If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Bluebell Motive Power

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Orion, Nov 14, 2011.

  1. paulhitch

    paulhitch Guest

    This is so true! Stroudley worked this out in around 1870 for the South London line.

    P.H.
     
  2. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    The only real flaw in your argument is that, although Joe Public wants to ride in old coaches, they don't want to share their space with others and a TSO enables them to avoid that much more easily. A 100 seat coach full to capacity is unlikely to provide the experience they want.
     
  3. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,432
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Firstly, in Bluebell terms (according to the loco paper and other sources), "medium" means class 1-2. A class 4 might be medium in BR terms, but it is "large" in our terms.

    As for Baxter, her restoration was carried out by a group interested in doing so. Had they not carried out that restoration, there was no certainty that they would have worked on another, larger loco. She has already visited Beamish and the SVR, generating revenue, and is an eminently suitable engine for brakevan rides on gala days etc, as well as for demonstration freight trains (needed for crew training purposes). So actually she is a more useful, and cost-effective, engine than might be apparent.


    As I noted earlier in the thread, 323 copes very effectively with a train of 180 seats, and probably would have been OK with another half coach while still running to time - either the LCDR wheelchair saloon, or swapping the LBSC 4 wheel 1st for the LBSC bogie first. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "cannot pull a decent sized train on their own". It is true the SECR demoted the P tanks from pulling two coach push-pulls, but that is because they were expected to run at much higher speed than we do. At 25mph, a P-tank is quite capable of pulling 70 - 80 tons or so even on our gradients.

    Moreover, both P tanks were restored by a group of new volunteers. 178 was seen as a fairly easy project (half the job had previously been done, so the boiler and final assembly were the major challenges); 323 was a bit more complex as the whole job had to be done, but was still a small enough project that real tangible progress could be made quickly to keep people motivated. That group is now working on 541, but arguably wouldn't have had the skills to do so had they not started "small". It is entirely possible that, had that group's first project been something like the 9F or standard 4, they may have been overwhelmed and drifted away and been lost to the railway. So again, there is often more under the surface of why particular projects are taken on than meets the eye.

    See above - in the context of the Loco Policy, "medium" means class 2; class 4 is "large".


    See my post earlier - on 323 we were doing less than 2oz of coal per seat-mile. Yes, ideally, we'd have a few slightly larger engines - having a few more E4s would be lovely. But small doesn't necessarily mean uneconomic. I'd wager that our worst commercial decision in the loco works over the last few years was restoring 34059, not 323.

    As for realism - sorry, that's a luxury at the moment. But who else can claim "realism"? Even for those lines concentrating on portraying the BR era, most operate Mark 1 carriages and I don't recall seeing many photos of exclusively Mark 1s on branch lines in the 1950s - most such lines used old carriages cascaded down, while the Mk 1s (naturally enough) were kept for prestige services, far from the image portrayed of most preserved lines.

    Tom
     
  4. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,432
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I don't think that is true. When we run a mixed service of vintage or modern carriages, it's surprising how many people time their visit to go for the vintage stock. Moreover, 9 miles later at Kingscote, I don't detect too many grumbles that they made the wrong choice. That is particularly clear on gala days when, quite often, the vintage train(s) are packed and the Bulleid / Mk 1s are comparatively empty.

    Moreover, on a very busy day, I'd rather take my chances in a single crowded compartment than in an open saloon. In the 100 seater, the worst outcome is that you get someone obnoxious amongst 6 or 8 other passengers. In a TSO, you could have a trip spoiled by one obnoxious person amongst sixty-odd others. Though I'd say either case is rare; when I've shared a crowded compartment I've often found people very sociable - something about the proximity breaks down the normal English reserve and encourages conversation. Whereas I can't say the same happens (in my experience) in open carriages.

    Tom
     
  5. Bulleid Pacific

    Bulleid Pacific Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,991
    Likes Received:
    1,039
    Occupation:
    A Thingy...
    I don't think there's much difference between a TSO and a vintage carriage in sociability stakes. On mainline railtours, you can directly engage with three other people on your table, and have the opportunity to converse with the table the other side of the gangway. That makes eight people. You're right about the obnoxious element- I'm more than likely a prime example!
     
