Bluebell Motive Power

Always a "good" reason for this sort of thing! I repeat, you are not running excursions on the main line at speeds of 60+.

PH

 

From the Long Term Plan : -

"The core aims of the locomotive department are:To provide working locomotives to satisfy the Railway's operating, commercial and heritage requirements.

To provide and maintain sufficient locomotives in sufficient numbers, incorporating an appropriate mix of types and sizes to enable authentic train operation, and to support departmental requirements for shunting. The aim is to maintain in service approximately 12 locomotives with the minimum in each category as follows:

Five "large" locomotives (class 3 and above) - ideally:
One very large loco, WC, BB, or 9F.
The remainder class 3 to 5.
Ideally at least one to be a tank locomotive.
Four "Medium" locomotives (class 1 & 2) - ideally including at least one of these types:
Four-coupled passenger locomotive.
Six-coupled mixed-traffic locomotive.
Goods/shunting locomotive.

Two "small" passenger locomotives (class 0)

One dedicated locomotive for C&W yard use."


If the operationg department does not require more than one large loco, it therefore does not make sense commercially to have two in service.
It has been pointed out by another poster on this forum many times that the cost of coal has trebled in 10 years .

 

I know your thoughts on this sort of thing. But for a great many operating days of the year, the railway runs a 5 or 6 coach set of BR Mk 1s or Bulleids. There are operational and commercial reasons for this that have been gone through time and again on this forum and it isn't likely to change any time soon. Not every railway can be the IWSR and run two sets of prototypical coaches often hauled by prototypical small engines.

And you can't satisfy the railway's operating and commercial requirements when you've got all the wrong sizes of locos available for the hugely varied loads on the Bluebell. We need small engines for light passenger trains and shunting, we need medium engines for the 2nd service on 2 train days and catering trains and we need big engines for the 5 and 6 coach corridor trains. Of course it makes no sense to stick a 9F on an Autumn Tints train, it also makes no sense to get short of larger operational engines in about 12 - 13 years time because their boiler tickets weren't sufficiently spread out to prevent such a shortage.

It's all about balance, we can't keep moving from one extreme to the other of overhauling big engines, then small ones in a fire-fighting type situation to prevent a shortage of one type or the other in the next couple of years. We need a steady stream of all three different types of locomotive coming through the works to ensure the longer-term stability of the running fleet. Which is the point I'm trying to make!

 

Interesting, would have thought the Fenchurch Fund would have to do the overhaul, but it does need to be back for it's birthday. Am I right in thinking that 27 needs a new cylinder block as well? Swear the life expired one was on the stand for 27 at Giants of Steam. So a bulk order of 2 cylinder blocks for a P could keep costs down, order a couple for the terriers while you're at it.

 

Well, for a start, take off buffet cars. Every station (except possibly Kingscote) has a refreshment room. That at Horsted Keynes is a gem. Mk.1 buffets are not at all jewel like and they add tare weight which could be avoided

All tourist railways face a medium and long term battle to finance renewals. Looking for "reasons" to operate bigger and heavier trains and motive power than really needed helps not one bit.

PH

 

I note that the LTP used the word 'ideally' quite a lot, which suggests that it is not set in stone.

 

not everyone gets off at HK, and how many when faced with the queue at SP think i will get something on the train?
all railways have to ensure they have suitable motive power that can cope with the demands of the traffic, if your passenger levels require you to run a 6 coach rake, then you need an engine that can cope with the demand, so a larger engine that isnt working at the limit of its capability , in some cases a larger engine working well with in its self will need less maintenance than one that’s being worked hard, so may just need the scheduled down time, one thing is this, a larger engine can add flexibilty, if you need to add a coach, of take one off, its not a problem, where as if you are using an engine that is at the very limit, you have to steam a second engine and double head if the load exceeds the train engines booked limit.

 

These are less reasons as excuses I fear! (I don't want to single out the Bluebell in particular; there are several others who need a similar big long think).

