rasalmon

The Bluebell Railway has been awarded £272,400 in the second round of grants from the Culture Recovery Fund to help us move towards reopening. Read more about this news here.

In case people haven't spotted it yet, the news was: The Bluebell Railway has provisionally set Thursday 20 May as its reopening date. Please find the reopening FAQs here.

Looks like we will shortly have some NEWS! Keep your eyes peeled... Make sure you check our website and social media channels at 11am on Monday (29 March) to find out more Photo: Andrew Strongitharm

Decades ago Bluebell and Middleton came to an agreement that honours were due to both, with Middleton being recognised as the first heritage line to re-open, and Bluebell as the first to reopen a former passenger line. All that was mentioned on here was "After we've celebrated our 60th (61st) anniversary..." It would be very strange if Bluebell stole Middelton's thunder, and celebrated Middleton's anniversary, so Bluebell celebrates its own, as KESR will be celebrating its 50th this year (or 60th if you believe Heritage Railway mag!). Sorry, it just sounds like, 60 years on, you personally have a massive chip on your shoulder over how successful Bluebell has been, when you should be celebrating how successful Middleton has been.

With respect, 210 and 265 are hardly significant anniversaries. Not sure how you get "3 months" from Middleton opening to the public on 20th June 1960 for the university Rag Week to the Bluebell's public opening for a 6-week summer season with its own LRO in place on 7 August, :-) but the significant anniversaries relating to the Bluebell coming up that I can see are: 2022 - Terrier 150 - 'Fenchurch' is the first of the Terriers, and will be returning to steam. Big gathering being planned at Barrow Hill, but would hope we'd also be celebrating on home turf too. 2023 - Centenary of formation of the Southern Railway, 75th anniversary of formation of British Railways. 2025 - S&D 200 - Shildon - Maybe Fenchurch can again represent the Bluebell as it did in 1975? (Also 'Stepney' 150) 2026 - Centenary of the Bluebell's first internal combustion locomotive, Howard No. 957. 2027 - 'Baxter' and 'Sharpthorn' both 150 2028 - centenary of U-class 1618 2030 - our North London Railway Tank Locomotive and LBSCR Carriage 661 will both be 150 years old, and Bluebell 70. 2032 - Bluebell Line 150 (anniversary of the L&EGR Opening). 3034 - 150th anniversary of the Ardingly Branch opening. 2035 - Adams Radial Tank 150 years old, and Bluebell 75.

Of course Earl of Berkeley is actually No.9017, which was rebuilt in 1938 using frames from "Bulldog" No.3425 (built 1906) and boiler and cab from "Duke" class No.3282 (originally named 'Chepstow Castle' and built in 1899). However, 2/3 of the frames were actually built at Sheffield Park during the course of its last overhaul! The tender it now has is No.2331 built in September, 1921

Even getting it out on loan to Didcot in exchange for re-tyring its wheels and firebox repairs (1984-89) was almost (but not quite) impossible. So no, the donor's wishes are not to be lightly over-ruled. If we break our agreement, then the real danger is that no one trusts us in the future. We cannot simply over-ride undertakings previously given. Anyway, it's supposed to be a high priority for a Bluebell overhaul (or was stated to be a few years ago anyway, once 'Sir A' and 'Stowe' are in service). But the North London Tank or the USA, I'm sure could be subject to agreements where they went elsewhere for overhauls and returned to run on the Bluebell for alternate years of the 10 years of a certificate. But then ask yourself which other railway would be in a position to invest their money in overhauling one of our locos? After all that was the idea with ‘Stamford’ 23 years ago, but it's never actually been overhauled. Could be possible as part of a Lottery bid. But most railways would probably prefer to invest that money in their own locos. The preservation movement is not short of out-of-service locos!

It's not always been Blue. IIRC the plan had been to run it like this for a year, and then add lines and present it in SR Olive (this shade of green was chosen since it wasn't known exactly what shade of green the SECR used, but by using the same Maunsell olive green, it could be easily re-liveried). But for some reason (probably because it's a real faff to repaint something that's in service) this never hapenned. Same with 30541, which was supposed to run in BR livery for a year or two before going into Maunsell SR lettering. Photo by Lewis Nodes.

72: Yes: https://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/loco_news/oh_72_fenchurch_2020.pdf Both our Terriers are hopefully to play their part (one active, one static) in the 150th anniversary celebrations.

The Trust holds a very small restricted fund for the Adams Radial tank resulting from a couple of bequests, but there is no active fundraising for it. There's no point in actively fundraising for something unless there's a clear plan and a workforce to lead or undertake the work. There is no point in raising a little money for everything at once. Instead, contributing to the present active BRPS-approved funds (Atlantic/E, 27, 92240, MLS, Bulleid Society, 84030) is more sensible in the interim. A bequest of £500k to £750k for the Adams would see it become a serious project! The first bequest towards the Adams received by the Trust was just £100, and was little more than a posthumous publicity stunt by the donor (rather than anything actually useful), who also donated £100, which has yet to be spent after several decades, towards a replacement signal box for Sheffield Park.

