Bluebell Railway General Discussion

From an issue of the enewsletter from back in February. I have no idea if this is still the plan.

I get the impression that Calbourne won't be in use at GoS

 

A few weeks ago I had the fun of firing Baxter on a goods turn. As it was a bit out of the ordinary, I wrote up an account of the day for the Bluebell Yahoo group, but I thought I would publish it here for anyone interested:

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/the-baxter-goods.513016/

Tom

 

Very interesting read Tom.

On a side note, anyone know what the special services on the Model Railway Weekend are? Both Captain Baxter and B473 are listed as running on both days of the loco roster (http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/loco_roster.html) but can't find any mention of what these duties actually are. Special Events page just says it is a normal 2 train service.

 

I think (but haven't seen final confirmation) that it will be normal service 2, but with the addition of an extra SP -HK Obo shuttle between trains. Because of very tight run-round times on the shuttle to fit in, it will be top and tailed, probably by Baxter and Bluebell.

Tom

 

Cheers Tom. Hope to be there on the Sunday, as you'll have the top and tail shuttle, 2 service trains, and golden arrow lunch. 5 in steam doesn't happen that often on the Bluebell.

 

Indeed not, though four in steam happens most Sundays

Looking at the loco roster, it looks like it will be B473 and Baxter on the shuttles, with 847 and 541 on the service trains and 263 on the lunchtime Arrow.

Tom

 

OK, timetables:

Normal Service 2 both days with OBO specials from SP to HK in between and an extra 17.15 up / 18.15 down train on Sunday as well as Saturday. (For some reason I don't understand, the first train on Saturday from SP appears to run 5 minutes later than normal, but normal times thereafter.

So, train times:

Ex. SP - 9.45 (A - runs five minutes later on Saturday) 11.00 (B) 12.15 (A) 13.30 (B) 14.45 (A) 16.00 (B - runs five minutes later on Saturday) 17.15 (A - runs both days)
Ex. EG - 10.40 (A) - 12.00 (B) - 13.15 (A) - 14.30 (B) - 15.45 (A) - 17.00 (B) - 18.15 (A)

OBO specials:

Saturday
Ex. SP 10.20, 11.37, 12.52, 14.07, 15.22
Ex. HK 10.40, 11.57, 13.12, 14.27, 15.42

Sunday
SP d. 10.23, 11.37, 13.12, 15.20
HK d. 10.43, 11.57, 14.05, 15.47

Note the five minute "run-round" at HK, hence top 'n' tailing with Baxter and Birch Grove.

Note also on Sunday that there is no equivalent of the 12.52 departure. That will instead be the Lunchtime Golden Arrow. The Sunday 15.20 up / 15.47 down Obo special will be combined with the Lunchtime Arrow, presumably top 'n'tailed again with 263 and probably B473.

General event details here: http://www.bluebell-railway.com/event/model-railway-weekend/ Note that normal fares apply. Full timetable here: http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pic2/wn/2015b/model_railway_we_2015_timetable.jpg

Tom

 

Thanks for the info' and timetable! We're planning to visit on Saturday, will there be an additional fare for travelling in the Obo?

 

According to the answer to that question on the Facebook page " Standards fares " but I am not sure if that means included or the usual £ 1 supplement for the Obo.

 

£1 supplement's a bargain!

 

Reading Rail magazine today. The Ardingly line could be used for running southern electric units. Possibly using diesel propulsion in the first instance with a dummy 3rd rail. Sounds like a great idea to me. Wouldn't mind see the 2BILL unit running between Ardingly and Horsted Keynes.

 

I can sort of understand the appeal of that for enthusiasts but struggle to see how it would appeal to the general public?

Anyone can just get on an electric train operating on the third rail on the 'big' railway.- Can't help but think that operating it as a small branch using some of the smaller steam locos on the fleet is more likely to be appealing to the general public, who after all pay a good proportion of the bills!

Chris

 

Probably a good few years off! The current LTP has it down as an aspiration to be "investigated" within the 25 year timescale.

I suspect they are picking up on the remarks of the BRPS President at the recent AGM, who spoke along the lines that Ardingly might provide a unique opportunity in preservation to operate 3rd rail electric units in an authentic setting (*). I can't remember the details now, but it was along those lines. I don't remember that he got into the level of technical detail implied above!

