Bluebell loco crisis deepens

What was the problem with thme? Weren't Indian by any chance? (Been there!)

 

I think you misunderstand my last point about the rats and sinking ship, it was a turn of phrase as opposed to actually comparing anyone specifically to rats. I couldn't at the time (being tired and slightly pissed) think of a better analogy, have you any?

As to Bluebell being forced out of Kingscote, you may be right, but on the other hand you can't assume these things, as if theres one thing you can't do with local councils it's assume their next action will be what everyone expects! Agree with your other points though.

Indeed, information doesn't exactly flow freely from the railway to those who aren't around to witness things first hand. For example, someone not on the chat group or on here would struggle to find out what happens at the line, especially the bad news...

But she seems to suffer from the same yo-yo thinking as exists about other engines as to whether to do it next or to do something else.

The problem is how long do we sit about and wait for some money from the lottery, that my or may not come, while the loco fleet falls apart around our ears?

If we keep getting duff springs why are we going back to the same company? And by extension, why aren't we suing their backsides off to recoup lost revenue from the C being out of traffic 18 months after it was "relaunched" at Bluebell125?

Engines keep breaking because of the timetable, which is too demanding on the engines we currently have available (note my earlier point on four engines of class 4 and above needed, with two available (well, one now 1638s having dramas), one continually set-back and one waiting for the delayed one to be finished), so effectively they've dug themselves in a hole and have continued digging. Not a slander on the workshop staff, with the little amount of space and money available they do a fantastic job keeping things going. It's not them I blame.

Given the shortage, I assume no-one has been suitably daft as to book 9017 and 65 away at the same time? I would have hoped not, but then again, you never know...

Salient points indeed, however the faintest whiff of a diesel unit coming within 3 miles of Sheffield Park will cause toys to be thrown hither and thither out of the pram by certain members. While it is a sensible proposal, the board know it would be electoral suicide with the rank-and-file, which may explain why they don't do it.

 

I suspect, although I will doubtless be proved wrong, that they were just OLD. After all, isn't 65 out of ticket this summer? Hopefully not for too long though. She's a grand engine.

 

I must take issue with one of Engineers points here, what on earth has happenned to "Operation Undercover". The funding was in place for this almost a year ago now, (£2.93 million?), with only a small sum reguired to make up the difference.

Surely the board would not be so brazen as to divert this money to the extension would they? :-k , or is this ring fenced?.

Best regards
Chris Willis

 

That is not possible under Lottery Rules as far as I know.

Slighty worrying this locomotive situation. Surgest a emergancy reducion in service for time being (as it already been hinted at). Does seem the people in charge need to pull their socks up a little bit and come up with a action plan soon. Also if voluteers are leaving, then a means to open comunication and discuss probloms rather then just egnor people.

Could not someone (to their own expense admiterly) loan an engine free of charge just to help out? Or is no one able to do that?

(too naive?)

 

I'm beginning to wonder if next weekend's gala is in jeopardy. The railway is advertising 65, 592, 753, Fenchurch, Earl of Berkeley, and 80151. Not the greatest line up but all are 'subject to availability'.

Does anybody know how many of these engines will be available?

Regards

 

Groan!! Five engines in steam (subject to availability) is pretty normal for a gala. There may not be any "new" locos there, but do the same group of contributors have to keep sledging the Bluebell ](*,) I'm going to have to start taking anti-depressants if this goes on much longer ... :smt022

Richard

 

Already answered this earier in the thread....

Replacement tubes for 65 are being fitted, as is the new tender spring for 592. Everything is currently hunkydorey assuming nothing goes wrong! What more can I say...

 

At least the 'P' works! \/

 

Cheers Tom, fingers crossed for this Sat considering the event has been billed as SECR themed it would be quite deflating if the C and O1 were out. I can understand it from a cetain point when Columbine says "not the greatest line up". But over the last 18 months or so we've lost Stepney, B.V., E4, Eddystone and more recently 5199 & the 7F. OK the last 3 locos were on short/medium term loan but with the exception of Stepney all were the backbone of our passenger services. That together with the fact that we've had no locos to replace them, okay the C but that's been in and out of the works since it's overhaul, together with the U stopped & 34059 taking longer than expected has caused our problems. So the line up for this w/e is probably the best we can do but agreed it's not great.

 

"only five locos ...not a great line-up" - just shows how spoilt we've become. Back in 1968, that would have been thought an incredible achievement for a preserved railway.

Let's cherish what has been achieved and remember that it was not done without a lot of hard work, and should not be taken for granted. 592 looks a major draw to me.

John

 

I'm sorry for the doom and gloom but any BRPS member is going to be anxious about the current situation and the possibility of the gala going gaga.

Thanks for the optimism and I do hope that you and others aren't disappointed.

Regards

 

Sorry Steve, but I am afraid much of this about the NYMR and Whitby is inaccurate. The costs related to Whitby - obtaining the Network Rail Safety Certificate and Track Access, signalling modifications at Grosmont, upgrades to coaching stock and fitting TPWS to locos, around £230k- came to less than the net sum (after costs) raised in the 2006 Share Issue (and a Government Grant towards the signalling), which would not have been possible without the Whitby project as main aim. I can assure you that, to my knowledge, no other project was deferred in order to fund the Whitby operation. Some expenditure approval may have been deferred or refused because the project request was deemed to be incomplete or the expenditure not available or some other reason. If anything has caused expenditure to be curtailed it has been overspends on projects totally unrelated to Whitby that frequently had little visible effect, particularly visitors.

