Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

Thank you, Tom, fascinating.

 

Yes - thank you Tom for consistently providing us with such detailed insights. It is a very useful insight for those of us who are on the outside but still take an interest.

I take your point that the LSWR coaches do not make a coherent "set". Personally, I would still love to see all four of them painted in LSWR colours so that they could be put together as a set for special events, even if they did not regularly run as such. I appreciate that, particularly in the case of 320, it would not be strictly authentic, but at least they all have the semi-elliptical roofed profile so it would still look reasonably harmonious, and anyway, it would be the best attempt at an LSWR train that any preserved railway is ever be likely to field. But I appreciate that you would probably want the individual vehicles painted to match the coach sets that they would usually work with. 1520 has been quite fortunate in that she can still fit in with the SR-liveried set. I recently read an old magazine article which recalled LSWR vehicles still carrying the salmon-and-brown livery into the early 1920s, so it is quite possible that some of them clung on into the early post-grouping years.

Similarly, personally I would love to see 7598 carry LBSCR livery for a spell. If you were to put her together with an umber-liveried 424, plus directors' saloon and Stroudley four-wheelers...well, it would hardly be a typical "Brighton" formation but to my eye, it would still look better than matching the engine with a rake of Mk. 1s! Preservation is all about compromises so, as someone wise once said, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". And even if such a formation were not suitable for day-to-day operation, I would say that, even if it could only be run as a special train on one day a year, that would make it worth doing.

Anyway, the above is all WIBN and I am not seriously expecting any of it to happen!

 

You are quite right I have to, having the Bluebell Railway as the ultimate spiritual home to all things Southern Railway and it's pre-grouping predecessors does make a lot of sense and is much deserved, they were here much earlier then most heritage railways after all and as such the heritage movement has many priceless treasures thanks to them.

True they don't have ideally all the engines nor carriages to perfectly represent each company, but nowhere is truly perfect and I'd say they come pretty darn close all the same.

There are a good number of well known heritage railways I've yet to go to, and the Bluebell Railway has always been and remain one of if not the top of my list of railways to visit.

 

Yes indeed thank you very much for your insight on this Tom, always greatly appreciated here.

I do have a couple of further enquiries on the matter of carriages I'm hoping you can give some clarity on, if that's okay.

Firstly what is your current situation on the SECR carriage front? I'm not too sure of how many examples you have there at the railway, but I would figure considering how many SECR locomotives you have, having a matching SECR coach set must be highly desirable no? Certainly I'd love to see it, a lovely contrast from what I understand, with the SECR having their carriage painted in a form of maroon.

And finally how are things progressing on the 'newer' carriage sets, namely the Maunsell and Bulleid coach sets? From what I understand of lasting hearing of them, both are well on the way to becoming fully formed as full 7 to 9 coach sets, with the Maunsells perhaps a little further along then the Bulleids are.

 

I would be rather happier if the quasi express trains were left to places such as Swanage or Mid-Hants. The hardest things to find on leisure railways, apart from special "theme" days, are depictions of branch or tertiary line services.

 

We have five SECR carriages nominally available for traffic, though I believe at the moment the birdcage brake requires some maintenance.

• 1889 built brake 3rd No. 114 (currently in LCDR varnished teak livery, though I believe at some point the aim is for the SECR Victorian carriages to all have Edwardian appearance in dark lake livery)
• 1889 built brake 3rd No. 3360, converted to a wheelchair accessible saloon
• 1897 built all 3rd No. 3188
• 1910 built birdcage lavatory 3rd No. 3363
• 1922 built ten compartment 3rd (“100 seater”) No. 1098.

There are three operational Maunsells:

• 1933 built droplight open 3rd No. 1309
• 1935 built open 3rd No. 1309
• 1935 built brake composite No. 6686

In addition, corridor third brake No. 3687 is under overhaul; and overhaul of restaurant car 7864 is planned with a considerable fundraising effort in place.

There are four operational Bulleids:

• 1947 built corridor composite No. 5768
• 1950 built open 3rd No. 1464
• 1950 built open 3rd No. 1482
• 1951 built saloon brake third No. 2526

You’ll note that both the Maunsell and Bulleid sets, in isolation, provide 1st, 3rd and brake vehicles, but neither has wheelchair capacity.

