Bluebell Motive Power

As I say, I don't doubt that a Schools class can cope with the work on a hilly line - the question is whether (especially in maintenance terms) it as cost effective as, say, a U boat or a standard tank; and whether the "wow" factor of having a named, express passenger engine is enough to compensate for the extra maintenance requirements.

Interesting, incidentally, that in my notional list of "not part of our core fleet", everyone is beating me up about the Schools, but ignoring the 9F, Yankee tank and NLR tank, so I can't be too far off-beam! :smile:

Tom

 

I doubt anything is as economic as a standard class loco, comparing size for size, so if economics are your ruling factor then fair enough - but it would be a boring line that only had standard 4 tanks for instance. Variety is important, even the casual visitor likes to see different shapes and colours - including some impressively large locos.

As for the 9F, 92212 is seen as a good loco on the MHR, and as Steve above says about 92214, it isn't a fuel guzzler for its size. Yes it could probably pull the entire coach fleet up the bank, but it is worth having. Anyway, if 9Fs are so useless, why does the BB keep borrowing it?

@Steve above - the different fuel/water economies between locos of the same class could be down to differences in valve settings or even just more wear in one than the other.

 

Where did I say 9Fs were useless? I'm making an argument about economy of operation and economy or restoration / overhaul when applied to our own fleet. Whereas if we hire a loco in, someone else bears the restoration cost and - importantly for the Bluebell, workshop-occupation - during the overhaul and then passes that on as a hire fee, so the only consideration is whether the operating cost + hire cost can be covered by the revenue generated.

AFAIK, 92240 was popular with Bluebell crews and was considered quite economic provided you kept it in steam for long periods so it never cooled down. But an overhaul of such a loco would effectively take as much workshop space, and cost more money, than restoring two smaller locos. Also, the economy point really means that it is effective to run during the high season, but more costly on coal if you just run it for two days every weekend and then don't run it during the week.

Tom

 

There are obviously many factors affecting water and fuel usage and, yes, valve condition is probably the biggest factor, apart from the loco crew, that is! I was really trying to show that to simply say that big locos are less economical than small ones was not painting the true picture.

Overhaul costs are also difficult to quantify and thus typify. It has been said (not by me) that there is generally about 20 years life in an ex BR loco before the real costs of overhaul and maintenance start to kick in. This is because the majority of locos were redundant rather than knackered when they were withdrawn (OK, there are exceptions!) This obviously takes no cognizance of the cost of replacing missing parts of Barry locos but I think that the principle holds true. Thus, a loco that is in perhaps its second operating cycle since restoration is not going to cost anything like as much as one that is in its third or fourth cycle. 92214 is a good illustration. It is coming up to the end of its first stint and the owners expect to have it turned around in a short time with comparatively little expenditure. Comparatively little, compared with the likes of 60007 or 45428, that is. Both these locos have now done several overhaul cycles. 925 on the MHR also illustrates the point admirably, as does (601)03 at the other extreme.

 

Believe it or not I do agree with you with regard 30064. That loco I'm sure would be better off on a railway such as the Spa Valley and I think it would be great if some sort of deal could be reached between BB and Spa that they take on the loco overhaul and costs in return they have the loco for the first 5/6 year's of it's ticket before coming back to us. I'd rather seeing it running on another railway than see it continually rusting away for more years upon years in the sidings at our railway. As you can probably guess from previous posts on here and the Bluebell group the 9F is one of my favourite locos and I do hope the loco does get overhauled sooner rather than later. Especially frustrating when you read in Blue News that Lewis was saying that the loco was basically in good condition and required perhaps less than a years work to overhaul it. But ultimately my feeling is that we need to get both 80151 & 80064 in the works and overhauled as soon as 847, 73082 and 34059 are repaired.

 

It's a fair point. I think that is why you sometimes get apparently weird statements flying round like "80100 will be easier to restore than 80064" - the point being, 80100 requires lots of replacement parts, but fundamentally having not run since BR days, she is less worn out (especially the boiler) than 80064 which has run for many years in preservation. If we did 92240, she would be on her second spell of running in preservation. Whereas increasingly with our pre-group locos, they are on their third or fourth cycle, having already put in 60 - 80 years service before preservation. It is little wonder why, to take just one example, it is generally felt that to all intents and purposes, if we get around to "restoring" Stepney after her current spell of running, to all intents and purposes she will be a brand new engine. (Bluebell gallows humour has it that, after the next restoration, maybe the regulator handle will still be original...) On the other hand, when Beachy Head is finished, we are assuming that after her initial stint in service, she can be turned round for a second stint very quickly.

