Tom Bayford Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Well its happened the Bluebell have finnaly given way to some 'proper' traction Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted February 11, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 11, 2013 at least it's one of my favourite classes alongside Terriers, another of my favourites! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted February 11, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 11, 2013 Well its happened the Bluebell have finnaly given way to some 'proper' traction You mean that lovely red truck. I suppose that Dismal alongside is for use as a stationary generator so they can be self sufficient in electricity in the station buffet Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Indge Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Typical Diesel, arriving after most of the hard work has been done!!! Even fitted with snow ploughs after the snow has gone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Is it just going to be used on the tip workings or are there plans to use it on service trains, because I'd most definitely make a special trip down there for some Crompton haulage Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted February 12, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2013 Its Southern region diesel aswell. Would be nice if it was in green as it would have been when steam was still about but then the pipes would have to go I suppose. Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Whatever the practicalities (or otherwise) of East Grinstead-Ardingly being used as a diversionary route, I could certainly see its potential as a route for charters... Though personally (and not a Bluebell member) I wouldn't have any objection to NR electrifying EG - Ardingly for diversions/weekday services provided of course that they paid for it. I wonder if some of NR's co-operation with the Bluebell is because they can see some potential in the line themselves... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Its Southern region diesel aswell. Would be nice if it was in green as it would have been when steam was still about but then the pipes would have to go I suppose. Ian According to Wikipedia, D6580/33119 ran in green livery with the MU equipment when first trialled in 1966 so it would have been right at the end of steam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted February 12, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 12, 2013 D6580 was the prototype push-pull conversion for the Bournemouth line electrification project and (AFAIK) was selected because it happened to be in Eastleigh works at the time. It was a Hither Green loco as were all the higher-numbered Cromptons but many went to Eastleigh for heavy workshop attention. All the other conversions (originally class 34, later reclassified class 33/1) were from the lower-numbered Eastleigh allocation. D6580 ran alongside steam on the Bournemouth line for around a year in that condition and briefly in green FYE livery before gaining its blue coat. Personally I'm still not convinced the Bluebell has much to gain from importing diesels, even if they have an SR pedigree (remembering that the 33s were originally on the ER for a short time) but if it's a cost-effective way of shifting goods and materials rather than passengers then so be it. We already have a large number of mixed-traction heritage lines where you need to consult the timetable to be reasonably sure of riding behind steam. The Bluebell is always reliably steam-worked with no doubt about whether or not your train will be powered by coal or oil. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Personally I'm still not convinced the Bluebell has much to gain from importing diesels, even if they have an SR pedigree Diesels for the sake of it, I can understand, but 33's are a "Southern" loco to most people and, alongside slam door EMU's and Thumpers, are most definitely part of the heritage of railways in the south east and perfectly suitable for the Bluebell whether its members like it or not. I can understand reluctance if, say, a Hymek or a Class 26 were bought in - but a 33 is "at home". How many of the Bluebell's current steam fleet unquestionably worked on the line before closure, or are merely "suitable steam locos"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted February 12, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 12, 2013 Most are at least Southern Railway / Region types or BR Standards of classes which worked on the SR. Not necessarily on the Bluebell route but as much "Southern" as a class 09/12/33/71/7 /74 or the earlier SR electric locos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted February 12, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2013 Diesels for the sake of it, I can understand, but 33's are a "Southern" loco to most people and, alongside slam door EMU's and Thumpers, are most definitely part of the heritage of railways in the south east and perfectly suitable for the Bluebell whether its members like it or not. I can understand reluctance if, say, a Hymek or a Class 26 were bought in - but a 33 is "at home". How many of the Bluebell's current steam fleet unquestionably worked on the line before closure, or are merely "suitable steam locos"? But the Bluebell is in business (yes, it is) to sell nostalgia to mum, dad and the kids. Cromptons, 2-BILs and other "genuine" Southern non-steam power do less for that business than any kettle, irrespective of origins, I'm afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil gollin Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 . First, Class 33s are perfectly acceptable. Second, Class 33s are useful economic workhorses. Third, if a steam loco fails having a Class 33 "pilot" makes sense (BR did it) . