Bluebell Railway General Discussion

I don't think that I've ever seen any suggestion that overhead electrification couldn't be applied to heritage operations. It's all down to operating practices, risk assessments etc.. 3rd rail obviously carries an inherent risk (albeit a risk we've coped with for over 100 years, but let's not go there). There was an earlier comment about a third rail system where the rail is only energised when the section is occupied. I think it was assumed that "section" referred to a signalling section, which would be quite a length. I seem to remember seeing references to such a system where the electrical supply rail is divided into quite short sections that are automatically energised in turn as the train proceeds. I can't remember where now.

Steve B

 

On another thread there has been mention of the Office of Rail and Road tightening up on lineside photographers on heritage lines so electrification would be a far greater concern to them.

They have been reluctant to see extension of third rail on the mainline:

''Our policy: (i) The relevant duty holder must be able to demonstrate that any proposed new-build or extended third rail proposal will comply with all applicable health and safety legislation. (ii) There is a presumption against the reasonable practicability of new-build or extended DC third rail in view of the safety requirements duty holders must satisfy in order to justify the use of third rail. (iii) Where existing third rail needs to continue to be operated, maintained and renewed for the purpose of the railway, the relevant duty holder must ensure it continually reviews such third rail and seek improvements in the design, operation and maintenance of the third rail systems.''

file:///home/chronos/u-2bbcd803b5f03f0f6fdadde4e4a6a7facab79c3e/MyFiles/Downloads/dc-electrification-policy-statement.pdf

Their attitude towards any electrification on a heritage line by means of overhead wires will no less strict if not more so. Just wait until you work out the cost of overhead clearances for bridges alone let alone the wire and catenary.

https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/de...ng/nr_a_guide_to_overhead_electrification.pdf

 

I suspect that a close reading of the various LRO's and TWAO's would show a ban on using any form electric drive, other than battery or from a generator. Certainly the 2 LRO's appertaining to the Mid Hants do so. Trying to push for a TWAO allowing CRE or OLE, at a time when ORR is openly against extending CRE on Network Rail, is really looking for a (long and, of course, expensive) fight.
Pat

 

How does the Volks railway get by? There is also Great Orme, and further afield Snaefell and the IoM trams.

I think (re) electrification is a non-starter.

My view is that the success of attempts to get the 483s to run without electricity will tell us a lot about the future use of EMU stock. If it is possible to convert to run on batteries then why not?

@30854 has suggested using the luggage area. An alternative could be to use the preserved MLV or GLV as very large mobile batteries if using EPB stock.

According to SREmG:

Also MLVs did have vacuum exhausters and could haul vacuum stock - and they ran to EG.

Environmentally friendly with less air pollution. What is not to like?

We might not like them (or Pacers) but they are an important part of the historical development of UK railways. I actually think it is a shame that so much of the first and second generation EMU stock has been lost. But who wouldn't want to see the 2 BIL, 4 COR, 4 SUB, etc running? I have no desire to do 80+ in a CEP again though.

Now, who is going to claim the electrical equipment from a 5 WES as the starting point for a new build 4 REP? (And weren't even they second hand from something else?)

 

I detect a sense that the ORR’s flat opposition to 3rd rail extensions is weakening where infill projects are concerned, albeit that Network Rail have yet to get to the point of proposing a project. That may help inform a view of whether, if the Bluebell do ever get to progressing an Ardingly extension, third rail might or might not be an option.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Even if that is the case, I think it is very hard to justify an extension along a branch line to enable a heritage operation as an "infill project". It is not joining up two otherwise close sections of third rail. And there is still the issue of Hansons, and the signalling infrastructure at HK to consider. I'm still of the opinion that any changes in attitude by the ORR merely have the effect of changing "non starter" to the much more flexible "non starter".

Tom

 

I suspect you are right; before we discuss live 3rd rail, we need to get to the question of building an extension, getting it operational, and finding EMU stock to run on it. That is not a short term project.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well the Bluebell already own a 4VEP! Whether that will ever return or be any use to the railway is another matter though.