  6. paulhitch

    paulhitch Guest

    This is absolutely true. Recently I endured a ride on a railway, not the Bluebell, where we had to endure not only a rather prolix member of staff talking about nothing in particular together with a muttered loudspeaker commentary on top of him but also no less than three howling two year old boys! The three mothers walked the little ******s up and down the carriage to spread the misery to all, whereupon two of them tried to beat each other up.

    Fancy paying out money for that.

    PH
     
  7. Orion

    Orion Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    5
    Occupation:
    Pensioner!
    Location:
    North-west London
    The policy of Classes 2 to 4 being 'medium' was published in Bluebell News and was repeated a number times while deflecting criticism concerning the lack of an overhaul for the 9F and the non-use of the BoB pacific. Clearly this has changed and has been downgraded, but these small engines cannot and will not be able to pull a train in the high season unless they're double headed and it is noticeable that in your post concerning the services last weekend the Class 0 and Class 1 engines don't make an appearance.

    It is clear that the 'medium engine' policy has resulted in shorter trains and some overcrowding. While this has to be accepted until the extension is completed it would not be a good idea for the BB to get a reputation for overcrowding. It's customer base will decline if that happens.

    In BR terms, Classes 4 to 6 were considered 'medium'. Class 0 engines where not thought of as engines suitable for traffic (although there were exceptions to this on BR(S) where very old engines continued to be used), and Classes 1 to 3 were thought of as small.
     
  8. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,432
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It may have escaped your notice, but this is a thread about "Bluebell" motive power, not "BR" motive power. So how BR classified engines is irrelevant; what matters when discussing a "medium engine policy" is how the Bluebell describes engines as medium. And for the umpteenth time, when discussing Bluebell motive power, "medium" means class 1 - 2; class 3 or above are "large". BR may have thought class 0 were not suitable for traffic (can't comment on that), but they also ran at much higher speeds than we (or any other preserved line, for that matter), do. Even on the Bluebell before preservation, section times from SP to HK were typically 8 - 9 minutes (rather than 15 now); that involved steaming at 40 - 50 mph in places, so obviously a much greater steaming rate. In those circumstances, a P tank would be rather small on a reasonable loading, but with a maximum speed of 25 mph and 15 minutes to get between stations, it is just fine.

    I quoted the Long Term Plan back on page 2 of this thread. It says, in part:

    In black and white - "medium" means class 1 and 2. Similarly, the Loco Availability paper (published for the 2006 AGM, so now 6 years old) gives a requirement for:

    So I don't know why you think the policy has changed - large means class 3 or above; medium means class 1 or 2. What BR thought is irrelevant.

    So is 323 (one of the engines I specifically mentioned) not a class 0 then? Because that was one of the four engines in steam that I specifically mentioned.

    (B473 and 592 are class 2 and 1638 is, I believe, 4P3F under BR nomenclature).

    Shorter trains? Maybe. Overcrowding? Not that I have seen - we have been busy, but not overcrowded. Can you back that up or are you just going on hearsay? In general, we have swapped Mk 1s for vintage carriages to reduce the load while maintaining seating capacity. Again, I refer back to what I previously wrote: set B at the weekend was 661+1098+3363 - 180 seats in all. Much "shorter" than the 4 Mk1s we would typically run at this time, but the same seating capacity.

    I'll be the first to admit that our current situation is not ideal, and we will need to hire in an engine for the Santa season - traditionally our peak period for loco requirements, with ideally three "large" locos being available. But I think you are looking for ill where none exists just to fit your own personal theories about how things are in Sussex.

    Tom
     
  9. David-Haggar

    David-Haggar Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    19
    Occupation:
    Water Meter Reader
    Location:
    Eastbourne (75G)
    Just an update concerning 92212, Richard S wrote on the Bluebell group this morning that it should be 9F returing to us in mid-November rather than December.
     