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisH Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 D6580 was the prototype push-pull conversion for the Bournemouth line electrification project and (AFAIK) was selected because it happened to be in Eastleigh works at the time. It was a Hither Green loco as were all the higher-numbered Cromptons but many went to Eastleigh for heavy workshop attention. All the other conversions (originally class 34, later reclassified class 33/1) were from the lower-numbered Eastleigh allocation. D6580 ran alongside steam on the Bournemouth line for around a year in that condition and briefly in green FYE livery before gaining its blue coat. Personally I'm still not convinced the Bluebell has much to gain from importing diesels, even if they have an SR pedigree (remembering that the 33s were originally on the ER for a short time) but if it's a cost-effective way of shifting goods and materials rather than passengers then so be it. We already have a large number of mixed-traction heritage lines where you need to consult the timetable to be reasonably sure of riding behind steam. The Bluebell is always reliably steam-worked with no doubt about whether or not your train will be powered by coal or oil. D6580 was originally converted to power 6TC set no. 601 on the Oxted line. 601 was the set made up of odd 4 & 6COR vehicles. The conversion was done at Selhurst, loco and stock, Eastleigh was not involved until D6580 was brought up to standard to work the Bournemouth line by which time the Oxted line was using other vehicles. I have no recollection of it being used on SW services in green. Hasn't the Bluebell got a 4VEP, now that would go well with 33103. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted February 12, 2013 Author Share Posted February 12, 2013 im glad the cutting is nearly finished, Ive been following both Robert Philpot and John Sandy's sites. Robert Philpot's comments have had me rolling my eyes many times so im sort of glad I wont have to keep looking at the site. John Sandy's flickr site is much better, the photos are better quality too.. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluebellrailway/sets/72157632748034173/show/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Well its happened the Bluebell have finnaly given way to some 'proper' traction err....why do they want an orange lorry then??? Stewart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 (remembering that the 33s were originally on the ER for a short time) No they weren't, they began life on the SR. The class 26's allocated to 34G are probably what you are thinking of ? Though the odd one was allocated to 34E(?) a couple of times, for crew training or push-pull trials I believe, and of course they worked the cent train north as well. Stewart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 33's will have worked the Bluebell before closure so a legit engine surely ? and I'm sure the Bluebell "Commitee" will have thought long and hard before this action in reversing the "Steam only" ethic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Bayford Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I find it appaling the attitude towards and about the 33 arriving at the Bluebell not just on this site but all over. Its a Diesel its southern through and through and it could be that it may catch the eye of the young lad/lass who visits the bluebell or any other railway and thinks i wouldnt mind working on that/ drving it or painting it etc. there is more to preserved railways than steam engines, as much as i like steam there is a place for heritage diesels/emu/demus/dmus but if people wont move with the times and go on only about steam and shun the diesels then this could detracrt the future of preserved railways and possibly the whole movement. As for me i started on the railways 5 years ago this may i orginally started thinking steam was brilliant and it still is but i have been on a few heritage diesels and now work for a TOC on EMU's. Anyway Rant over i just wish people would look at things from a diffrent perspective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted February 12, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 12, 2013 I find it appaling the attitude towards and about the 33 arriving at the Bluebell not just on this site but all over. Its a Diesel its southern through and through and it could be that it may catch the eye of the young lad/lass who visits the bluebell or any other railway and thinks i wouldnt mind working on that/ drving it or painting it etc. there is more to preserved railways than steam engines, as much as i like steam there is a place for heritage diesels/emu/demus/dmus but if people wont move with the times and go on only about steam and shun the diesels then this could detracrt the future of preserved railways and possibly the whole movement. As for me i started on the railways 5 years ago this may i orginally started thinking steam was