Bluebell Railway General Discussion

What fantastic memories to have Bryan. I bet you'd like to go back with your modern camera and catch from the line-side?

 

Oh yes, I've got my name down for the first ride in the time machine once it gets invented.

Bryan B

 

Interesting comments. I too would not visit on days the Bluebell is operating diesel traction.

Yes, not all is lost as there is plenty of steam most of the operating season. And one can understand the reasons for bringing in some diesel traction in-house. It provides rapidly available, practical, cheaper power for various functional purposes. And it also caters to some heritage enthusiasts who actually like diesels, perhaps as BR steam had already finished before they were born - so their nostalgic memories only kick in for the diesels.

With that said, however, the Bluebell has sadly lost what used to be its USP as a pure steam railway. It used to be wonderful to see steam working routinely on Bluebell engineering trains.

 

I'm not a fan of diesel traction, though it is probably worth remembering that a class 33 + Mark 2 carriages (let alone Mark 1s) are rather older, and even further removed from current mainline practice, than a P class and Maunsell carriage were in 1960.

On the engineering and shunting side: some shunts are still done by steam, because it is a requirement of our competencies for both prospective drivers and firemen. Not as many as we might like, but Normandy is under overhaul and perhaps we'll have more steam shunting when it comes back. Other than that, it's hard to see Normandy as a traffic loco, though no doubt it will make regular appearances at galas, as an ideal loco for brake van rides / spare at Horsted.

Engineering services have had a second shift that is maybe not very apparent, which is the use of a road-rail vehicle for a large number of such moves. Thus it is not just that steam has given way to using a 350hp shunter, but that in turn usage of the 350hp shunter has frequently given way to a road-rail vehicle. There are I suspect a number of reasons for that. As an example, last time I was running foreman, the road rail vehicle came in to the yard with two trailers to remove ash. The digger / scoop on the road rail vehicle could quickly distribute ash between the two wagons as it was loaded; and could no doubt have done the unloading at the other end (I assume at Horsted). Had that train been a couple of normal wagons hauled by the 09 (or Normandy, for that matter), you would have needed a digger vehicle in any case. So using that same digger to also be the motive power saved a whole loco duty, at the expense of probably another ten or 15 minutes of section time due to lower speed.

The point of mentioning that is that such vehicles, while certainly not steam, even further blur the distinction between "traction" and "plant". 20 years ago, that train would have been hauled by the B4 as traction with probably a crane bought in to dig the material on a lowmac. 10 years ago the B4 would have given way to the 09, but you still have the fundamental distinction between "traction" (the 09) and "plant" (the digger). Now traction and plant are wrapped up in the same vehicle, at lower operating cost.

Tom

 

Yet on the NYMR, shunting is largely a thing of the past following the tragic accident to Bob Lund. I can't remember when I last buckeyed a couple of coaches together. Any shunting that has to be done at Pickering is generally carried out by by C & W or PW in the case of wagons. Having said that, the recent incident involving coaches was being carried out using a steam loco and volunteer crews. Perhaps it was the lack of regular shunting by these people that contributed to the incident. I don't know.

 

There is a worry that if you reduce the opportunity to for people to practice skills, those skills perish. Then you end up having to pull a whole set of coaches from service, not just shunt out the one that is a failure. Or you find that because x and y are both unavailable z hasn’t done the task for a couple of years and the risk of an accident for them goes up.

 

Further to my last post, I should add that the crews were well experienced and I do not doubt their competence. What went wrong in this case, I do not know.

 

As far as I am concerned the Cromptons are just as much part of the Southern scene as steam is and of course they worked commuter trains on the Oxted lines well into the 1980s Photos in my book Southern after Steam by Pen and Sword. Don (129,000 miles behind steam, about 80,00 behind Bulleids)

 

Yes big brother Don, that's one area where I diverged from the incredible steer you gave my hobby right at the start and many times since.

I am pure steam; pure BR SR steam locos, including those such as Black 5s and standards incl Brits that I saw on the SR.

You have embraced a much, much wider range of interest. Both in traction types and in BR regions.

Any regrets for me? Maybe over not photting SR emus such as Bils, Hals and Cors, wonderful machines. And I did a bash to phot the Woodhead tunnel electric locos, and another single bash for the remaining Deltics - but those trips did nothing for me.