On the subject of water consumption: I mentioned that at the weekend we ran three round trips with 323 on one bunker of coal, hauling a load of 72 tons. (To put that in context, as a proportion of locomotive weight, it is the equivalent of 80151 pulling about 225 tons, i.e. 6 Mark 1s). As far as water consumption goes, we did each 18 mile round trip easily using less than the water in the tanks - perhaps only 350 gallons each trip (crude visual estimate based on 500 gallon tank capacity). We wouldn't have felt so confident had the engine been 178; the difference between them being the much better front-end condition of 323 which had new cylinders at her last overhaul. 178 will need new cylinders at her next overhaul.

And looking further ahead: one possibility for speeding up overhauls would be to create a pool of spare boilers. For example, we could have one for the 4MTs (making 4 boilers between 3); one for the U-boats (making 3 between 2); one for the Terriers (making 3 between 2); one for the P tanks (making 5 between 3, but one is essentially knackered) and one for 65 / 263 (making 3 between 2). But that is a major capital investment and moreover is complicated in some cases because of the different ownership of different engines. As an example, the three 4MTs have three different owning groups - so how would you apportion the costs of a replacement boiler between them?

Tom

 

Presumably most standard gauge locomotives are coaled by means of some sort of front loading tractor and it ought to be fairly straightforward to record how many "scoops" are needed per loco per day. It won't be absolutely accurate but it would be a guide.

Incidentally, when the Welshpool and Llanfair was comparing "before and after" consumption in connection with the adoption of the Lempor exhaust, the comparitor was the number of "buckets" (ie plastic ones) of coal needed each day. The results led to the equipment of all the service fleet. A cure for hungry Bulleids perhaps?

P.H.

 

Cast your mind back to the weekend before Tom. I visited the railway on Saturday 8th September and the railway could barely scrape together a service. 1638 on Service A and 55 & 3 double-heading on Service B, no reserve engines everything else had either failed or was out for annual boiler exam. In total the 14:00, 15:00 and 16:00 trains from Sheffield Park were cancelled and 55 pulled the Birdcage brake on it's own for 2 emergency trips to Kingscote return to get passengers back to their starting points. I was on the first of these trips and in my compartment there were 12 people and 2 dogs on a VERY hot day!! There was no information from the station staff about what was happening as nobody really could decide what was happening just blunt and quite rude replies at times to very innocently asked questions.

It was very unlucky day for the railway and i put the rudeness of staff down to the stresses thrown up on this day. My point being we absolutely are in a loco crisis and it was by pure luck that there were 4 engines available last weekend. No.3 really isn't suitable for passenger work as proved. 55 is restricted from pulling any stock on it's own. 178 is in the works for repair and will be for quite some time, the same goes for 263. 323 again pull lighter loads but isn't ideal. B473 is running well at the moment but is tempremental. 592 is constantly failing with broken springs and 1638 has a list as long as your arm with things wrong with it. So the situation is far from ideal. Add in the new mountain to climb to get to East Grinstead and things look even worse, it is indeed a tough time at the railway!

 

I must admit that the NYMR could only claim 1 loco in steam for Saturday - but it was diesel gala!

Monday to Thursday last week had 4 in steam each day - not very efficient (and a result of the "Whitby" requirements) and we are down to 3 this week but the peak timetable needs 4. It is when you get these larger numbers that you start needing up to 7 or 8 available to ensure washouts, repairs etc. are covered.

I am not an engineer, but is there any merit in saying a larger loco that has not been worked as near to its capacity will need less maintenance and cost less at overhaul than a smaller one being regularly worked harder in comparison?

Steven

 

The trouble is the bits are often bigger and, in simplistic terms, bigger bits cost more than smaller ones so it doesn't always work that way!

 

I have a similar opinion as Steven that smaller engines might be cheaper to overhaul and operate but they will wear themselves out quicker requiring major work done at overhaul time and have higher maintenance costs over the life of a 10 year ticket. A larger engine might cost more to overhaul initially and cost more to run but may require less work done at overhaul time until the larger components start to show significant wear.

It would be interesting (impossible?) to provide a financial comparison of the two scenarios.

 

I think "impossible" is the word, Neil!

I have always said that there is no such thing as "the cost of a typical overhaul". Even "identical" locos will need differing levels of work undertaking, and how this is done - mixture of volunteers, contractors or own staff will very much affect the cost even if the tasks were the same. Then add in that different acceptable repairs exist for the same problem, with owners often faced with what they can afford now but in sure and certain knowledge that a bigger job is essential next time whereas a "bit" more now could "reset" life and give a greater future saving, and comparisons become very difficult.

