively in LNWR colours anyway?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    andrewshimmin likes this.
  2. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    12,653
    Location:
    21C102
    AFAIK they are in the old part of the carriage shed / works at Horsted Keynes, under cover but not easily viewable.

    Tom
     
    Charles Parry likes this.
  3. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    12,653
    Location:
    21C102
    The problem is the cost of doing so - not just the money, but the fact that you would have to take a loco out of traffic at a time when we aren't exactly flush with locos. With only the H and the C available for medium size duties, if you took the C out for a month for a repaint and then the H had a problem ... There is also the point about who would actually repaint it, and where they would do so - workshop space is severely limited (and better used for actually overhauling locos); and if you got the in-house staff to paint it, they are therefore not working on something higher priority, while if you got a contractor to paint it, that is a higher price for a paint finish only lasting a year or so. Repainting a loco that doesn't otherwise have any need to be in the works would be a "nice to have", not an essential, and at the moment we have to concentrate on essentials.

    Tom
     
    Extension3363, David R and 35B like this.
  4. Grashopper

    Grashopper Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    66
    Occupation:
    Assistant FLeet engineer Southern Railway
    Location:
    Surrey
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    And then it comes out of traffic wearing whatever the last livery was - better SECR livery than BR black! Very rare that an out of service locomotive gets repainted, Stepney being the only exception I can think of.
     
  5. 847

    847 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Wasn't Stowe repainted, also 1618, 30064, Blackmoor Vale? Or was that for its last year, and also the North London tank?
     
  6. andrewshimmin

    andrewshimmin Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    997
    Some of them might be nice with a bit of colour. Although I think the more modern outline locos don't suit elaborate lining styles. But a nice apple green, Midland red, Caley blue or Brighton umber would probably look great on e.g. the Class 4 (all types) or Class 5.

    Shhh! Don't mention Riddles' revenge.....
     
    35B likes this.
  7. John Petley

    John Petley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,149
    Likes Received:
    773
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Researcher/Editor
    Location:
    Between LBSCR 221 and LBSCR 227
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Stowe, 1618 and 30064 have been repainted into Bulleid Malachite Green, BR lined black and WD livery respectively, but only after they were withdrawn from service. (Normal livery being SR olive green for Stowe and 928 and green with BR crests for 30064) Blackmoor Vale ran for a while in BR green (early crest) as 34023. This was during 1984 and 1985. The North London Tank ran at first on the Bluebell as L&NWR 2650, but in the last 1980s was running as BR 58850 and actually ended up as BR 58850 on one side and LMS 27505 on the other. Given the LMS/BR tradition of not applying smokebox number plates to ex-L&NWR locos, it didn't actually look that odd. I'm not sure what livery it currently carries (It was displayed at Barrow Hill for a while) but I believe that the plan is to paint it in NLR colours when it is next overhauled, although this may be some years away.
     
  8. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    12,653
    Location:
    21C102
    The repaint of 1618 was somewhat forced by circumstances: the tender was loaned to the MHR, who repainted it black to match their loco. When it returned from the loan period, the livery mismatched 1618, so the option was taken to repaint the loco black and leave the comparatively new paint on the tender. From memory, 1618 is now BR black, but still carries its SR number on the buffer beam rather than a smokebox number. All a bit academic until it gets overhauled, in any case. The paintwork on Stowe was done primarily to keep the loco looking presentable (and protected) during a long period of storage; the option was taken to paint it in sunshine livery as a bit of variety.

    Tom
     
  9. Johnb

    Johnb Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,972
    Likes Received:
    3,610
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired, best job I've ever had
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    The photo charter organisers would have paid for the job, it's been done several times now and have provided some of the labour but I understand what you mean about taking a working loco out of traffic
     
  10. Johnb

    Johnb Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,972
    Likes Received:
    3,610
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired, best job I've ever had
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    No they wouldn't and the Bluebell is a heritage railway not Carnforth, Brighton Umber looks nice on a LBSCR loco
     
  11. andrewshimmin

    andrewshimmin Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    997
    You're right of course, the *Bluebell* would never paint locos or carriages in liveries they didn't wear pre-preservation.....
    :)
     
  12. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    12,653
    Location:
    21C102
    :oops:
     
  13. Johnb

    Johnb Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,972
    Likes Received:
    3,610
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired, best job I've ever had
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    With one exception no I don't think they would
     
  14. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    12,653
    Location:
    21C102
    Rather more than one, John - 323, 55 and 672 all carry incorrect liveries at the moment, and 672 has a non-prototypical number as well. At least with 323 and 55 you could say that preservation longevity in their current liveries overrides "historical" authenticity: 55 has been an A1x in Stroudley livery longer than it ever existed in Stroudley livery from new.

    Amongst the carriages, the LMS BGZ is clearly wrong, and there has been quite a discussion in Bluebell News about crimson and cream applied to some Mark 1s that are too young to have carried that livery when new.

