Bluebell Railway General Discussion

Good to know you're becoming a convert.

 

The Earl of Berkley, is she ever going to steam again? I was just wondering, as I see she is off on her travels to the Seven Valley Railway and if the Bluebell don't have the money to get back in steam, I was wondering if maybe one of the many Welsh GWR branch lines might find a use for her?

 

They hinted at in Trackside that Bluebell might be willing to allow another line to restore and run it but they'd regain ownership of it so I think it could happen that another line will express interest in restoring it.

 

Thanks, Alex, it might just happen in my lifetime to see both the Earl and the County both in steam at the same location, if all the parties involved could make it happen.

 

Why do you ask in terms of "ever going to steam again?" The loco is safe and is in the queue amongst other, similar, locos...in the meantime why not lend it out to someone else who would like to display it?

 

I'm sure it will steam again. But with 30 locos in the collection and an operational need for only around 8, on average most locos will spend about 3 years out of traffic for every year running. That's just the nature of the collection. And that is before you consider the fact that if you do a big overhaul on a loco, as happened on 80151 last time round and is happening on 541 this time, you probably want to capitalise by getting a couple of stints in service in quick succession. That means some locos will be sidelined for considerable periods.

On the medium front, 263 is being worked on in the main workshop, and 488 by the Beachy Head team. Personally I'm happy to see 488 in line for an overhaul and hope to drive and fire it before I retire from the footplate. But you can guarantee that had that loco been passed over to do 9017 (as was the plan at one point), there would be plenty complaining about how long that loco had sat out of traffic. You can't run everything all the time.

9017 last ran in 2011; 21c123 (2008); 75027 (2006); 96 (2006); 92240 (2002); 1618 (1994); 2650 (1992); 928 (1990); 488 (1990); 27 (1974) have all spent longer waiting their turn. Fortunately several of those are currently being overhauled; I can wait for 9017.

It's not regain ownership, its is retain ownership. The locomotive was gifted to the railway with the condition it couldn't be sold.

Tom

 

For me the Dukedog is as much a part of the Bluebell scene as Stepney, 488, or the P tanks, and a reminder that in the early days the Bluebell and its supporters were interested in preserving ANY historic locomotives (with a focus on Victorian designs). I'm glad it's under cover and raising interest 'away from home' and I'll certainly make sure I go and see it at Highley.

For those who haven't seen it, the Tom Martin film 'Operation Dukedog' (available on the Bluebell YouTube channel) is an excellent watch.

 

Sorry that was a typo on my part I meant retain.

 

Could you see the Bluebell being open, more generally, to letting another organisation have a stored loco on a 'restore & run' basis with ownership retained by the railway, Tom @Jamessquared? Such as 75027 or the NLR tank, perhaps?

 

For anybody travelling this weekend, there has been a last minute change to engines and sets. The updated version is 6989 on Set A (3 Mk1s + 3 Maunsells), 65 on Set B (4 Wheelers + OBO) and 80151 on the GA.

 

I'm sure serious proposals would be considered. But the starting point would surely have to be that that anyone proposing such a deal has the wherewithal to see the job through to completion, and store the loco under cover when not in use. The last thing you'd want to see would be for someone to take on a project, dismantle a loco and then stall. An arrangement to have a locomotive for display is rather easier, hence 9017 and 178 both being off the railway right now, and 2650 having spent some of the early 2000s at Barrow Hill.

Of the 9 locos I listed that have spent longer out of traffic than 9017, five are currently under overhaul (21c123, 96, 92240, 928, 27); and two are lined up as "next projects" once current overhauls have finished (488 and 1618). That only leaves 75027 which would be a massive job; and 2650 which has a significant part to play in telling the Bluebell's own history; both are on public display in SteamWorks! General policy is to rotate through the fleet over time; I think the only loco that you could give a categorical "you'll never see that in steam" for is Sharpthorne.

Tom

 

I find it interesting that far more people say that the Dukedog isn't really appropriate for the Bluebell than the North London Tank. Leaving aside the latter's role in taking up the track north of HK in 1964-5. the engine has no real connection with the Southern at all. While the Dukedog was shedded at Machynlleth for its entire career, the two locos used to create it in 1938 may well have visited the Southern prior to that. I have certainly seen pictures of GWR double-framers in the Southampton area, having worked over the Didcot, Newbury & Southampton line. OK a rather tenuous connection, but still stronger than 2650/58850's.

Mind you, I must also admit to a personal soft spot for the loco as it was in use during the 1970s when, as a teenager, I was a volunteer in the Bluebell's loco department and have memories of, shall we say, a rather lively run behind her with the late Jack Owen driving!

 

Yes I imagine overhauling 75027 would be a huge undertaking, all its residual life used up. It would perhaps be something which only the Standard Loco Group at Loughborough might be able to take on, with the criteria you describe but doubt they've got access to the best part of a million quid which might be needed .....

 

"Too many locos" is I think being harsh. The collection exists both to provide operational locos, and to be displayed when locos are out of traffic. It isn't there just to provide the smallest possible number of locos necessary to run the required service. Leaving aside those locos under active restoration, almost the entire fleet is readily accessible to the public, Sharpthorne, 847, 1638 and 80100 being about the only ones difficult to see close up.

For both practical operational reasons and for the sake of visitor and enthusiast interest, our aim is to provide an operating fleet that is varied in terms of size and origin. For example, it makes little sense to have both 34059 and 21c123 operating simultaneously, so, in an ideal world, 21c123 will be entering traffic round about when 34059 bows out. But that inevitably means some locos will spend periods out of traffic. If the objective were - like the Paignton & Dartmouth - to run a steam service in the most efficient way possible, you'd say the fleet was too big. But our objectives are quite different, even though we do have to keep one eye on efficiency to make the figures even remotely work. There are many places with smaller fleets that do a worse job on accessibility.

Tom

 

I agree although I took the @Big Al comment more about the movement generally than the Bluebell specifically.

 

Regarding 9017, she's now spent far longer in Bluebell hands than out of them. She's more Sussex than Swindon these days.

 

How about a Billinton cab and chimney, gamboge livery, and a painted name?
(Ducks to avoid incoming Swindon paperweight)

 

No, you want full Wainwright livery to match the tender ...

https://www.derekhayward.co.uk/BluebellRailway-1/Bluebell-Railway-Eric-Kemp/i-wW6Cqpm

(Not my photo).

Tom