Bluebell Motive Power

We'd heard through "lineside rumour", so take it with a pinch of salt if you want, that the management were fully aware that 34059's firebox was in a delicate state however they were not forthcoming with the funds to repair the firebox so the workshop guys could only do what they could in the hope that it would be ok for the majority of it's boiler ticket. As I say this is only what we'd heard through "lineside rumour" but if true some blame must be attached to the management for not being prepared to release the funds to properly repair 34059's firebox during the restoration.

 

At the risk of getting on the wrong side of the moderator. comments like this from 'lineside rumour' get me extremely annoyed as an active preservationist for nearly fifty years, having done my bit on the management and finance side of an operational railway as well as practical work. If the Bluebell management chose to spend just enough on 34059 to last between boiler test and certificate expiry then that may have been a wise business decision at the time.

 

The following is a quote from Lewis Nodes in Autum 2011 and is on the Bulleid Society Website for all to see.

"The problem we have now with Archie shows that we should have replaced the entire firebox in one go, however at that stage in the overhaul we would not have had the time for the work to be completed."

No smoke and mirrors just and honest appraisal of the situation. Lets hope that they get her back in action soon and up to EG, it will be great to see her and ease the pain of the weekly shop at Sainsburys.

 

The key thing here is that Lewis Nodes' comments are in the past tense. Sadly the firebox proved to have some unexpected and serious flaws. I say "sadly" because it's now looking as though replacing the inner firebox completely would have been less time consuming and expensive than repairing the old one, but of course no-one knew that at the time. Quite how this situation came about I don't know. However I do know that it had an awful lot of boiler work and was expected to be a long-lasting machine. There was never any hint of corner-cutting, and quite frankly no-one would have invested that much time and effort into it if they thought it wouldn't last.

Regarding the comments about Bluebell locomotives in comparison to other railways, I volunteer on three railways and the Bluebell's workmanship is always the benchmark. That's no criticism of the other two lines, but they're smaller and seemingly always playing catch up. Up until now the Bluebell have always been slightly ahead of the game, which is where a workshop really ought to be. There's nowt worse than mortgaging restoration time to repeatedly patch up an ailing operational fleet.

Also, let's not forget just how long some of these engines have been running in preservation. The Bluebell is effectively 10 years ahead of most lines in terms of the magnitude of repairs it must now undertake, so it's a warning shot to the more junior lines if things are now getting difficult. Some lines, the SVR for example, are biting the bullet, others are not.

The Dukedog went to the SVR to have the valves done, having previously gone to Didcot who, it transpired, couldn't set them. The E4 went to the IoWR because it's one of our few air-braked engines, however we only use the air for loco braking on run-rounds etc. The IoW use air exclusively on their trains and are subsequently Westinghouse experts, so they may well have decided it needed some fine tuning. I note that no-one has mentioned the time the E4 went to the SVR - presumably because it went really well?

Let's not forget that it's in every railway's interests to boast about how they could do a better job. It massages the egos of the workshop staff and also acts as an advert for their skills if the loco is so nice they want to keep it. And with that in mind....

We've had plenty of visiting engines over the years and probably about a third have matched the standards of our own fleet. Maybe not even that. I'm not about to get into an inter-railway slanging match and there have been some very fine visitors, but the Bluebell's engineering staff, both paid and volunteer, can certainly hold their heads up high.

 

I've had the good fortune to drive a number of Bluebell engines which have visited the MHR, they were very good. I've also driven visitors from the SVR, Swanage, Etc etc. By and large there is little if anything to choose between any of the longer railway's locos in a true comparison allowing for age, time since last overhaul etc.

 

oh dear!
apologies for the spelling mistake Spamcan81. i do not have a "major axe to grind" and the Bluebell and its locos are a firm favourite of mine.
A1X no where did i suggest the Bluebell was "was knowingly operating in an unsafe way".
further, no where did i state the Bluebell's Met coaches were appalling, and i would agree they have been restored to a very high standard.
i am sorry if my comments have offended some (and been misconstrued by some), but they were made with the best of intentions in the hope that more resources will be devoted to maintaining the Bluebell's fleet of locos.
cheers,
julian

 

I think we're forgetting that the railway had very little choice but to go for the extension all out, else risk falling foul not only of the landfill tax imposed by HMG but also the planning restrictions at Kingscote. To make an analogy, is it better to eke out the water to get you to the oasis in the desert thirsty but alive or to quench your thirst and risk not making it at all? The money was always going to start coming in more readily once EG was reached, the management threw the dice and got the line there. It may well mean relying on hired engines for 18 months or so afterwards, but the important thing is we're there, the major drain on finances has been removed from the equation and we now have more money as a sum going everywhere else.