I do think the age factors are important - BR locos are generally younger than Big 4 (new boilers for older locos were being built practically as long as new locos were being built) and this can well be reflected in the level of repair needed, especially to boilers. This is a major factor behind the current doom and gloom and why lines that need larger operational fleets are struggling to a number of very heavy repairs. As I say, I am a money-man (not rolling in it myself, you understand!), not an engineer - and hence somewhat "interested" in these issues, but the view I get from engineers I respect is that very major works on boilers now can pay dividends in future years, thus breaking the cycle of ever bigger overhauls and opening the intention of the next round of overhauls being less extensive and expensive than those we see at present.

Steven

 

I thought it might be!

I wonder if we're going through a period where many engines are in a similar state that require major and expensive overhauls that will see them good for another 30 years or so. I think someone made a point on another thread that we have reached the 'heavy overhaul' cycle with many locomotives right now. The Bluebell might be implementing a 'small and medium' locomotive policy at the moment but once those engines require their next overhaul perhaps the bigger toys will be pulled out of the back of the shed again.

 

I think each and every loco presents a different scenario. However the one thing that is important is a good business plan, a realistic target income with a contingincy plan, along with a complete in depth knowledge of your locomotive. Having only just completed a '10 Year overhaul' we are fairly confident that we will know pretty well what will be required in 5/7/10 (?) years time on the boiler, having been able to compare how things have worn/do wear during use of the loco. We already have a 'shopping list' and will join 'lots' as and when what we predict we will need become available. All to do with planning, knowing costs and not 'sticking your head in the sand' when problems occur. A good relationship with other loco operators and railways is also a must. You can't have too many friends. Medium sized and economic locos is my recommendation for the present financial climate, then I would say that!

Cheers

John

 

As we are talking about the bluebell i assume that all there engineering trains are now operated by there hire in plant 08 and they dont use a steam loco on none service days for shunt carriages these were all easy savings that have been made.
I dont know what the bluebell thunderbird is i assume they dont operate with a spare loco in steam.
The point is made about having econmic medium sized locos is fine but they are not available and there are a fair number of these ideal locos not in use stored as i guess a standard 4 tank is the perfect loco for most preserved lines easy to main efficient.
This thread seems to be the opposite of what other railways are now doing the SVR will next year will have a fleet where there are a large number of class 4 and above locos.

 

Lewis is entitled to his opinion. Comparing detuned WC to BR std 4; the most expensive bit to regularly maintain on a WC is the amount of brake blocks the loco gets through, and the price of them!

 

Re a thunderbird - I suppose that would be the 08. It has only been needed once to my knowledge. We don't normally have a spare loco in steam except for Santa days.

As for shunting, ad-hoc C&W shunting with HK yard is done by Skippy, a Sentinel diseasal. However, at least some shunting is still done using steam, since it is considered an important part of crew training.

With regard the current loco situation: it is a bit hairy at the moment -- effectively 6 engines available, but one of those - 55 - is basically useless for service trains (though it more than covers its insurance costs on photo charters, strangely enough) and 3 is useful for shunting but a bit limited for passenger trains, so that makes four that are really available: 1638, 592, B473 and 323. However, 178 and 263 should be back after repair in the next couple of weeks (178) and mid-October (263), and we will have the MHR 9F on hire ready for the Santa season and I believe all of next year. Of locos under overhaul, 847 won't be ready for the Santa season, but should - touch wood etc etc - be ready before we open to EG. So for next season, we should have an operational fleet of 92212, 847, 1638 (large); B473, 592, 263 (medium); 178, 323 (small); 3 (shunting); 55 (mascot) by time we open to EG. That is 10 engines, but probably not quite the mix that is desirable.

One area I think we should look at is changing the mix of our service. For example, currently on most Saturdays through the season, we run two service trains and a separate Wealden Rambler.

Taking last weekend as typical, the loadings are as follows:

Set A (11am / 1pm / 3pm): Bulleid SOBT -- Bulleid TO -- Mk1 RMB -- MK 1 SO -- Mk 1 CK
Set B (12am / 2pm / 4pm): Vintage set
WR (3.32pm): Mk 1 FO -- Mk 1 BSK -- Mk 1 FO

With those loadings, Set A requires a large engine; set B a small or medium engine depending exactly on which coaches are used, and the WR needs a medium engine that just does one round trip.

