Bluebell track laying South from EG?

The reason we cannot use larger wagons for the Waste by Rail trains is that there are load limits on the line (particularly some of the viaducts, I think). We had to do a lot of work behind the scenes to even be allowed to run a limited number of class-66 plus 1000 ton payload trains, since they would not routinely be allowed on the EG line.

 

What confuses me is this suggestion of removing enough material for a single-line cutting. Surely running alongside a big pile of partially exposed rubbish, which could easily slip back down into the cutting, is never going to be allowed?

 

It seems unlikely doesnt it? At least the lack of shunting would make removal more efficent if the worst happened and it all had to go. Im sure its all in hand though.

Anyway, good news on progress now up on the Bluebell website - Report on the completed "Waste by Rail 3" operation

Chris

 

Richard,

What is the bulkage factor of the waste? Have you tried to ascertain it by filling a wagon and compacting it in layers before weighing it?

Just interested..

 

When doing calcs for ballast train estimates in the 90s for BR or that bit of the former BR I used to work for.
We used 1.2 as the bulking factor I seem to remember for loading spoil material into trains.

 

I'm not a civil engineer, so forgive me if I have missed the point. But why is bulking factor important? The trains are limited by weight. Even if the waste could be made denser (e.g more compact) we'd still be limited to a maximum load of 1000 tons. The current wagons are big enough to take 50 tons per wagon, so bigger capacity wagons or more compacted waste wouldn't actually help.

Tom

 

James,

The waste to be removed can be accurately quantified in volume but to determine the number of trains, and hence the cost, one must know the weight of the undisturbed waste. This can only be ascertained by knowing the loose density, easily calculated, and the undisturbed density. The ratio of each gives the bulkage factor.
The only way to try to emulate the waste weight undisturbed is to compact a wagonload with a roller or compactor, in layers, weigh it, and compare it to the loose weight.

 

Ah, OK, I get you - you mean to properly quantify the weight of the tip remaining undisturbed in the ground.

I haven't heard of a factor; however, the estimated number of trains required hasn't AFAIK changed significantly since the first Waste by Rail pilot (except for the change in plan from total to partial removal, which was driven by financial considerations, not a sudden change in the estimated weight in the tip). So I'd imagine that the project has a figure they are using for the purposes of making estimates.

The generally quoted weight was about 115,000 tons, of which about 46,000 tons has gone and around 69,000 tons remain. During the next phase, which starts August 15th, we will get pretty close to half the tip removed.

Amounts removed; 10,386 tons in the initial lorry dig in 2008
WBR 1 - July 2010 - 5 days, ca 4,000 tons (I can't find an exact figure)
WBR 2 - March 2011 - 19 days, 16,837 tons
WBR 3 - July 2011 - 15 days, 14,657 tons

Tom (not James...)

 

well I had a look from the field yesterday morning and if that's just 69k tons left even in a single line cutting I'm a Dutchman, but like the hated Mr Philpot I'm keen to be proved wrong

 

Can anyone tell me where any photos or even footage of the works is laying around

 

I posted a link to a progress report higher up which has photo's from the tip itself, and explanations for various issues which people have dragged up.

Chris

 

As well as the Bluebell site linked above in a previous post there is also Robert Philpot's site, with links to his videos
http://www.philpot.me/cutting2.html

 

Many thanks for that

 

There seem to be one or two people here with good knowledge of the project - why is capping material leaving the site by road (the cost per load of which willl be considerable) - rather than being moved to the south end of the site for disposal by rail to the Ardingly triangle or even to other areas where it could be levelled and landscaped (eg Kingscote)? If there were (say) 10-20k tonnes of capping still on site the cost of relocating it elsewhere on Bluebell land as groundwork rather than by road as a commercial operation must be cost beneficial to the railway - and if the capping spoil trains were coincided to run on in-steam days there would be an added attraction for the enthusiast-visitor. I know this will have been costed of by the project team - I don't regard them as fools unlike some on this thread - but I am interested in the economics of this decision.

 

From a Richard Salmon post "The trucks taking away clay capping/soil cost us nothing. We actually, I gather, have been making a very small amount of profit on the material shipped out by road."

 

How is it possible to make a profit with a merry go round of trucks:suspicious:??where is going this capping clay??
regards
noel

 

Possibly some contractor somewhere wants it for a filling job and sends his lorries to get it. The blubell may have to fill them though - at their expense.

 

Wouldn't it be better to finish the packing of the Ardingly triangle or(and) fill the embankment ??
regards
noel

 

if the bluebelle are making money from selling the capping then isnt that a good thing? anything that helps to pay to get the tip cleared has got to be a good move i would think , also i understand that from the blog that there is a bit of land that once the tip has been cleared that would be of no railway use, might the railway be able to sell land to enable someone to build a couple of executive houses on the land? to raise even more money?

 

it's hardly a very salubrious area with a new household waste facility being built right next door (presumably the very same facility that commited the disgusting act of landfilling the tip in the first place) but yes brownfield development land is always required for affordable housing in the area,