But let's also not forget there has been a lot of bad luck involved here. 1638 has proven to be more troublesome than many would have anticipated. The C has had numerous problems outside of the railways control. The restoration first of Archie and then of the S15 have taken longer than anticipated to realise (thanks in part to the problems with the running fleet holding up time and space in the workshop). The E4 has spent a few longer periods out of service than would be liked in an ideal world.

However, let's look at the bigger picture here. As I see it, by the start of 2015 we should have Camelot in the best condition anything has probably been on the railway for years, the S15 bedded in and running nicely, the Q doing its fair share, the H and the E4 taking on the vintage trains, the P twins in reserve and if things go well hopefully we can add Archie and the U boat (if she holds up) to add to the list. By which time we may well be talking about bringing through one of the standard tanks, the O1 and maybe even Stowe, plus the prospect of a brand new Atlantic. That looks a pretty rosy picture to me, anything from 3 to 5 big engines (even if one of them is being "nursed"), at least one more in the pipeline plus a plethora of mid-sized tank and tender engines for the vintage trains and the quieter months.

BTW, for those who are interested in funding the long-term future of the railway and fancy a flutter - http://www.unitylottery.co.uk/charity/display/Bluebell-Railway

 

Two bits of news.

Firstly, 847's boiler is being clad and should be lifted back into the frames in the next one - two weeks.

Secondly, 592 is sitting on six wheels and springs, the crossheads are assembled and one piston is in a cylinder, so coming back together though probably still a little way off getting back into traffic.

Incidentally, casual thought: when she is back, we'll once again have four locos from the same pre-grouping company all simultaneously in service. Has that ever occurred before anywhere in preservation?

Tom

 

Are you discounting the "Terrier" special events from 2006 (which also featured 473 on the Bluebell weekend) given they weren't in regular service together?

 

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that, but really was thinking about regular service.

Tom

 

Visited on Sunday and Monday.
Was informed that 55 had a problem with the reverser on Saturday and that 323 had been stopped Saturday evening as "knocking noises" could be heard.
323 underwent examination Sunday morning,therefore 178 did 323s turn and 263 which should have been paired with 178 worked on its own.
Monday 263 with 178 operated the service vice 263 and 323.

 

I think slightly crossed wires there - I'm not aware of a problem with Stepney (she was only diagrammed to work Saturday, for some unknown reason), but Bluebell had a knocking sound that looks to have been caused by a reverser problem. It's probably not particularly serious to repair, but depends on stripping down the steam reverser to give a definitive diagnosis - the suggestion is that the leather cup valve in the oil cylinder might be either worn, or moving slightly on its rod, meaning that when the lock is applied, the valve gear moves slightly before locking into position. I believe the current plan is - because 592 is so near completion - to complete that loco first before further investigation on Bluebell, rather than delaying 592's return to traffic by a few days. When I left on Sunday, the talk was of reassembling the remaining motion on 592 this week and setting the valves.

Tom

 

Possibly GWR? Although there aren't that many pre group GWR locos in running order. I just did a quick total and got about 20 altogether, running and non-running. Interesting that the majority are 8 coupled.

 

Thanks for that.The driver I spoke to said 55 had a reverser problem he obviously meant 323.
Good to see the S15 coming on well.Will be good to see that out on Bluebell metals especially as 825 runs for the last time on NYMR this weekend before withdrawal for overhaul.

 

Hopefully with 592 almost back to full health and 847 not far off a return to steam, the worst of the Bluebell's motive power problems will soon be over and 92212 will be the last hired-in engine for the foreseeable future - although I'm not complaining; I like 9fs. It was good to see it and ride behind it.

In view of 73082's boiler being repaired externally and the space that creates in the loco works' schedules, it will be interesting to see what, if any changes will be made to the medium-term loco restoration plans in the light of the success of the East Grinstead extension. I understand that work was due to start on 65 within a couple of years. If the amount of work required is broadly similar, I wonder if 9017 or 80151 might end up jumping the queue (i.e., ahead of the O1), as their extra power would be more useful if passenger numbers remain at present levels.

 

I was led to believe that the 01 overhaul may be a requirement of an pre-existing agreement between the Bluebell and its owner.

 

Bodmin and Wenford 2010 Steam Gala; 120, 53, 30585 and 30587.

 

Ah, nice locos, shame about the unrelenting drabness of the liveries!

Tom (running for cover...)

 

That's my understanding as well.

Tom

 

I agree we might be seeing a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, but the position is still not comfortable, especially with 1638 still very much being nursed. Everything costs money, but another visiting loco (in addition to the 9F) between now and Christmas would very much give a bit of breathing space! Not my decision to make, of course.

Tom