We find a Class 4 adequate for 6 heavy coaches up our 1-in-75 ruling gradient (and the new 1-in-55 on the extension). A class 2 would generally be restricted to lighter trains. At one time there was a plan to move to 7-coach trains, since it is only Sheffield Park that currently does not have long enough platforms, and provision within the signalling for lengthening them has been made over recent years as and when convenient. Smaller tank locomotives do not always have adequate water for a full round trip, or coal capacity for a full day's work. At 25mph there is no great problem (except in wet weather or from coal dust in dry weather) in running tender-first. There is plenty of use for smaller, more economical, locomotives on the Bluebell, hauling the vintage carriages, and the Pullman and Wealden Rambler dining trains. Smaller locomotives are also a lot quicker and cheaper to overhaul. A turntable at both ends would never be used on ordinary service days, because there's insufficient time within any sensible timetable, and because it's simply not necessary.

John, Yes, standard 4s are ideal for our line. I am keen to promote the idea that we must have 80064 or 75027 ready to run by the time 80151's boiler certificate expires. But variety is the spice of life, so having one of the two U-class (or the Q-class) running is also sensible. Eric, Yes, a shame we couldn't afford the K. But when it was available in 1963 it was really a question of either the E4 or the K, and the E4 was cheaper. The appeal for funds to purchase rolling stock didn't raise enough money to purchase either. It was all down to money.

The H2 is not a particularly large locomotive, and some fear it will be underpowered for our line's steep gradients. We will have to wait and see :-) The original I1s were very similar in power to the Adams Radial tank (and essentially the same as a D3, which would be a better loco to build). All were rebuilt as I1X in the first decade of the SR. They never had a great reputation. We tend to forget also that they only had 5'6" diameter driving wheels, whereas the I3s had the same enormous drivers as the Atlantics. If we were to build a new Atlantic tank (after we've got the Adams running again of course) the "LNWR-beating" I3 is of course the one to do. But, yes, that's fantasy at present.

Well, here's the real thing; Birch Grove was one that had the spring balance safety valves on the dome rather than the direct loaded valves seen on Porchester. It originally carried Stroudley Goods Green (now there's a livery yet to be carried by any loco in preservation). It currently carries the very boiler fitted to it in 1912, these were the Marsh I1 design. I don't think they were much different in size from the originals (the dome is larger, and of course the different safety valves), so just changing the smokebox and saddle, like Fenchurch, would probably suffice. Or build an I1 around its boiler, and a new boiler for BG ;-) And it's current condition, for comparison (photo by the late Dave Phillips):

The major cost of the Ardingly is the replacement of the viaduct, along with renewing formation and ballast. In the same way as the Bluebell's not using second-hand rail to relay the main running line, it wouldn't be used on the Ardingly either. Ardingly station site is a mile and a half from the village and the Bus stop, and more importantly several hundred feet vertically! The station site is not available to the Bluebell, since it's a busy aggregates terminal. If the Bluebell ran there it would be to a minimal station in the cutting on the other side of Avins Bridge from the original. It would be nice to do so, but making a business case for it is a non-starter, so it has to be for preservation reasons. Yes, the Bluebell's aim all along is to retain the option for the future. Tony Sullivan is not C&W, but involved with the locos and particularly fundraising for the 2MT. West Hoathly station would need new planning permission; the old station platform was on a slight gradient which would not be allowed now, but can be dealtwith that fairly easily. Re-opening it was specifically excluded from the permission granted after the public enquiry in the 1980s. The main problem might still be the local residents not wishing to be swamped by cars from visitors, which is why planning permission was refused back in the 1970s. A local consultation, to find out what the level of support/opposition is, would be the first step. It's in the long term plan to investigate the potential, but is not a high priority since it adds capital cost, long-term running costs and additional draw on volunteer staffing, for no substantial (if any) financial benefit.

Trainmania100's video from last night - Class 20s 20118 + 20132 arrive at East Grinstead with a new tamper from 6Q66 West Ealing.

OK, put another way, £35k a year is roughly the equivalent of having an additional one of the Bluebell's steam locos available for service for ever (£350k every 10 years would do a medium sized loco overhaul nicely, I think). One could never make a financial case for going to East Grinstead or to Ardingly/Haywards Heath. But Bluebell got to East Grinstead without using money from revenue, it all came from fundraising/share issues. So no, you have to consider capital costs funded as such quite separately from operating costs. You cannot simply add a loss-making peripheral activity on to what is already effectively an operation which is only not loss-making because it's subsidised hugely by volunteer effort. Bluebell do run buses where it's necessary for the operation, for example when they have to use the National Trust's car park at Sheffield Park. Many of the Bluebell's volunteers do own preserved buses, but using them to carry passengers on a commercial basis requires a lot more hoops to be jumped through. It always helps if you have someone with money to throw at a problem. The Bluebell has never had that luxury.