However, for set A, the 11am and 1pm trips are generally well loaded, but the 3pm is often quite quiet (n.b. personal observation, not a formal passenger count). So I can't see why we don't, for example, knock off the SOBT and the Bulleid TO, and then run the WR as a portion of the 3pm rather than as a separate train. You lose about 100 seats from the service train, but it is quieter anyway so fewer seats are needed, and in exchange you reduce the loco mileage by one round trip and one thermal cycle. The loading goes to 6 coaches, but that is still within the capabilities of a "large" loco. At the moment, you would only have about 25 minutes to do the shunt, but when we go to EG, the station time at SP will be about 40 minutes, so plenty of time for the shunt.

Similarly, on the Sunday, we run the lunchtime Arrow as a separate train - that could be combined with either the 12am vintage service (converting it from a medium to a large engine duty), or by shortening the 1pm and 3pm service trains and combining with that (which is already a large engine duty). Again, you'd save an engine duty. I suspect combining the Arrow might be controversial, but certainly I think we should combine the WR with a service train and save an engine and related mileage.

Tom

 

Depending on your overall carriage situation, it may be simplest to have a "half set" of "day coaches" to use with the WR on Saturdays and the Golden Arrow on Sundays. This would avoid shunting against a time limit and mean you could simply do a set swap. After a few years of attaching the evening Pullman carriages to the service train for the Sunday Lunch on the NYMR, we went (really at the Ops Superintendent's instigation) to "The Moorlander" set - the 4 dining cars plus originally 4, now 3 ordinary seating vehicles. The move wasn't without some down sides - a couple of trips out per week didn't do a lot for batteries on the "day" coaches (the dining cars are usually on charge when the set is manned by dining staff while stationery).

This is slightly less of a problem now as The Moorlander set is out at least 3 days per week for a large part of the year and up to 5 days per week for a reasonable period in the summer.

You do need time in a guard's diagram for the set to be checked over and brake tested and can end up back with an extra loco for pre-heating in the steam heat season (although perhaps one of your smallest locos could do that as long as movement and/or creating vacuum are not required at the same time!)

Minimising the number of locos used can make significant savings, both on thermic cycles and on the coal needed to create them! That said, it can also be easier said than done! It also can very much affect the needed size of fleet. but if the requirement for an extra loco is a couple of days only, then it could be covered from the "change over" between locos in daily use. The greater difficulty comes with a daily requirement for extra locos. As Steve will confirm, we certainly can't claim to have this "licked" at the Moors - it is a constant source of compliant from those with an eye on efficiency that our off peak timetable needs a minimum of 3 steam locos (and still also uses a diesel) and our intermediate timetable strictly needs 4 (as does our peak). Every clever idea to reduce this tends to look pretty good at first but at some point produces exactly the sort of thing Tom is looking to eliminate - a loco doing one round (or even worse, a single) trip, or causes crew diagramming problems etc.

Steven

 

Some interesting points in this discussion. Its interesting to note that the Bluebell did an extremely extensive overhaul of 473 last time round, with some fix ups in the latest overhaul. the result was that she went from being a knackered engine, to one that was able to be turned around in about a year and is in regular use again. So doing major overhauls may be costly and time consuling initially, but as has been suggested, can make a big difference when it comes to doing the next overhaul. In my view, at least one really worn out engine should be undergoing major overhaul at all times, thus gradually improving the state of the fleet as a whole. I also believe we've reached the point that we really need to be looking at building up a stock of new parts, mainly for the older engines. Unless the cylinder blocks have had major attention in recent years, replacement should be occuring. Certainly 178 and 27 should have new blocks put in them, and the recent failure of 178 and 323's performance advantage proves that.

I raised on the Bluebell group (and was abused for it) that the real reason we have a motive power problem now comes down to two engines holding up the works schedule dramatically. 21C123 spent a lot of her last period in service in the works, and 34059 took an age to come out of the workshop, and now needs to go back in again for more major work. Both engines had a huge knock on effect on the number of overhauls completed on the rest of the fleet, leading directly to our current situation. In my view, neither 34059 or 21C123 should enter the works again until a brand new inner firebox is sitting in there ready to be fitted. To keep patching Bulleid fireboxes is foolhardy, and has been proved by the two locos mentioned, and was proven years earlier with 35027. I believe that until this is rectified, the Bulleid pacifics will be a thorn in the side of the loco department. I should add that I have nothing against Bulleid pacifics, and I believe that both engines are an important part of the Bluebell collection, they just need to be put into a condition where they won't take up workshop room on a regular basis.

Daniel

 

Although I do tend to agree with your regarding Bulleid fireboxes, it has been said in some quarters that in terms of 34059 if the loco had received a full proper overhaul on it's firebox in the first place it would still be running now. Apparently the firebox needed extensive repairs and unfortunately the funding wasn't forthcoming from the management so corners were cut in the hope the loco could get through the majority of it's ticket.