 

The unit is being well cared for and under cover, with access to a third rail, off the railway - that feels like a good situation to me, certainly better than being stored outside. It would in any case not be suitable for use as hauled stock, since it has no steam heat.

https://www.setg.org.uk/

Tom

 

The Volks Railway is an existing line, they probably wouldn’t get away with it now. The Great Orem Railway is cable operated not electric, apart from the static winding engines for the two halves of the line

 

I'm not sure how the regulations apply to railways, but voltages <120V DC or in some cases <60V DC are classed as extra low voltage, and the safety regulations are less onerous.
It would be interesting to see if an EMU could move (albeit slowly) at these voltage levels. The infeed points would also need to be closer together than the "big railway" due to the effect of volt drop along the length of the track.

Personally though, I prefer steam.

 

I seem to recollect that the overhead wire on the Great Orme is for signalling, not traction purposes so only low voltage. As the IoM is not part of the U.K. the ORR has no jurisdiction here but, apart from that, from a risk point of view, what is the difference between the MER/Snaefell overhead than that on the modern tram networks in the U.K.?
Ray.

 

MER and Snaefell are overhead wires anyway. The ORRs concerns mainly centre around third rail operations - more dangerous because it’s easy for anyone to touch.

 

Agreed very well cared for. Just seems a bit of an anomaly that the Bluebell own it, when it appears to be of little use to them.

 

Personally I think the only realistic value of the Ardingly connection would be if Hanson (for whatever reason) abandoned the site and presented a large area to the railway which could be used to create an attraction in it's own right (such as a southern-based NRM off-shoot type setup) which could be rail-served from Horsted Keynes as part of a Bluebell experience. But without this I can't see there being a lot of value in the project even in the medium term. It's been important to secure the land etc. to enable something to happen should the opportunity arise (events, dear boy), but not worth bothering with for the moment, especially when there's so much still to do around what the line already has (the various Operation Undercover projects for example).

As for the discussions of steam vs non-steam traction, I think it's also worth bearing in mind the on-going prevalence of steam railways in our culture. Primarily of course the ever-popular blue E1 with a face stuck on it, but let's not forget Harry Potter didn't travel to school on an HST.

 

Wimp!

 

Before my time, but I gather the CORs could be even livelier

 

The 4CORs used to creak like an old ship and had a unique odour about them. They didn’t ride very well at speed. I was a frequent traveller on them to my then employer’s head office in Guildford from 69- 72

 

I live a just over a mile from Volks Electric Railway, which has generated enough interest to have run since 1883 !! OK, slightly different case (as is the Ferrocarril de Soller), but there, nonetheless. As to generating interest, from a marketing perspective, it's a totally different challenge. Ardingly station lay some distance south-west of the place it was meant to serve and the large showground, which stages some major events, is - you've guessed it - to the north, or for our purposes, the wrong side of Ardingly. Reality is, said events are just as readily served with buses from Haywards Heath, dammit. Even talking 100% steam, between HH and HK, I'd have concerns over the effects on the original HK-SP line. These are precisely the same arguments which crop up on the Isle of Man, every time the subject of the Peel line raises its head.

Thanks for clarifying Tom. On this one, I freely admit I'm playing Devil's Advocate, as frankly my concern is that you're perfectly correct! Just recently, look what happened to the museum in Coventry. The Bluebell were fortunate in having been there at the start, when it was often cheaper (and easier) to buy another loco from BR than to overhaul something tired. Slight oversimplification, I realise, but you get my drift. Even back then, the priority of securing the trackbed took precedence over saving an LBSC K class, so yes, the real world certainly does dictate what can and can't be done. No point denying it.

With no EMU equivalent of Woodhams to act as a 'holding pen' and no strategic reserve of former EMUs existing as holiday accommodation or garden sheds, electric stock has neither of those vital lifelines on which so much of our movement has been built.

The point has been made that with drive, chassis and coachwork, restoration is problematic. Sure, it presents its' own set of challenges, though I'd venture to suggest, a sight easier than either a DMMU, DEMU or (whisper it quietly) a steam railmotor. Perhaps this is the best place to drop a mention of the NNR's splendid QuadArt set?

I'm certainly not pretending to have any answers, but I'd hate to see an entire section of rail history lost to posterity. We've been a lot more fortunate than, say, Ireland and feel we owe it to those yet to come to do our best to ensure they've something left to work with, if it proves possible to do so.

Edit: Have just read the post by @A1X and there are some very interesting ideas there.

 

I travelled on them a few times in the early 70s but don't remember them so well as the 4CEPs, CIGs etc.. I was still grieving the end of Southern mainline steam and had a distaste for EMUs.