Metrobus 270 already provides that link from Haywards Heath to Horsted Keynes on Saturdays (used to be Sundays as well, but the County Council withdrew the subsidy). Mostly used by working volunteers rather than visitors, in spite of a promotion which gives visitors arriving by Metrobus a discount on the Bluebell. Given that the bus link between Kingscote and East Grinstead used to cost us £35k per year (i.e. costs were £35k above bus ticket revenue, but we had to do it because of the planning permission conditions on the use of Kingscote as a temporary terminus), and we switched to a modern bus because the vintage one was too costly (and not wheelchair accessible), all I can say is, the practicalities and economics simply don't stack up.} There's also the 121 from Lewes to Sheffield Park on Saturdays.

A further update today on the Camelot Locomotive Society Facebook page, provided by Workshop Manager, Chris Shepherd: https://www.facebook.com/The-73082-Camelot-Locomotive-Society-381518251989806/ (This maintenance work is being done to cure a niggling problem with the foundation ring rivets, taking advantage of the current quiet period whilst nothing is running, and will result in a new 10-year certificate for the locomotive.)

Indeed, I'm afraid the SSL certificate for the .co.uk server has expired. I picked up the problem last night, and it's being renewed, but that may take a while to propagate around the web. You can still view the content if you use a less fussy browser!

Going South is a non-starter in my view. The cutting at Chailey contains industrial waste from the printing industry. Probably £50m to remove. Don't think we'd get planning permission to extract a rubbish tip that close to people's houses anyway, so add another £20m to buy out all the householders. It's not going to happen! Cheaper to dig a new cutting round it on a new alignment, which also avoids the purchase of large numbers of back gardens. But you'd still be looking at many 10s of millions to get to Lewes.

Hardly a cost compared to EG, since the purchase cost was only £40k and the extension to EG cost 12 Million. And in any case the cost was covered by a loan from a member, who wrote it off in his Will. There was no indication at the time that any owners of 3rd rail electric stock would be willing to stump up the estimated £1m cost of electrification, so no one tried to use that as a justification for obtaining the line that I can recall. It's in the Long Term Plan as an option for many years hence.

Interesting that it should appear in a search; the Bluebell only have an aim, rather than planning permission at this stage. The Bluebell owns all the trackbed from Horsted Keynes to Ardingly, and has a lease on Lywood tunnel. There is no timescale for connecting through to Ardingly at present, but the Bluebell has obtained the bridge sections to replace the viaduct just to the west of Horsted Keynes which was demolished in the 1960s. Once at Ardingly, the line from Haywards Heath is already there, and used to serve the aggregates terminal. The Bluebell has agreement for a track around the edge of the aggregates terminal (although it will be costly to re-locate the current facilities which use that part of the yard), and then it would be connected to the existing line to Haywards Heath. There is space allocated for a Bluebell platform alongside the car park adjacent to the National Rail station at Haywards Heath, but no run-round loop, so operation of trains which might require a steam locomotive on both ends might not be feasible except for special events. Negotiating track access between the junction and Haywards Heath station on a very congested section of the Brighton Main Line is also going to be a challenge. So in short, whilst it's a possibility for the future, at present it remains just a possibility. The BRPS's policy currently is to ensure that the option remains there for the future, (which does entail some limited work on the section from Horsted Keynes to Ardingly), and ensuring the availability of the tunnel and trackbed for when the time comes. Remember it took us nearly 40 years to reach East Grinstead. There's no rush! The 2013 official BRPS "Long Term Plan" (see section 5) sets out the official policy, but is due to be revised this year.

Good idea, Neal, some other "news" (well, things I hope people will find interesting) from the Blog: The February 2021 edition of Bluebell Times includes: – An update from the board on the current activity while the Railway is closed; – A surprise 100th birthday present for a lifetime Bluebell member; – A closer look at H class locomotive No. 263; – How smoke deflectors work; – Your help needed identifying some old photos; – Puzzles with links to local branch lines; – And much, much more. A new Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway blog post reporting on a visit by some of the GWSR C&W Dept.’s to the Bluebell over Easter 2017 to ride behind ‘Flying Scotsman’. An updated and improved web page is now available for the Standard Class 2 Tank Engine Rebuild Project, No. 84030, along with an updated leaflet/donation form.

Neal, me too - I joined in 1983, and started volunteering once I'd passed my driving test the following year.