brilliant and it still is but i have been on a few heritage diesels and now work for a TOC on EMU's. Anyway Rant over i just wish people would look at things from a diffrent perspective. Its not so much the attitude on here rather the fact that the MEMBERSHIP of the Bluebell Railway Preservation Society have made it quite clear over the years the don't want diesels southern pedigree or not. Contributors on here are simply reflecting this attitude and pointing out this is unlikely to change. The Bluebell management are to some extent more pragmatic however they cannot ignore the wishes of the society hence all diesels that have been on the railway so far have been justified by the northern extension works / shunting the yards. Untill the preservation society become less anti diesels this is how things will stay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted February 12, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 12, 2013 I do know that there were those who grumbled about the 66's being used on the spoil trains to and from East Grinstead, seriously they wanted them steam hauled throughout as well, probably by a 9F!! (Actually that would have been a sight to see!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neal Ball Posted February 12, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 12, 2013 I'm not sure "the windcutter wagons" will look quite right rolling through Horsted ! I've just found some undated 35mm prints of Blackmore Vale in steam.... Shame it is not in ticket to work through to EG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Bluebell's oco policy, at the end of the day, it's their railway... Rule 1 applies! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torn-on-the-platform Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I find it appaling the attitude towards and about the 33 arriving at the Bluebell not just on this site but all over. Its a Diesel its southern through and through and it could be that it may catch the eye of the young lad/lass who visits the bluebell or any other railway and thinks i wouldnt mind working on that/ drving it or painting it etc. there is more to preserved railways than steam engines, as much as i like steam there is a place for heritage diesels/emu/demus/dmus but if people wont move with the times and go on only about steam and shun the diesels then this could detracrt the future of preserved railways and possibly the whole movement. As for me i started on the railways 5 years ago this may i orginally started thinking steam was brilliant and it still is but i have been on a few heritage diesels and now work for a TOC on EMU's. Anyway Rant over i just wish people would look at things from a diffrent perspective. You make a fair point Tom, but I'd have thought that in the eyes of the Bluebell membership (I am one of them), the benefits of a diesel in passenger service can't outweigh the unique selling point of the Bluebell as outlined by others. There are enough people out there who don't shun diesels to give a good showing in the preservation movement, and I'm sure that in the medium-term the Bluebell may have to concede and run a Thumper or a Crompton, but one railway refusing for now won't take all that much away from the 'future of preserved railways'. Each to their own, and I know that its impossible to know what will take someone's fancy, but I would have been distraught as a child to turn up to Sheffield Park without a steam locomotive there to greet me. My parents aren't railway enthusiasts and they would be particularly unimpressed in that situation too. 33's will have worked the Bluebell before closure so a legit engine surely ? and I'm sure the Bluebell "Commitee" will have thought long and hard before this action in reversing the "Steam only" ethic. I can't say for certain, perhaps the odd one off trip, but as far as I am aware the Bluebell remained a steam only line until it closed. The sulky service was operated by a 4MT tank or a C2x, without much other traffic. I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Having said this, there are several loco's in the Bluebell's collection that wouldn't have operated on the line before closure. I agree that its a massive shame that Blackmore Vale isn't in steam for the reopening, but I personally feel that the North London Tank should have had a place in the proceedings too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted February 13, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13, 2013 33's will have worked the Bluebell before closure so a legit engine surely ? Not so. The Bluebell finally shut to passengers in 1958 and the Bluebell comenced opperation in 1960, the same year the class 33s started to be constructed. Demolition of the line south of Sheffield Park was done not long after closure and demolition of the line north & west of Horsted keynes a few years later was done by private contractors, whose own diesel was damaged by running away so the actually hired a steam loco from the bluebell to do the job. Hence there is a small amount of pride in the fact that the origional line was built using steam, then demolished with steam before being rebuilt, again using steaam traction (untill the problem of clearing the cutting was reached anyway). The Bluebell also closed to early to see the thumper units so they are not authentic for the line too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.