I don’t think we will ever routinely run 7-9 coach sets (at least not of full length vehicles) because the station capacity isn’t there. Our day-in, day-out train is five coaches off peak; six during the peak season. The length of the platforms at Sheffield Park is 5 3/4 full carriage lengths; the other stations all take seven coaches but we need to extend the platforms at SP before routinely operating trains longer than 6 full length coaches; seven would in any case represent a viable limit. During the Flying Scotsman event, we ran an eight coach train (seven modern, with the GNR Saloon on the back); that was only possible by using a pilot engine shunting the GNR Saloon on and off the back each trip. Possible for a gala but clearly impractical in normal running. Worth remembering that when we have incoming charters typically of about 9 - 11 carriages, they terminate at Kingscote and a connecting service is run. Taking a nine coach train all the way to Sheffield Park would tie the station up in knots.

Tom

 

You should have come over to the mid-hants in June/earlier in July then - the Ivatt tank was running on a three-set which looked very much the late BR(S) branch train. Ok they were mk1s instead of Bulleids or Birdcages, but there's plenty of photos of the Cranleigh line with mk1s.

@Jamessquared - How far off is 84030? I imagine she'll take a lot of pressure off the older medium locos?

 

Actually I see one quite regularly at the head of five pre-Grouping bogies but the point is a good one. Far too few survived and those lucky to have them ensure they are going no-where. Hence the Mid-Hants purchase of 41312.

 

It's progressing, but at that point where there is lots going on but none of it very visible - lots of work on lubrication runs, steam heating and so on the chassis that is detailed work but not very visually dramatic. The last update I had (from the current Bluebell News, so dating back to late May when it was written) indicated that all the parts of the front pony truck were now available except the side control springs; and the axle boxes need re-furbishing, after which the front pony truck could start to be reassembled. Design works for the tanks was ongoing.

With regard medium locos: there is no date for 84030 being in service, so the current fleet will carry on for the foreseeable future: I believe the Dukedog will be the next medium loco into the works.

Tom

 

Once again thanks a lot for the info and insight Tom, much appreciated. Sounds like you could have an impressive SECR rake of carriage then which would certainly be great to see when all together in that distinctive SECR dark lake livery.

I'd imagine that restaurant car for the Maunsell rake will be very useful too, and quite unique seeing as it's unfortunately the only one left in existence of it's type from the southern region.

As for the length of rakes, I assumed actually there was a limit to how many carriages you would have running, particularly as I am aware SP's platform length is a real limiting factor. Though if I remember correctly, isn't it said to be tricky to extend the platforms due to surrounding obstructions somewhat?

 

Good to hear the Dukedog will be back in action in due course, for though the clear foreigner of the line, I always thought it suited itself quite remarkably well to the railway. Though beside Dukedog and the ones of course already under overhaul, I'd be curious to know actually which locos the Bluebell has in mind to work on in the near future. One thing that struck me looking at official stock lists for the railway, is quite a lot of engines that have been waiting sometime to be worked on have been left this way due to them apparently needing a lot of work and expense to be put in to get them in good form again.

Now this I can fully understand, best to give engines in better condition and therefore less work the higher priority, most heritage railways I'd assume does this. The problem with this method though, is the Bluebell's list of engines being held down the priority list due to needing a lot of work is growing quite dauntingly big... Stepney and 488 of course we know well need extensive work, but so too it would seem do the both the Urie Us, the SECR C Class, the other Standard 4 Tank 80064 (and of course the unrestored example 80100) and finally Birch Grove amongst others.

Now I'm sure the Bluebell has got a plan in mind for the future when it comes to overhauls, but I can't imagine it's going to be easy going forward, seeing as nearly every loco waiting in line to be overhauled next is in need of so much work and money.
Of course I know too that no overhaul of a loco is ever truly easy, quick or cheap to do, certainly not these days. So nothing new here in truth.

All the same though, does seem like quite the challenge for the Bluebell to take on. I do wish them all the best with tackling it, as they have a brilliant collection of locomotives, and I'd hate to see any of them being out of commission permanently due to the work load required to get them up and running again.

