Bluebell Railway General Discussion

A greater percentage of visitors go to see Train Story than had been envisaged. One contributor to Tripadvisor compared the IOWSR favourably to another line (not the Bluebell) very largely on account of this facility. Railways cannot get similar facilities soon enough, both on account of stock protection and visitor experience.

Incidentally the IOWSR is in process of applying to the Arts Council for Accredited Museum status for the whole railway, not just just Train Story and the small exhibits museum.

PH

 

I think the IoWSR solution is excellent. But for the Bluebell, the amount of additional storage needed is larger: probably about equivalent to OP4 just in storage; larger still if you allow visitor access to all or part (which I think we should).

Which is the issue I had with those drawings in Bluebell News, and the site on the west of HK. As drawn, it made a big visual change while only providing a small amount of storage relative to what is needed. I’d like to see a scheme in a less visually sensitive area, given the size it is likely to need to be. (The alternative I suppose being two sites, one a large exhibits museum with a subset of the most interesting out of traffic vehicles, along with another storage building for everything else).

Tom

 

Two points. However big such projects are made, they will not be large enough. Secondly, they tend to be second priority to extension projects and the like which is exactly the wrong way round.

Paul H

 

And therein lies to problem - a combination of a lack of suitable land and some pretty significant planning restrictions I would venture to suggest any form of large shed will be very difficult to place.

As such while it won't necessarily be able to hold large amounts of stock Mathrew's idea certainly has merit - and could be made to work. Indeed given given the way platforms 4&5 both serve the same track, and the way platform 5 is shorter than the rest due to the cattle dock, putting in a fake 'platform zero' with IOWSR Train story type setup pretending to be more station facilities would sort of balance out the station as viewed from the south.

 

1) Agreed.

2) Rubbish!

Lack of available land is I suggest a bigger issue than extensions.

 

You really don't think that the site of Train Story was always in the IOWSR landholding do you? Land assembly can be a long job, especially if the cost has to be minimised but it has to be started sometime.

PH

 

I'm not sure though that "balancing out the station" is necessarily sound preservation - it has the shape it has (particularly the platform arrangement) for particular reasons; we've already in my view gone too far in operational expedience in re-arranging the track and signalling.

As for land - one option would be to build at the south end of SP (over the current Newick / Pumphouse sidings). That couldn't be arranged for public viewing so would be an operational carriage shed, but might then allow the current SP carriage shed to become a display space. It could be made contiguous with the museum, providing a single large museum space. You would probably have to lose one of the three roads to provide visitor space, though, and it would be less convenient for servicing the Pullmans.

A second option at SP would be a roundhouse on the top car park for the out-of-traffic locos. That could in effect become an adjunct of ASH. However, a round house - despite solid LBSCR precedents - always feels to me inefficient in space.

The two of those - round house for locos; a re-sited operational carriage shed and using the current SP carriage shed for display of the heritage wagons and vans, including occasional operation - might collectively be about big enough, and probably involve the least visual intrusion.

Then there are the options at HK, or at West Hoathly. I suspect (but don't know) that they represent the two biggest individual sites on the railway. I don't know the planning restrictions, but find it hard to imagine that development at HK (Matthew Cousins style) would be any easier than at West Hoathly.

If none of those work, then you have to look for additional land. I wonder if you could build at low level on the Sainsbury's car park, with parking above? Mega bucks I guess...

Tom

 

Of course not, but there is a difference between "difficult" and "impossible". The latter tends to exist if either there is no land at all (e.g. if the railway is largely in a cutting) or if there are houses built just for a couple of examples. It may have taken you an awfully long time, but as a former PM said, you've never had it so good!

 

I did say it was a long job but what is "impossible" may well happen in time. The process, although worthy is less sexy than building an extension to Ultima Thule and that is the big problem

PH

 

Is that a wise move?

 

Perhaps you should travel the country offering your services as a consultant in these matters Paul, as you clearly seem to be absolutely certain that the only thing preventing every railway from having all of their stock under cover is that they're too busy throwing money at extensions willy nilly...

 

Why would you need to rearrange any track or signalling for the suggestion I outlined.

Also while the addition of a fake platform zero would indeed change the look of the station - there are presidents for such a layout.

Sevenoaks originally feature 6 platforms but only 4 tracks http://www.kentrail.org.uk/Sevenoaks Tubs Hill.htm as did New Cross http://www.kentrail.org.uk/new_cross.htm

Granted they are on the SE mainline - but then HK has never really been a 'typical' country station from the day it was built - Even back in 1882 its passenger accommodation was far grater than Haywards Heath on the BML (which only got passing loops / 4 through platforms during its 1933 rebuild). As such it is perhaps one of the few Heritage Railway stations where yet more buildings won't look out of place in the overall scheme of things

Any development at West Hoalthy is likely to run into strenuous objections from locals - and as such its reasonable to assume that something based at HK has more chance of success.

 

Regarded as potentially helpful in applying for grant monies.

PH

 

But makes things very onerous in other respects.

 

Hardly, particularly if the organisation concerned is already a registered charity.

PH

 

It's bad enough playing Cassandra to N.P. as it is.

PH

 

I wasn't meaning even more layout changes to accommodate that proposal; I meant that we have already changed both the track and signalling layout significantly, such that it is a long way from how it was in the 1930s.

I disagree - HK may never have been a "typical" country station (though it has elements in common with, say, Singleton - even quieter - or Christs Hospital). However, we shouldn't be trying to create a "typical" station, we should be trying to maintain the heritage of the station we have. I fully accept the need for operational necessities such as facilities to restore and maintain rolling stock, but I don't think adding additional platforms is the way to go. I also don't think that proposal would be anywhere near big enough as drawn: realistically, you need something at least the length of the platforms over all four back sidings. Or, looked at another way, anything big enough for what is needed would be out of proportion with the rest of the station if built in that location.

I wonder if the feeling in West Hoathly is still the same? Firstly, there will be different people living there now than 30 years ago. Secondly, at that time the aim was to stop the railway from ever getting there. Whereas now it is an established reality, with a connection to East Grinstead, yet the largest settlement on the line has no station. I wonder whether that "on the ground" reality has changed sentiment? I don't know, but equally I don't think you can necessarily assume that what pertained 30 years ago inevitably pertains now.

Tom

 

I fear you are thinking too big. Obviously the type of thing Mathew suggested, and I have outlined would only be big enough for a small amount of stock - but does that mean it should be rejected? With careful design I would have thought it just possible to fit in something like the equivalent of 6 carriages on two roads with a platform between them (hence the inclusion of the picture if train story facility earlier). Such a facility could be useful for displaying further 'out' of ticket' locos, coaches complete but needing overhaul or even a selection of goods wagons. You could even sort of have a mini-goods shed type setup going on inside with appropriate displays about the role of the humble goods train on railways like the Bluebell - which let us not forget made most of their money from transporting agricultural stuff rather than people.

 

Since any museum-type building is likely to generate lots of visitor traffic, that might be problematic (since I gather that was a focus of dislike). A pure storage facility might be more acceptable. If that happens, that might free up space elsewhere for a museum-type facility.

Noel

 

I was under the impression that local soundings were taken a few years ago on residents views about the potential for a halt setup now that we were through to Grinstead and while overall hostility had reduced since we re-opened the line, there were enough sufficiently determined residents to make it not worth the bother. Given any new building would require planning permission the opportunities for getting bogged down in costly arguments and appeals are quite high. Give it another 20 years and the natural passage if time (and turnover of people) will undoubtedly improve the situation still further.

However as things stand, developments at HK and SP generally do not attract any outside complaints so are cheaper and less hassle to undertake.