  10. John Petley

    John Petley Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,849
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Researcher/writer and composer of classical music
    Location:
    Between LBSCR 221 and LBSCR 227
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    An interesting loco to feature in the "Sussex Branch lines" weekend! Seriously, make it "Sussex and Kent branch lines" and it's not so odd. there was a certain short line in East Kent with 1 in 30 gradients where 3650's classmates operated in the last few years of Kent Steam, lugging heavy boat trains away from Folkestone Harbour....

    if the visit materialises, 3650 would look good at the head of the bogie compartment stock set. I've got a picture of 4561 with one of the SECR 100-seaters immediately behind it, which, while not painted in chocolate & cream, actually made a rather a good combination.

    I have often wondered how long it would take before a pannier turned up at the Bluebell - Swanage, the Mid Hants and the Spa Valley have all hosted pannier tanks at some time or other, and, of course, the K&ESR has 1638 as a resident. They do seem to turn up everywhere! Perhaps the last bastion of pannier-free mainland Southern heritage steam is going to fall sooner than I expected.
     
  11. collet1930

    collet1930 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    25
    Going back a while now to Rumploes comment about 80100.I read the same comment that it would be started as soon as the 78059/84030 project was finished.Shame to see it all these years without a coat of paint.I know its from barry and have seen numerous of these tanks around the country and on the main line.But with the rly now imminently to cater for longer journeys and a huge increase in passengers the standard 4 are the ideal engine and are liked buy most footplate crews.Lets not wear out the 'H','C' and 01 when it returns, to the condition of the adams radial.Don't be fooled by the extra couple of miles, we are connecting to a commuter railway and I can see a big upturn in passender traffic even If the Blubell board don't.And that means the larger engines doing the donkey work.Class 4's and above please and lets keep our favorites for the ardingly branch.What a specticle that would give us at Horsted .Good work bluebell and roll on march next year.
     
  12. David-Haggar

    David-Haggar Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    19
    Occupation:
    Water Meter Reader
    Location:
    Eastbourne (75G)
     
  13. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,432
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Currently I think we do about 45,000 miles per year. When we get to EG, that will be something like 55,000 - 60,000 per year, depending just how many weekends we run the extended (7 trip) timetable. If locos last ten years (a big ask at the moment), you probably want them to run about 60,000 or so miles in that time - that means 6,000 per year, which means you need about ten in service. That said, the smaller engines will likely run less, so if you are to avoid really hammering the "bread and butter engines" into early failure (as "Collet1930" notes above), you probably need about 12 in service at any time.

    Our maximum load is 6 Mark 1s - about 220 tons. We have about 500 feet of climbing to do one way at a maximum gradient of 1:60 (mostly 1:75), but even so a class 4 will cope with that, a class 5 is plenty. Anything bigger than a class 5 is a luxury from an operating point of view: an engine like 34059 might be commercially attractive as a "namer" and a big, attractive draw for enthusiasts, but from an operating point of view, engines bigger than a class 5 are an expensive luxury - especially so in maintenance costs. (Indeed, in my opinion, with the possible exception of the NYMR and maybe the WSR, there isn't a preserved railway in the country that has an operating requirement for an engine bigger than a class 5. I suspect the GWSR may find, with modest gradients and trains no bigger than 6 coaches, that 35006 proves an expensive luxury. No disrespect meant to those who have slogged long and hard to restore her. But I digress...)

    So, coming back to the Bluebell, and taking into account which engines are available (rather than which might be 100% desirable) I'd suggest a sensible fleet would be:

    4 - 5 running at any time from 541, 847, 1618, 1638, 73082, 75027, 80064, 80100, 80151 and 32424 when built
    4 - 5 running at any time from 65, 263, 473, 488, 592, 9017, and, when finished, 84030
    2 running at any time from 27, 178, 323, 55, 672 (and assuming these are in good condition, which effectively means a total rebuild of 55 at least)
    1 running at any time from 3, 96

    with a total of 12 at any time.