The best riposte to the "I like big choo-choos so I will make reasons for using them" philosophy comes from Ireland. There, the R.P.S.I. work nine coach excursions with their No.4 at speeds much in excess of those permitted to British tourist railways. No.4 is closely related to various L.M.R. 2-6-4Ts.

PH

 

Paul - the buffet car issue is a red herring. If you take one out of a six coach set without replacement, you lose 20 seats but you don't reduce the weight sufficiently to bring the train within capacity of a class 2: you would still be the equivalent of one coach heavier than we allow. If instead you replace an RMB with, say, a TSO, you gain some seats but the weight difference is neglible - our RMBs are about 2 tons heavier than a TSO, which is neither here nor there. You might as well suggest we run a six-coach tender behind 847 which would save far more weight! Would have to paint it in BR black though

Tom

 

27 does need a new cylinder block, and doubtless 323 will need one eventually, so I can see the need to obtain at least two and maybe three cylinder blocks in time. Not much point ordering some for the Terriers though, as they are completely different, not least having different length strokes.

Tom

 

Tom,
Forgive me for observing that if you are to take this rather "Midland Railway" line with regard to haulage capacity then a similarly "Midland" attitude to train weights would be appropriate.

Regards,

Paul

 

N.B. I have just been watching some YouTube footage of 46447 handling 5 Mk.1s and a 10 ton van up the 1 in 56 of the East Somerset. This includes a couple of most awkward re-starts. Now what was I saying about Midland attitudes?

Paul H

 

Ivatt 2s are very deceptive locos. They, most certainly, were not designed with Midland attitudes in mind.

 

Indeed not! It seems that various reactionaries wanted another batch of Midland 2Fs but H.G. Ivatt, who seems to have been a most sensible as well as agreeable man, insisted on producing something better. This he did.

What a pity more did not survive. They would have been the answer to the tourist railway's prayer had the tourist railways only realised it.

Paul H

 

Reactionaries? More than likely the company accountants who probably knew that they could get two Midland 2Fs for the price of one Ivatt 2MT - surely this chimes with you railway operation/cost philosophy Paul?

Cheers,

Alan

 

No, they were reactionaries for sure. If a 2MT performed no better than a Midland 2F, required the same amount of labour for preparation and disposal whilst burning as much fuel, then they might have had a tiny point. In fact they were just trying to frustrate progress.

My present day concern is with tourist railways who, in effect turn out a Shire horse for a job which can be done by a Shetland pony.

PH

 

I think you'll find that most, if not all, "tourist railways" operate within the constraints of the motive power available to them - which in our case is conspicuous by its lack of Ivatts...

Tom

 

Apologies for the thread drift, but for what it is worth 46447 has yet to attempt to restart a 5 coach train plus van on our 1 in 56 gradient. The load is over what BR allowed over that section of line for an Ivatt 2MT and it is generally felt that 5 coaches and a van is about all the tender engine will pull up there.

It will make for an interesting comparison when 41313 is completed, as not only do the tank engines have slightly greater weight available for adhesion and don't have to drag a heavy tender around, but 41313 also has slightly larger cylinders than 46447. I am of the opinion that an Ivatt 2 would be the ideal locomotive for the majority of preserved lines, wonderful machines.

Tom

 

But you do have the B.R. version.

I suspect that if B.R. had made a 10F there would be someone around suggesting their use on 25 mph trains of 5 Mk.1s.

Paul

 

What do you mean by the BR version Paul?

46447 was built to an LMS design albeit in 1950 post nationalisation. Likewise 41313 was also built to an LMS design in 1952.

Neither engine are a BR version, just a BR built engine of an LMS design with very little or no difference to the LMS built batches. The BR Std 2's (both tank and tender version) as i'm sure you probably know are subtally different to there LMS counterparts but neither are represented on the ESR.

Paul

Edit, just realised that this is in response to Bluebell Tom not ESR Tom, just can't delete the entry from the current pc i'm using!