So, back to the Bluebell. Your interests make me realise it isn't just the younger generation who like to see non-steam in service. And underlines my full acceptance that the Bluebell and other heritage railways have to broaden their activities to survive.

But, as much as I can, I'll steer clear of that and stick to steam whenever I can.

Bryan - aka WEDGIE - B

 

It doesn't actually advertise itself as a "steam" railway. At least one other line that does so describe itself runs diesels, possibly more than the Bluebell does.

 

Steam, diesel, etc. What does it matter- I'm just glad it's there. The railway, that is.
Back in the 70s, I walked so many of the Wealden lines. Closed, decaying, peeling paint and broken glass underfoot. I remember that utterly forlorn feeling of those days, tempered by the knowledge that at least the Bluebell had survived. That thought still remains.
So whatever may run on it from day to day is almost ephemeral
That this slice of the past remains, to me, is all that matters

 

... and of course, not only is there a much longer Bluebell Railway now than in the 1970s, but five more miles of the scenic wealden lines now sees regular steam operation too - namely the Spa Valley from Eridge to Tunbrige Wells West. Sadly, the most scenic Wealden line of them all - the Cuckoo Line from Eridge to Poilegate - is never going to reopen barring a most extraordinary change in circumstances and a stupendous amount of money, but I too am grateful for what we have in this part of the world and as for traction, while I have a lot of sympathy for Bryan's steam purism, I have found that my attitudes towards the Bluebell's traction policy has changed in recent years. I actually turned out to see the railtour last Saturday (I think I might just about be visible in @TheModster's video of the return working on Freshfield Bank!) and couldn't but wonder what the pioneers who helped save the Bluebell would have thought of the sight of two 73s and a 66 hauling a rake or air-conditions Mark 2 stock over the line! I certainly hope that the Bluebell remains first and foremost a steam-operated line and I very mcuh approve of the long-term plan to use more pre-nationalisation carriages, but there is now definitely a contingent of volunteers who are happy for the line also to showcase typical Southern Region modern traction and stock used on the Wealden lines in the era before the Third Rail was extended to East Grinstead and give them the occasional run, and all the best to them!

 

Chacun a son gout

I lack your single minded attention to a subject the lack of which has been my undoing at times and I do have regrets but the clock can’t be turned back. Don

 

We had a steam shunt turn yesterday! The 01 shunted the yard all morning, put Fenchurch in place for the lorry to take it north, brought the GN saloon down and re-ordered the passenger set that was at SP.
A reminder quite how long shunting does take at times!

 

Absolutely. We are in a world that often seems to confuse risk mitigation with risk avoidance, emphasising the latter and then wondering why things don’t work.

I was in a discussion earlier today where a minor hazard caused someone to suggest “no activity”. A little thought about numbers and timings, and it became possible to safely mitigate the risk instead of trying to avoid it outright.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Checks yesterday's roster]

Tom

 

Modern safety management, however, starts with the reasonable question of whether an activity carrying risk can be avoided outright by stopping the activity. This isn't daft, it's common sense. Only if the activity is important/necessary do you then move via a hierarchy of measures to reduce the risk.

To make this a practical example, somewhere on here somebody asked why a railway only runs with a certain headcode, the answer was to reduce the working at height risk, as this lamp code can be put on from ground level, this seems common sense to me, why run the risk of going aloft to reach the top bracket, it isn't required so reduce the risk.

PS this isn't related to Bluebell specifically.

 

And it is that question of whether the risk can be avoided outright that is IMHO a problem.

In the instance I had in mind, it was some scaffolding obstructing a thoroughfare. For the time involved, and numbers present, the risk could be effectively managed in other ways. But the fact that a key decision maker was trained to take the approach you outlined meant that the second order questions didn't actually get asked.

 

Exactly!
Maybe we should all just stay indoors unless we are going to work then. That certainly reduces risk, no roads to cross, pavements to trip up on etc.
Certainly no contact sports or even non contact like cricket.
Certainly never go near a railway, may fall off the platform.
There needs to still be some sensibility in this world, or maybe us old people just need to pass on, surprised I have made 72 with all the risk around.

 

Couldn’t agree more. We are now at risk of making life so safe that it won’t be worth living.
How can reaching up the a top lamp bracket be considered a risk when the person doing it has probably been in close proximity to people of doubtful ability in charge of vehicles travelling at high speeds during his journey to get to the to the railway?
I’ve even managed to get further along life’s path that you have