You are correct that passing trains to Whitby at Grosmont has been examined in great detail - the reason is to improve the timetable but largely looked at now in detail to make a shorter day for staff. A scheme was devised at almost no cost that could be completed for this coming season but it was decided that something more advanced was needed for regular use. This is currently under discussion but will not go ahead regardless of expense - it will only be done for next year if costs are reasonable. Modifications at Whitby can only come with Network Rail permission and external funding.

That said, operating an intensive service over 270 days per year of up to 9 departures per day with the first at 09:00 and the last arrival back at 19:30 and carrying over 300,000 passengers is bound to be a physical strain on equipment but most of all people and that is undeniable. The fact that management accounts showed a surplus of of £1/4 million of Whitby revenue (after taking out Pickering to Grosmont part except for tickets sold at Whitby) over directly related costs and apportioned overheads showed the effort was not in vain.

Coming back to the Bluebell, the problem seems to be that the extension to East Grinstead not only costs at least 16 times what the Whitby operation cost to set up, will take much longer to achieve, has to be finished before any income from the expenditure is seen and is clearly seen as the only priority that cannot be parked in its present state a) because past expenditure would be giving no payback and b) the planning permission issues regarding the present operations to Kingscote. It also seems that because of the size of the cost concerned, all funds are being diverted to the project rather than an approach of "general" funds "lending" what is needed short term to keep things happening whilst Share Proceeds or donations are available. Like the Bluebell, the Moors Share Issue was delayed by months (compared to dates given by the solicitors undertaking the work) due to FSA examination of the Prospectus and I think both cases resulted in the amounts received being less than would have been the case had share purchases been possible from the planned date.

What is needed in theses circumstances is a clear idea of what is needed to keep the necessary level of service running and then a clear, properly costed plan of how this is achieved. Some scared cows may expire along the way (for the Bluebell, it is no diesels and probably, and, to me at least, much more regretably, the exclusive use of pre-Mark 1 coaches) but this is easier for most people to bear if they have had input into the plan, the overall plan is known and the target is in sight. The problem seems to be a lack of belief as to when (or if) East Grinstead will be reached and a growing fear that the rest of the Bluebell will have been fatally damaged before it is. It is not a matter of "let the engineers take over" or "let the accountants run it" - it is a matter of both working together to achieve the aim.

To finally comment on the NYMR's experience with Whitby, the situation is, of course, different where you "pay by the mile" for using some-one else's track in that this obviously reduces both what the set up cost is and what you are prepared to spend anyway but the objective was always to generate extra surplus to invest in the 18 owned miles. The Bluebell situation is hugely different and much more difficult. A final comment might be that the impressive loco line-up David listed costs money - only 2 locos in that list aren't paid for per mile or day used, and the total NYMR cost of hire and haulage in 2008 was over £1/2 million. (That is what happens when you don't use your limited engineering resource exclusively on your own locos, nothing to do with Whitby).

 

DON'T say daft things like that when a gala is on the horizon!!!! That engine can see them coming, and hides!

 

Yes agreed with your comments. What I guess I mean by "not a great line-up" was that there is no new "headline grabbing" loco this year such as Lord Nelson will be for the Mid-Hants March gala. With the exception of the P it's the same 5 locos we've all seen before. Talking to one Bluebell driver on the lineside two Saturday's ago he said one of the reasons the P Specials haven't been fully booked is because it's not new, we have 3 P's here already albeit not in steam and it's not a major new type of loco to the line unlike the GWR Autotrains was last year. However the 5 locos we have in steam for Branch Line w.e are superb in there own right and as the loco shortage really has started to impact on our railway we should count ourselfs lucky we can have these on show.

 

If you can't find it one day, look for a pile of wooden blocks - it will be on top of them! :smt002

 

It would appear from discussions at the railway this afternoon that I may have been a little...hasty in my appraisal of the locomotive situation easlier in this thread. From what I can gather, things aren't as bad as first they seem.

Perhaps, however, this does bring an issue to light. Given I was told this by BRPS (and I believe forum) members far more knowledgable than myself of the most recent news from Sheffield Park, maybe it shows that communication from the railway to so-called "armchair" members such as myself is somewhat lacking. Maybe that is something we can all take away from this.

(Incidentally, both 65 and 592 looked stunning on the 4:10 ex-SP this afternoon, top notch!)

 

Well it is excellent that the works staff managed to fix all the engines... I am also sure that they are working hard to finish the Bulleid. But when it comes to information it depends who you talk to...

The bluebell news is according to the editor heavily censored to only provide the good news, and only small snippets have come out about the problems with 1336... This forum generally has a focus that is more balanced, although sometimes in focuses a little to much on the bad news!
This time the optimists proved right... but they have not had a good record of late.

I still think it is fair to state that the Bluebell still has a loco crisis, while they may have an excellent collection of working locomotives, they do not have enough (or any spares) to maintain the level of service that we have come to expect.

They are short of two larger engines, of which one is soon to appear, but the next is a long way off. They need another medium sized engine to replace the O1, which will not be ready in time for the O1 withdrawal. They are still short of a shunting engine, and another small tank.

Those with money or time to spare are still urgently needed at Sheffield Park...

 

Thanks for that.

By the way talking of 1336 a member of the Mets restorarion team informed me that the whole of the interior of this vehicle has to be stripped out in order to fix the problem of the leaking drop lights, and the four new end doors also need to come off because of bad fitting and water leaks, does anyone if there is any truth in this?

Regards
Chris Willis

 

Its worth pointing out though that 2473 and 178 are on the way towards being in service. 2473 will effectively replace the O1, and 178 will replace Fenchurch, so while we are treading water a little, we aren't going backwards as fast as we were. Hopefully now that 1638 is out of the works, the maunsell guys will be able to get 847 progessing fast enough to be coming out close behind 34059. While we are still only looking at having 6-8 engines in action, its a collection that many railways would love to have.
Daniel