9F 92240.

Hi folk's are there any plans to return this 9F to steam at the Bluebell railway, has it been forgotten as i never here anything about this locomotive.

Also was the boiler pressure of this locomotive reduced when it was in service last?

 

I belive it is in very good condition and the Bluebell are keeping this engine "up their sleeve" just in case. They were saying in the Bluebell News that in could be returned to steam in about a year.

 

Currently stored at Horsted Keynes while all the development work takes place at Sheffield Park.

Regards,

Dan

 

Sorry if this is well known already but if the engine is in 'very good condition' why hasn't it been returned to steam already? Is it surplus to the Bluebell's requirements in terms of size?

 

I've said the same remarks on the Bluebell e-mail group. If 92240 is about only a years' work required to overhaul as it's in good condition then let's get it in the works and repaired. Unfortunately because it's such a large engine and thus expensive on water, coal etc the powers that be say that they just don't need it at the moment with 34059 in steam and the emphasis is firmly on running Class 1-3 sized locos. All I would say is at this time 92240 might only be a years' work but if continually left in the open sidings at H.K exposed to the elements, a few year's down the line it may end up more like 2 years or more work.

 

Would it not be returned to covered storage after building work at
Sheffield Park complete ?

 

I think that in a Bluebell News a while ago it had what David was saying about classs 1-3 motive power being more of a priorityand big locos such as 92240 and 75027 would need more money spent on overhauling and then as David said on coal, water etc. However 73082 is a big loco and should be back in 3/4 years maybe earlier but as far as I know it is not a Bluebell owned engine like 65, 80151 etc so the society that owns it may have had sufficient funds to overhaul it.

I would like to see 92240 back in steam one day though.

 

Sounds crazy to leave it in open storage. SVR reckoned having 43106 left in the elements added £70,000 to the overhaul costs. If it's in good nick get it overhauled or cosmetically restored and loan it to somewhere like Barrow Hill or Shildon until they're ready for it, but don't let it rot otherwise it suddenly it won't be a quick restoration...

 

is 80151 owned by the Bluebell thought it was another private group?

thanks al

 

No, you're right - she's owned by a private group.

Tom

 

It's true that in a recent edition of Blue News, it was stated that 92240 was only about 1 year's work, and was being held up our sleeves in case there was a hurried need for a big loco. But that doesn't mean it's a no-brainer to restore! For a start, we already have one "giant" loco (34059) and two others in the pipeline (847 and 73082, both of which have funding from their respective owning groups so to a certain extent "jump the queue"). So assuming they come on stream in the next 2 - 3 years, it's hard to see an immediate need for another giant engine.

In addition, it's not simply a case of "bring it in the works" - there's an opportunity cost, i.e. the space and effort occupied by 92240 means other locos get their restoration set back due to the space and labour being taken by 92240. So even though it may be quick, restoring it might mean that another quick loco like 65 might get delayed. In the end, the rolling stock director and the works manager have to balance a range of complicated factors to ensure we always have a fleet that is the best balance of operational flexibility and operating cost. People can always grouse about particular decisions, but on the whole I think they do a pretty good job.

Whether the 9F gets back under cover - I hope so, but again, the railway can't just magic shed space out of nowhere. We have something like 30-odd locos; the main shed will only take about a dozen or so, depending on their size, so space is always going to be at a premium. The current phase of operation undercover has been a major and costly project, but even that only gets about 17 full length carriages into proper storage, so if we wanted to cover everything, we'd end up with a lot of sheds, need a lot more land and a lot of money! Personally, I'd suggest a much more important engine to get under cover is Sharpthorne

Just my $0.02

Tom

 

The group I believe is the Essex Locomotive Society or something similar because they took it from Chappel to the Bluebell to finish the overhaul.

 

Why not loan it out to another railway and put some money back in to the pot?

 

Why put the effort into overhauling it for another railway's benefit? As has been said on here before, the WSR sold 6412 because it didn't earn enough to cover the cost of overhauling it - it's going to even harder to recover costs with a big engine like a 9F. These engines are unique in that they were virtually brand new when withdrawn and should have most of ther boiler life left. It just doesn't make sense to use that up on another railway, particularly when (like most railways) they're fully occupied meeting their own needs.

 

Loan it as it is on a say 12 year agrement were the railway it goes to overhauls it and runs it, like the agrement 45212 is on at the moment.

 

But most of the railways who might have a use for it already have an overhaul queue of their own. 45212 was taken on as a private arrangement between the KWVR and the person who paid for its overhaul, and it has always seemed to be an oddly one sided agreement to me. As far as I can tell, the KWVR will get it back in more or less the condition it left them in, they've gained nothing and the boiler has another 10 years worth of wear. I don't think there's any obligation to overhaul it again once its present ticket is up. Most ex-BR locos, whether from Barry or straight out of service, finished up with some useful life left in them before they need major boiler work, the 9Fs, because of their relative newness, perhaps more, so the first and perhaps second 10 year overhauls are relatively light. Loaning 92240 would simply be wasting some of that life.