    That leaves, in my opinion, no place on operating grounds (maybe there is a case for having a high profile "namer" running at any time on public interest grounds) for 34059, 21C123 (too big, complex and expensive to maintain); 92240 (too big); 928 (not really suited to running at low speed on steep gradients, and with three cylinders more complex to restore and maintain than e.g. the other Maunsell or BR Standard engines); Stamford (no real Sussex connection; we should sell it off when the market is more propitious); the USA tank (not really suited to a 11 mile line and hard on the track, but should be kept and tidied up for static display as an important Southern loco); 27505 (ditto the USA tank, but interesting as a long-term Bluebell resident and therefore part of our history); Sharpthorn (too fragile and valuable as a Victorian artefact; but clearly invaluable as a Bluebell loco on static display).

    It is interesting to note that we are actually well-supplied for large engines: from my list, you need 4 - 5 running from a pool of 10. Whereas at the medium niche, you need 4 - 5 running from a pool of 7. Which highlights the point that we really need to crack on with finishing 84030, and also indirectly makes the point that Paul Hitch has articulated, that if we (or indeed many other lines) are going to construct new builds, the real need is for class 2 engines, not class 6 - 7s - at least for heritage railway use.

    That I should add is my personal view; not official policy, and probably won't find favour with many Bluebell members. It also doesn't cover how you might actually achieve that equilibrium, which is another discussion related basically to space and money.

    Tom
     
  14. Dan Hill

    Dan Hill Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,576
    Likes Received:
    545
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Brick Machine Operator
    Location:
    Haywards Heath
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I think it is quite difficult sorting out visiting locos for a Sussex Branch Line weekend (if there is one although I'll be slightly disappointed if there isn't but will still visit anyway).

    If a visiting loco was to arrive then for Sussex Branch lines that would leave a choice of one the Fairburn Tanks, Ivatt Tanks and M7's which worked on Sussex lines such as the Bluebell, Midhurst, Three Bridges-East Grinstead, Steyning lines etc.

    For the Fairburn's I'm not if 42073 is still in steam and even so it doesn't go out on loan and we had 42085 back in 2010, for the Ivatt's there's only 41241 but thats about to be withdrawn from Keighley and 41312 is a few years off as her overhaul is only just starting and the first IoW Ivatt is a little while away and with the M7's there's only 53 in steam with 245 on display at York

    Quite looking forward to the Pannier if/when it arrives though.
     
  15. paulhitch

    paulhitch Guest

    Articulated? Articulated? Certainly don't want any of those!!

    Seriously this is a splendid analysis of the situation and the sort of exercise that ought to be done for every tourist railway.

    Paul H.
     
  16. 61624

    61624 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes Received:
    3,596
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    928 (not really suited to running at low speed on steep gradients, and with three cylinders more complex to restore and maintain than e.g. the other Maunsell or BR Standard engines)

    I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you have written, but I think you have written the Schools off prematurely. Experience with "Repton" on the NYMR was that it was well suited to preserved line running, and very economical.
     
  17. John Petley

    John Petley Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,849
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Researcher/writer and composer of classical music
    Location:
    Between LBSCR 221 and LBSCR 227
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Interesting that some Swanage people I have spoken to maintain that 34028 isn't too much of a coal-guzzler. I'm not going to dispute that claim - the individual concerned knows far more about that engine's performance than I do, but it is interesting to hear of someone who doesn't regard Bulleids as an expensive luxury on a heritage line. Mind you, even if the Swanage crews have found a way of operating their Bulleids economically on that particular line, it doesn;' take away from the fact that they are complicated machines to overhaul and repair.

    I also note your comment about 35006. Again, talking to a volunteer - this time a footplateman on the Mid Hants - he said that Can Pac was notably heavier on coal than the light pacifics operated on the MHR. Certainly, 35006 isn't going to need thrashing on the Glos-Warwicks' relatively gentle gradients, but for all this, I'm still looking forward to seeing it in action. I live in Gloucestershire, and it will be the nearest Bulleid to me.

    Going back to 34059, while the Bluebell could manage without such a large engine, it is a high-profile "namer" and undoubtably popular with the enthusiast community. Even bearing in mind its power, it can still make a good sound, especially on the HK-Sharpthorne Tunnel section. From a strictly operational point of view, I can see your point, but I for one will be delighted to see it back in action - hopefully in the not-too distant future.
     
  18. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,432
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Going back to what I wrote about engines I couldn't see an operational need for (and remember - this is a personal view, not a formulation of Bluebell policy).