(*) Horsted Keynes to Haywards Heath was electrified in 1935. It might seem like a bit of a backwater, but I think essentially it meant that the electric services nominally terminating at Haywards Heath could be extended to do a trip up and down the branch to get out of the way, rather than spend the layover blocking a platform at Haywards Heath on the mainline.

Tom

 

As an old dude who can remember travelling on a 2 BIL on the Portsmouth to Brighton coast line I dont think anyone could mistake it for a modern day electric train! It Operation of the 'branch' by historic electric units would be a great addition to the Bluebell experiance but I cant imagine that anyone could get over the practicalities of having a live DC system let alone the costs which are enormous.

All the best,

Dave

 

I quite agree - and there is something quite attractive about older electric units - the smell, the style and the noises they make, and much more besides. I would be quite interested if there could be a line for some to run - costly, yes, but the practicalities are understood - they've been around for over a century now so it is not as though the wheel is being re-invented. I have wondered whether there would be enough public interest to make such an investment worthwhile, but having listened to young families on the Epping Ongar line getting excited by the NSE liveried Thumper I'm now much more open to the idea. One drawback is that to offer a regular electric service you would have to have stock available (obvious I know), and that means also having spare stock available to maintain the service. With multiple unit stock, if one coach is unserviceable, the rest of the set often is as well. So you end up with needing at least 2 or 3 units, which need restoring and maintaining, and that takes up a lot of storage space,- something the Bluebell is limited on.

Steve B

 

Strange how people ignore the obvious elephant in the room namely the conductor rail and its safety implications.

I understood any further extension of three or four rail electrification was frowned upon for this reason but, doubtless people will disabuse me if incorrect. Hopefully wishful thinking is not at play here.

PH

 

Frowned upon, yes. Banned, no.

Almost certainly wishful thinking, but of the sort that's inspired so many good preservation projects. More to the point, if done, it would provide operational preservation for something currently unrepresented. The issue would then be over what could run - I'm sure a 2BIL would be acceptable, but a 455?

 

Class 71 and 73 with Bulleid stock sounds nice too..... maybe a 4TC, or (mainline committments permitting) a 5 Bel...

 

I wasn't ignoring the safety issues, but there is a wealth of knowledge and experience out there that can be drawn on. I know nothing of any legislative issues, and I can see that the costs could be truly prohibitive. As Tom has said it is some thing that may be investigated during the next 25 years - I'm sure that if it was a complete legal no-no then it wouldn't even countenanced. Given that timescale I probably won't be around to see it!

Steve B

 

Just back from a hectic weekend at the railway ...

Catching up, the 4Cor and 4VEP are potential vehicles to add to the mix that I don;t think were mentioned. As Steve B pointed out, you would likely need at least a couple of serviceable sets at any one time. Ideally you would also need undercover storage space and possibly a dedicated maintenance / restoration facility.

On the serious point of the technicalities of running with a third rail: The current Bluebell President had a long and distinguished career in the upper management echelons of BR(S) and its successors. So while I wouldn't for a moment underestimate the difficulties of such a task, I also suspect that if he considered such challenges insurmountable, he wouldn't even have raised the possibility. That's not to say it is now settled policy, but simply that presumably it isn't completely outlandish either. There is also the matter that were it to be genuine third rail, that couldn't happen unless we were connected at least to Copyhold Junction, so it becomes dependent on what happens to the aggregate depot at Ardingly; whereas a steam extension to the edge of Ardingly could happen sooner.

Also, speaking as a chemist: battery technology is advancing rapidly, driven in part by the (much larger) market for electric vehicles. Electrification on the Ardingly branch, if it happens at all, is likely to be a couple of decades away: who knows what advances in battery technology are possible in that time? Given a one-way journey of about two miles (Ardingly) or about four miles (HH); speeds limited to 25mph and a daily diagram likely to be limited to a maximum of about 6 - 8 return journeys, it is entirely possible that it may be possible to store sufficient power for a day's running in a battery pack, stored in the van portion of a unit, or under the under frame.

Tom