Bluebell Railway General Discussion

Thanks, Steve - I stand corrected. Although I had never thought about it before, now you mention it I can see the difference.

Peter

 

I have different questions about the move.

Why does a tamper need two 20s to pull it?

And why, at the end of the video, did the locos go onto the running-round loop?

 

Class 20’s sometimes run nose to nose because the visibility for the crew’s better when running cab first. Also when they’re in multiple a pair of them have a similar power output to a type 3.

 

A 20 on its own was a rarity (excepting working T n'T).
I remember pairs twittering through Derby with coke trains from Avenue (ex-LNER type hoppers with wooden slats raising the sides).
Pat

 

I don't know, I wasn't there. My gut feeling is that it might have been to release the incoming tamper to head south under its own power rather than using them to trip it all the way down to HK behind the class 20s. But that is supposition on my part.

Tom

 

why did it get toad all the way to the railway if it can go on its own power. I have seen a tamper go by at Taunton on its own so this is possible. There was a man driving it normally

 

booked speed I'd guess. One went past us, and I looked it up - Woking to Pboro at 45mph, on a rigid 4 wheel chassis with the cab well forward of the front axle...
seasickness pills at the ready...
Or it could be mileage - wearing out a tamper is probably more expensive than wearing out a couple of 20s.

 

They could have towed it behind Kilmersdon?

 

I think they're brand new tampers of a type not yet fully approved/accepted/signed off, whatever process they're going through, so can't work under their own power on the mainline yet.

 

Thats is correct and they are also incredibly tight to guage. The restrictions on their movement have led to at least one move being cancelled as no suitable route was open. Add to this onging issues with loco weight / RA restrictions on the Oxted and you get a pair of class 20s to add to the fun as they are still allowed. And of course that meantthere were towo locos to top and tail the machine as they reversed at Croydon. Its also had to run under single line working for part of the route as the mchine is (Currently) out of gauge on the Up line. Unless things have changed recently there was no Northbound route yet approved to get the machine anywhere North of Croydon, hence it ran back via Redhill and Tonbridge.

 

There will be a new issue of The Bluebell Times next Friday but something just piqued my interest in editing: the recent track relaying north of Horsted Keynes means that the entire section of track that comprised the first section of the Northern Extension, ca. 1990, has now been relayed ...

Tom

 

Relayed to where, and by whom? Surely you mean re-laid?

 

Incidentally, it has been quite a few years since I last read the latest long-term development plan - I understand that priorities may well have changed, especially with the pandemic - but I do remember that a new station at West Hoathly and commencement of the long-discussed Ardingly extension were both on the cards for some time in the 2020s... are either of these still a definite aspiration?

 

The long term plan was last revised in 2013. I think it should have had another revision since, but well, you know, things ...

In the current version though, with re-opening a station at West Hoathly and extending to Ardingly still feature. There was some bridge repair done on the Ardingly branch last year if my memory serves me right.

Tom

 

Duly noted. Obviously, with the Ardingly project, the big job initially (unless work started at the existing Ardingly railhead and pushed east!) would be reinstating Sheriff Mill viaduct. Am I correct in thinking that you have a couple of redundant secondhand bridge spans in store for this purpose?

If Ardingly does eventually go ahead, have you any idea when work would likely commence in earnest?

I do recall hearing some scuttlebutt at a Bluebell gala of a reluctance on the part of Bluebell management to obtain a second main-line connection, as it was alleged that this would then lead to the entire EGR-Ardingly section being taken over by Network Rail as a diversionary main line... how accurate that was/is/may be, I cannot comment.

 

that sounds unlikely (although never say never), as you can bus replacement passengers, why now would you bother getting the route knowledge kept up to date?

It's (thread drift alert) an interesting question though. NR/preserved railway relationships seem to be on the whole quite good (if a touch patronising). I wonder what happens when there is a conflict of interest over resources vested in the preserved line?

 

Presumably if that was a genuine risk then the Bluebell could get round that by not actually instating a physical mainline connection at Ardingly, rather like the IoW currently has at Smallbrook. Join by platforms but no rail connection. Just because a railway runs into a station next to the national network doesn't mean a physical connection of rails has to be installed

 

Wouldn’t even be “join by platforms” as Ardingly no longer has a Network Rail station.

Tom

 

Indeed not, but I wondered whether EGR residents might not start campaigning for commuter services to Brighton via Ardingly...

 

keep them off by laying to 4'8 1/2" not 1435mm...