    My real gripe with Bulleids (light pacifics anyway; we don't have an MN) is not so much their daily running costs in coal, oil and water, but the expense and complexity of keeping them maintained. Going back to comments by Lewis Nodes a few years ago in Bluebell News, they cost more than twice what an engine like 75027 costs to maintain, but don't earn twice the revenue. I don't really know the detail of the commercial relationship between the Swanage Railway and Southern Locomotives, who effectively provide much of their motive power, and in particular how they account for the overhaul and maintenance costs of their Bulleids. That said, the Swanage (like any railway) isn't strictly in a position to choose their "ideal" motive power, but instead has to make what is available work for their circumstances. I wonder if, for example, SLL had five 80000 tanks rather than five Bulleids, whether thier maintenance and operating costs might be lower! At the very least, what you can say is that, by having such a concentration of engines of the same general type at Swanage, there is a concentration in expertise of how to operate and maintain them.

    As for the Schools - I take the point of 61624, and it is interesting to hear other views. If such an engine can be operated successfully on the NYMR, it should be successful on the Bluebell.

    The other complication is that those are my views about what is ideal to run the railway - but it doesn't take into account ownership patterns etc. 34059, 21C123 and 928 all have active fundraising societies behind them who would be keen to see those particular locomotives run. So we aren't completely in a free position to say there is no place for those locos in the long-term operational fleet. (It would be easier to make that judgement for the 9F, NLR tank, USA tank, Stamford and Sharpthorn, which are all Bluebell-owned). So you might want to modify my list by assuming that at any time we would have 3 - 4 from my "large" engine list (rather than 4 - 5); and one running from 928, 34059 and 21C123 to act as a big, named-engine flagship - but accept that having the "flagship" engine would increase the overall maintenance budget.

    Tom
     
  19. Lplus

    Lplus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    991
    Location:
    Waiting it out.
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    925 is now in use on the MHR and seems to be coping well enough with the Alps, so I think you're maybe a bit harsh on 928. It fits in on the high side of your "large" engine list quite well.
     
  20. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    There is a good discussion emerging here, not just about Bluebell motive power, but about heritage line motive power generally. James is probably 100% right in saying that no line needs anything bigger than a class 4 to run its services and many can get away with much smaller ones. The NYMR's class 4's can handle virtually everything that is needed and arguably have more in hand than a Back 5 simply because they weigh quite a bit less and their T.E. isn't significantly lower. Again, a class 4 tank is way ahead of a Black 5 in what it can haul up the 1 in 49 because it doesn't have to drag 50+ tons of tender around. The bigger boiler capacity of a 5 is not needed as the speeds are low. it is only with the 8 coach Pullman diner (equivalent to 9) that we really need to get into the tractive effort capacity of a class 6.
    One thing that I have noticed quite a bit is the variation in water used in hauling our standard 7 coach trains. For example, 75029 will use about 500 gallons on a return Grosmont-Whitby run whilst 45428 uses about a 1000 gallons for the same job. Similar but slightly higher figures are found when running Grosmont-Goathland. Last year, 44767 was using a lot less water than 45428. 825 uses a similar amount of water to 45428. I haven't kept a note of what 44871 & 45407 did but I think that the former is more economical than the latter. 92214, which is arguably well over the top in terms of size, is also very economical in water usage. If you equate water usage with coal burned that provides interesting statistics in terms of economy! It doesn't answer the question as to why there is this variation and I don't know why. Such things as continuous blowdown can affect things and the water consumption has been obtained simply by observing the tank gauges so it is only as accurate as these gauges and is also skewed by the start and finish boiler water levels. The difference between 44767 and 45428 is very real, though.
    It would be interesting to measure the coal consumption of individual locos but obviously quite difficult to do unless we go to weighing bags of coal. I've tried counting shovelfuls of coal put on but it is too easy to miss some and the size of a shovelful is too variable. It wouldn't be a huge job to provide a strain gauge weigher for the Grosmont coaling tower and the amount of coal supplied to each loco could then be recorded and some more realistic figures produced over a whole season.
     

Share This Page