    Tom
     
    andrewshimmin likes this.
  15. Johnb

    Johnb Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,972
    Likes Received:
    3,610
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired, best job I've ever had
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I was making an exception for no 55, squint and you don't see the extended smokebox and I didn't realise no 672 was wrong in Southern livery. I limited what I said to locos as no one seems to care about coaching stock, the Bluebell MB is not the only one in incorrect crimson and cream and as for the LMS 6 wheel brake ugh!
     
  16. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    12,553
    Likes Received:
    12,653
    Location:
    21C102
    672 is the most egregious example to me, because it is not really representative of anything - it's not historically accurate for the loco, but nor does it really have its own "post-preservation" history to justify its current condition, as is the case with 55 and 323.

    Originally, the locomotive numbered 72 was sold to Newhaven Harbour Co. by the LBSCR in 1898 as an A1 (original boiler etc.). After that, other Terriers entered the duplicate list, having 600 added to their number. The LBSCR then rebuilt Fenchurch to A1x form (new boiler etc.) on behalf of Newhaven Harbour Co. When Newhaven Harbour was absorbed into the Southern Railway in 1926, "Fenchurch" came back into the ownership of the mainline railway company (by then the SR); however, by that point its logical number had gone, so it was re-numbered B636 as the next vacant number available, after which it became in turn 2636 and 32636. So 672 is an incorrect number - it is the number it would logically have had during the Marsh era had it not been sold, but that isn't the history. The livery is also a bit suspect, being Marsh umber but with the name (rather than LB&SCR or LBSC) painted on the tanks.

    It is the bit that worries me about "faux" liveries, i.e. painting a loco in a livery that is theoretically "accurate" for some locos, but wrong for the specific loco. I'd take you as being reasonably well informed about what is right in appearance, so if you don't know it is wrong, what hope would our visitors have - we are, after all, trying to be educational as well as just a nice day out? I have less issue with liveries such as that applied to 323 that are clearly not trying to be anything else other than a new livery applied by a new owner, recognising that the history of the loco didn't stop at the point it was preserved. Whereas if you are going to paint something representative of its life pre-preservation, at least do it right. (Same applies elsewhere: I wouldn't particularly object to a certain newly outshopped pacific if it emerged maroon with WCRC on the tender. But if instead you are going to paint it in BR livery, at least get it the right colour. Painting it black seems to be neither one thing nor another).

    Personal view as always, not a corporate one!

    Tom
     
  17. 21B

    21B Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,313
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Most unlikely that a charter would meet the full costs as outlined by Tom, and doubtful it could be priced to do so. How do you put a price on a loco being out of service for a month? I dont think there is a railway in the country that can afford that at present. There is a shortage of locomotives and a shortage of overhaul capacity.
     
    Extension3363 and Jamessquared like this.
  18. John Petley

    John Petley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,149
    Likes Received:
    773
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Researcher/Editor
    Location:
    Between LBSCR 221 and LBSCR 227
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I agree with you on this, Tom. I have no problem with 323, given that (i) it has run in Bluebell blue for most of its 55+ years in preservation and (ii) 178 is the same class and wears authentic SE&CR livery. Both 323 and 55 entered preservation at a time when running a pre-grouping loco in BR livery on a heritage line would have been unthinkable - quite apart from the fact that it may not even have been allowed under the conditions of the sale!

    There's a picture by J J Smith which appears in several books of 32588, an E5 radial tank, working a goods train at Rotherfield in 1952. The cleaners had cleaned the "588" of the smokebox number plate but not the "32". This, I think, illustrates the affection felt for the pre-grouping companies some 30 or so years later - an attitude shared by the enthusiasts who started the Bluebell. For Stepney, there was really only one choice of livery - the Stroudley "Improved Engine Green" which epitomised the LB&SCR, even though it wasn't actually authentic on an A1X.

    I do agree that Fenchurch did look a bit odd with incorrect number and livery. If it does reappear in 2022 for "Terrier 150", I'd rather see the Stroudley livery and original number. It will also be interesting to find out what will happen to Stepney when it undergoes what will be a very substantial overhaul. If, like Fenchurch, it ends up being retro-converted to A1 appearance, the Stroudley livery would again be logical. After all, it would be a bit daft to have run it in this livery when it's not authentic for the condition it is currently in only to swap over to another non-authentic livery when Improved Engine Green would be correct for it as an A1-lookalike.
     
  19. Johnb

    Johnb Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,972
    Likes Received:
    3,610
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired, best job I've ever had
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    That's a whole new can of worms, do you restore to how that particular loco looked at some time in its history or do you represent the appearance of a typical member of its class? 60103 is a good example, currently the loco is correct and looks correct from the front, from the rear, of course, the corridor tender becomes apparent. It's current livery is the only authentic one for the loco even in single chimney configuration as it didn't become an A3 until 1947 and acquired left hand drive in 1954. Personally I was happy with it representing a typical A3 in the 30s when it was in this form. With double chimney and smoke deflectors it as just a meaningless hybrid.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
    andrewshimmin likes this.
  20. marshall5

    marshall5 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    814
    Likes Received:
    398
    Location:
    i.o.m
    John, don't you mean left hand drive or am I misunderstanding your post?
    Ray.
     

Share This Page