Bluebell Motive Power

Actually, I'd disagree. The real problem was persevering with the two Bulleids. How much did we spend (in time and cash) with one or the other of 21C123 and 34059 in the works having firebox repairs, relative to the number of days revenue service we got out of them? It makes the resources spent on 323 and 55 pale into insignificance. 847 and possibly 73082 would be in traffic now were it not for the Bulleids - IMHO.

Er ... you did read the revised LTP, right?

The fundamental problem seems to me to be boilers. Of the locos that have ended service prematurely in the last few years, 21C123, 34059, 1638, B473 and 9017 have all done so because of boiler problems. Only 592 was prematurely failed for another reason (a worn cylinder block). 73082, 75027, 80151, 65 and 672 all basically lasted to, or to within a few months of, their expected end of service. So we need to increase capacity, but particularly boiler capacity - hence the generous benefaction from Mr K. Frog that has allowed 73082's boiler to go away. My personal view is that we should enter into a relationship with a reputable boiler company to send all major boiler overhauls for a period of years, which would give that company the confidence to resource themselves with staff accordingly; and would free up space in the workshop to concentrate on the "bottom end" work, final assembly and minor boiler repairs. Though I appreciate that other people around the railway have a different prescription, but conversations almost invariably come back to boilers.

Tom

 

Completely agree about sending boilers away and entering into a partnership with a boiler company. I can remember a few years ago asking a question on the Bluebell e-mail group about whether we should send a loco or two away to the likes of Rileys or Crewe to be overhauled. The response was that we wanted to keep everything in house, the cost of sending away the locos was too high a price and also could we trust outside contractors to do just as high quality repairs on our locos as our guys do? Now that money seems to be coming in thick and fast thanks to the completion of EG hopefully the capital can be found to send more boilers away to perhaps Crewe and other boiler companies. Whilst I accept that we must keep some boiler repairs/overhauls in house to maintain skills quality within the workshop staff, I do feel the way forward will be a partnership that involves us doing bottom end repairs and an outside boiler contractor repairing the boiler. Hopefully this way will help us solve our large loco shortage and get a number of locos back in steam much sooner.

 

I suggest you look at the timetables instead of making sweeping statements based on "suspicions". Whilst there are a few lines where the diesel does the last round trip and it does look like a means of keeping the diesel group involved, most have at least some timetables with a diesel diagram running through the whole day. From the timetables, it appears to be a means of offering more journey opportunities at a lower cost than steaming another loco. That is certainly the reasoning behind the diesel diagram on the NYMR's Red Timetable. The "first and last" are for reasons already detailed above.

Your initial comment did not make it clear that you referred to diesel use for "crisis" reasons - especially as that is not why the NYMR Timetable includes diesel and that was the only example you quoted.

Turning to the contracting out of boilers, if you have a back-log, one or two being done at contractors can help but successive boilersmiths have advised me that a boiler team needs more than one boiler in their works as a number of jobs on a boiler need only a couple of people, so the rest of the team can usefully work on a second (or even third!) boiler.

I have also picked up from pretty senior engineers that many boilers now need a real "bottoming" to effectively reset the boiler life - that tends to be lots of new metal and major boiler parts renewed. A few years back, insurance companies made it clear patching patches attached to patches had just about reached the limit and spending more now to give large areas of new metal should give less expense, trouble and downtime over the next couple of boiler cycles. That isn;t my idea - that is an eminent ex- Regional CM&EE's opinion.

Steven

 

The KESR uses a DMU at times. The IWSR does not use their diesels unless a steam loco fails during the day because it would take too long to prep a replacement; we use them for engineering trains though and why not.

I often think we should applaud Bluebell for doing things the hard way, but it seems they will need to adapt now the extension has changed things. Good luck to them.

 

Thanks for making my point for me. Hardly indicative of a steam 'crisis' though is it?

 

And I suspect that you are wrong. The NYMR, SVR and most others advertise themselves as a steam railway. The NYMR, at least, is using diesels both to keep costs down and reduce the burden on their steam loco fleet. Any idea of keeping diesel people happy is a figment of imagination.

 

I doubt that very much.

 

I agree with Tom, the problem stems from the two Bulleids, which combined took up far too much workshop time, money and space for very little return. Unfortunately, both locos were put into service with fireboxes that really should have been completely replaced, aka Taw Valley. I'm certain that we'd have a reasonable fleet in service today if we'd left both engines in the loco shed. I know that money has been raised to get 34059 running again, but I'm not convinced it won't remain a burden on the works. In my view, neither 34059 or 21C123 should be allowed anywhere near the works until brand new fireboxes are sitting outside ready to be fitted.
Daniel

 

Then in the case of the NYMR, at least and has Steve has said, I suspect that you would be wrong. The NYMR doesn't have any diesel groups "to keep happy", all the diesel locos are either owned by the railway or managed by them, apart from the hired-in class 31, which is on a commercial agreement. It lost the only group it had (the Lion Group) because they weren't being kept happy. The class 37 is owned by a group I believe but it is a recent arrival and I doubt if it was accepted on the basis of any guaranteed mileage. On the NYMR diesels are a tool, which explains why there are fewer, and less variety, than on most other railways. I think it is also the case that, on the whole, the longer established railways have larger steam fleets and smaller diesel fleets than those that came later because they tended not to need (or want) them for day to day services. Later lines on the scene were more in need of them, probably came with a new generation of supporters with less of a steam background, and had more space to accept them.

 

Martin, a long post so I'll try and answer one or two points.