 

Just picking the next easiest loco to overhaul in that particular size/power bracket is all well and good but eventually they'll all need major work doing. It would seem sensible to, as well as having a good mix of small, medium and large locos being overhauled at once, to also try and ensure some locos picked for overhaul are "quick wins" (relative term obviously!) whilst making sure to pick a loco or two out requiring major work (so they can be the "quick win" one next time round).

 

Indeed so. By and large this is a lesson that has not been learned by the standard gauge from the pioneering efforts of the Welsh narrow gauge. It will cost a lot of money to sort out.

 

Not quite true about the U class locos: 1638 is owned by the Bluebell Railway; 1618 by the MLS. They have stated that 1618 will be their next project once “Stowe” is completed.

The general roadmap I believe is that “Fenchurch” will likely be the next small loco to be tackled (in addition to No. 27 which is being rebuilt by a volunteer group); 9017 will probably be the next medium loco, maybe followed by either 592 or 473; 34059 will be the next large loco, with the MLS taking on 1618 once Stowe is finished.

Tom

 

I would assume that the ideal, given enough space, people and money, is to have one loco undergoing a full restoration/rebuild, one major overhaul and one in for minor repairs, at any one time? I know Richard Salmon said something similar about coaches, which tend to need a major restoration every 30 years, a full overhaul every 15 and a smaller overhaul (locks etc) every 5?

 

From occasional visits to the blog, No.27's extremely comprehensive rebuild looks to be coming along very nicely indeed. My heartfelt thanks to the team for keeping us all abreast of progress on their well presented website.

(For any who haven't yet seen it) http://www.littlelocogroup.co.uk/secr-p-tank-no27/

A couple of questions, if I may. Were the issues with Fenchurch's wheels ever resolved, or are these still outstanding? Can it be assumed that the many considerations (funding not excepted!) surrounding restoration / rebuild of 488/30583 account for the continuing slumber of this unique gem?

..... and that other perennial chestnut .... I note the continuing absence of poor old 80100 from the equation. Whatever the situation re: 80064, 80151, ownership etc. etc. it still seems odd to leave such a potentially extremely useful loco apparently permanently sidelined.

 

By my count, there are essentially nine physical spaces where locos can be worked on to different degrees. Five of those are undercover; three of them are physically disconnected from the track work. They are as follows:

In the main workshop

• One loco under heavy overhaul (was 80151, now 34059)
• One loco undergoing an intermediate overhaul (i.e. mid ticket). Was 30541 over the winter; 73082 during spring; now 263; will be 847 in due course. The reasons for needing to carry out regular mid-ticket overhauls was covered in the recent Bluebell News - basically mileage related.

In the new maintenance shed

• One loco on washout
• One loco having minor repairs (anything not requiring a wheel drop or significant crane power). Carrying out those kinds of jobs in the new shed is an improvement from before whereby they would either have to be attended to outside; or else would require re-shunting of the main workshop, with consequent disruption there. Now it is easier to do, say, an intermediate overhaul on a loco with maybe a wheel dropped, motion stripped etc, safe in the knowledge that there won’t be a pressing requirement to shut to get a service loco in and out for some relatively minor but important attention.

Outside in the yard

• Probably no more than one loco can have major overhaul work done outside, while remaining mobile to allow occasional shunting. Currently 928

Disconnected

• Two locos on disconnected tracks at right angles to the yard. Currently 27 and 84030
• One loco in Atlantic House. Currently 32424

Essentially that means at any one time one heavy overhaul, one intermediate overhaul led by the main workshop, plus minor repairs and washouts; with another loco being prepared for its time in the works and the long term volunteer-led projects in the Wainwright Villas / Atlantic House area.

Tom

 

The group restoring 84030 were planning to tackle 80100 next.

 

Thanks for outlining the current state of play Tom. As you would expect with The Bluebell it looks organised and well thought out. But reading between the lines it also looks that, with locos running increased annual mileage, you are wearing out the service locos faster than you can overhaul their replacements - a common issue on many railways.

Peter