Firstly, on the question of whether we have made a concious decision to go back to a pre-grouping era: the Long Term Plan (both the current one and the previous version) state that, for infrastructure, the line will start in the 1880s in the south and progress to the 1960s in the north. With regard rolling stock, we aim to present locos and carriages from any and all of those eras, but accepting that, for example, a Standard and Mark 1 coaches will always look more at home at Kingscote; and a Terrier and 4 wheel coaches will look more at home at Sheffield Park. Beyond that, there is not a deliberate strategy to concentrate on, say, pre-grouping locos to the exclusion of more modern ones. What is a factor though is that obviously the pre-grouping locos are, on average, smaller.

What has influenced the order in which locos are turned out is much more governed by (1) ownership and (2) condition.

Taking ownership first, as an example, 1618 is owned by the Maunsell Loco Soc, who therefore have an influence in when it gets restored. Their current focus for both funding and manpower is 847, and after that they wish to see 928 restored, so 1618 doesn't fit for a number of years. The PLC could decide to fund its overhaul themselves and therefore "queue jump", which in fact they have decided to do with an MLS loco, but it is 541 that has "queue jumped", not 1618.

The two restored but out of service Standard tanks are also owned by external groups (80151 and 80064). 80100 is Bluebell-owned, but as yet still in Barry condition, so not a quick job, though ironically it is reckoned to be in quite good condition with regard two areas of major expense, boiler and wheels. But everything else would have to be made.

With regard condition, there has probably been a focus on locos deemed to be quicker to overhaul. For example 592 was generally reckoned an easy job relative to its usefulness, but at the time it was done, the cylinder block was already known to be worn, though we have now effected a repair and it should be back in traffic imminently. Similarly, B473 was given a very heavy overhaul about 20 years ago. At the end of that first period of traffic it was still deemed to be mechanically in good condition, so it had a very quick turnaround to get it back in traffic, but it does mean that it is now getting towards 1.5 boiler cycles without significant boiler work, and that is starting to show. 75027 was, I believe, the last large loco entirely restored by the PLC without an owning group to help support the work and the cost; but it has already been on the railway for 45 years and has worked many of those in traffic, and now requires a lot of work - it wouldn't be a "quick" job. Compare that situation with, say, 73082 which has both the advantage of an active owning group; and has only worked one ten year ticket in preservation.

So much as enthusiasts have wishlists, you have to understand how any particular loco fits with regard condition (which may not be obvious from the outside) and ownership.

Where I would completely agree with you is on finances and profitability. I think many railways are living on residual capital value from BR (both in locos and infrastructure). That is possible where you have high capital value, but relatively miniscule profit relative to turnover and capital. For example, our larger railways typically have capital values of perhaps £10m; turnover of perhaps £3m - £5m yet make an annual profit or loss of the order of £50k - £100k plus or minus. So a tiny capital outlay (for example deciding to renew a few hundred yards of track, or overhaul a small loco) will swing you from positive to negative very easily.

It's not a very sustainale business model, and only works because of huge subsidies from what is effectively charitable giving! That in itself is somewhat variable. So sadly it means, however much one can see a looming loco availability issue, without cash, what can a railway do?

Tom

 

And of course the NYMR has far fewer diesels than it used to, having at various times in its history been home or long term base to a pair of Class 14s, a 17, another 25, a Hymek, a Warship, a 50, a Western, two Deltics, a pair of Class 100 DMUs, an AC Cars railbus, and the NRM's D5500, D200, and D6700.

 

As I understand, there are different financial models in use with different owners / owning groups..

PS - it's Tom, not James!

Tom

 

And, by and large, its no coincidence - either the locos were unsuitable class14s, 17, railbus) or there wasn't a realistic amount of work for them to earn their keep (the hydraulics, class 50, Deltics) or were on sort term loan (NRM locos). The Class 100 DMUs went because of their asbestos content. The fleet now reflects what is required for the traffic on offer.

 

I don't think that volume of use is down to "keeping the diesel people happy" which used to be the justification for the single diesel turn on the SVR on Saturdays. I think it's much more to do with availability of suitably sized steam locos and costs (hired in steam locos cost c £450/£500 per day in steaming fees)

 

Is it possible that the older, smaller and surely mechanically rather simpler locomotives are just easier to maintain without full factory backup and facilities, large spares stock, ample manufacturing capability etc etc?

The answer is none isn't it? Or pretty nearly so. The main line requires subsidies from government, the heritage lines require subsidies in both money and time from enthusiasts. Is there a line out there that has neither subsidies nor volunteer labour nor an associated charitable trust or the like?

 

And you really know all the background to these problems do you living in New Zealand? how do you think those who toiled to repair the firebox
problems feel about your comments. The biggest reason why we are in this mess is the woeful under investment in Sheffield Park works and the
cronic shortage of manpower both skilled and volunteer. Mark my words we are already starting the firebox problems with non Bulleid loco's
viz 31638 which having just been repaired is unlikely to last until Christmas. Coupled with this, how long do you think it will be before flogging P classes back and forth to East Grinstead, starts further firebox problems.
Blame the Bulleids if you must, but the fact they are not running, will not help us get out of this current mess, they are useful scapegoats for the
likes of you who never wanted them in the beginning.

 

I can well understand your argument Tom, but for any line will overhauling the easiest loco result in the easiest getting progressively harder once all of the quick wins are done until one is left with a shed of basket cases? Do we as a movement need to grasp the nettle and pick some of the more difficult targets and do them comprehensively so they are the easy win next time?