Bluebell Railway General Discussion

I have a vague memory of reading that was their 'april fool' for that year.
Hope this is accurate!

 

I still think it's a glaring omission from the National Collection not to preserve a Mk.1 EMU

 

Doh! I had a feeling a soon as I pressed "post reply" that someone would say that!

Thanks
Steve B

 

Tom - I would agree regarding a VEP - drafty, too many doors and not particularly a good ride. A CEP is another matter especially in their original form. i spent 16 years comuting between Staplehurst and London and was always disapointed if a VEP turned up. never rode in CIGs much but as I remember they were more like a CEP but in the configuration DTC, MBO, TO, DTC. The CEPs were MBSO, CK, TO, MBSO in their original form

 

3rd rail hasn't been tested in the preservation era and although I'd love to see it happen. Unfortunately, I can't. Initially, there is the installation and the power supply. I'm not aware of the mileages involved between HK and HH but this could prevent a single ended power supply (such as the Lymington branch). If this won't cover it then an additional substation would need to be built somewhere on the line (most logically at HK) at the BB's cost. Secondly, surely the BB would need to pay for this power. An additional cost on top of the EMU's being operated which will require regular maintenance on top of their current stock. There are already plans to convert the 750DC 3rd rail lines from Waterloo to at least Poole with it extending after that to even incorporate the non 3rd rail sections of the LSWR. Once this comes in and is rolled out throughout the former Southern routes, the substations currently supplying the DC operation will be switched off. Would the BB be willing to take on the operation between HH and HK, its maintenance and associated costs?

Ok, 25kv conversion won't happen any time soon but the restrictive operation of 3rd rail along with the obvious hazard is making any chance of new lines becoming DC operation next to impossible. I cannot see the HSE approving laying a 750DC line at track level on a new section of track not covered by Network Rail. (Purely my own thoughts)

Would it be turned on and off or as per current mainline status, left on all the time except for during times of maintenance and emergency? The additional safety risk to staff, volunteers and trespassers (yes, unfortunateley they have to be considered) would have a financial cost to the BB.

I'd hate to be proved wrong. The days of the 3rd Rail EMU's are numbered and with the historic 3rd rail link to HK this line would be the obvious choice for an operation. The memories of my childhood travelling around the area in the 80's on CIG's, VEP's, etc will be lost. There will be steam and diesel operations preserved, yet a great chunk of the Southerns operational history will be lost.

 

Rather than Bluebell, I think Worgret Jn to Norden on the swanage, as an extension to the existing Weymouth line Network Rail feed would be an appropriate place for a 3rd rail.. and gives an EMU connection to Swanage instead of DMUs… a very distinct USP. If a separate platform at Norden (NR side of the crossing) was installed, it could operate as a separate entity and be much safer than using the SR platform at Norden, single line, no need for loops (and use the sidings at Wareham if needed).

 

I have not seen any proposals for replacing 750 dc with 25kv ac on ex LSWR lines. i would be interested to know yor source. Given that there is limited capital for electrification, 750 V dc works and can readily deliver 3000hp over 12 coaches, my prediction is that dc will only be replaced when all other electrification schemes have been fulfilled if ever. Third rail is quite capable of 100MPH operation, its the trains which often are not.

There is one point in your post which I believe to be totally wrong. The traction supply to the third rail is allways on unless switched off for maintenance. Electriic trains are running al the time including during the night, stock moves etc. I was told by a SR fitter we allways assume the juice is live. Would a traction controller like to comment

 

As a former fitter and current tech-office engineer, I can confirm that the third rail is always live and is treated as such by all fitters. Nearly all units are berthed in a "live" state in order that the units remain warm overnight (the advantages of which outweigh the disadvantages of the power consumed). The only time the power is switched off is for maintenance or if an isolation is carried out for a specific reason.

When I carry out work at St Leonards depot (which has 3rd rail but is now physically dis-connected from the power supply), I still treat the third rails as live.

 

That is what I was elluding to. Traction must ALWAYS be considered live. It is only turned off during a T3 possession (maintenance) or in an emergency.

Cannot recall the document I saw the LSWR scheme as it was a couple of years ago now but believe it was part of a Vision document by NR. You are totally correct in that it won't happen soon. I already stated that. Other schemes will be rolled out first (GW, Midland) but no new 3rd rail systems will be built and energised. I cannot see it being approved. (This bit is my personal belief).

 

I think you should re-read Shaggy's posting. The question is should the power on the BB Ardingly branch be turned on and off as required (if electrified) or like NR be left on all the time?

From an engineering point of view a mid-point feed would be preferable if the whole branch could be fed from a single sub-station. Initially power may be provided from a mobile diesel generator either road mounted or rail mounted if a suitable siding was provided. In this case it wouldn't be cost effective to run this continuously however from a health and safety perspective it would be best if a constant supply could be provided so that "danger live rail" signs would be believed. A low current feed could be supplied from HK for this purpose though this would not be suitable to provide traction current.

 

Apologies - I missed the "or" in your sentence.

 

The NRM has a driving trailer from a 4VEP and both vehicles of a 2HAP.

 

The Underground is switched on and off each traffic day, running lines are not (generally) left on at all times though depots are. Staff are trained accordingly. I have no idea why a future Bluebell would want to keep things switched on at all times; it would make sense to switch on about 15 minutes before the first train movement and off after the last one. This would entail a safety management regime to make sure staff check before accessing the track (with appropriate tools for them to do so) and conceivably a track access management regime that is different to that covering the SP-EG section. None of this is insurmountable.

Of course, the extension could be completed and electrified later. But the cost of providing what you need (electric rail, substation(s), a lot more cabling than a layman would expect, storage space for the stock and a place for servicing them, staff training and equipment, regulatory approval costs and probably much more) ie the whole show, would be massive and I think would be akin to raising the money for the extension all over again once everything is taken into account. I think suitable rolling stock may be one of the easier bits, being able to find the money to do 'the project' would be the hard part.

 

I tried to mention this a few months back about dummy third rail and got flamed for it, but what you have written is NOT a universal truth. It may be NR's rule but it is not this way on the Underground. What is true is that you must have a safe system of dealing with the issue, either always considering it on or always checking it.

 

I have no knowledge of the working arrangements of the Underground but on the Big Railway, the training is ALWAYS treat the current as live. If working near it or having to take an isolation, it then must be tested.

 

Indeed, I have PTS as well and I know what you mean. But this does not mean that a future preserved electric railway would have to adopt the NR rule, I was commenting that it could come up with a system that suited the circumstances, using the Underground as an example.

PS I will not rise to the 'big railway' comment...

 

A trial conversion of Southampton-Basingstoke has been proposed as part of the 'Electric Spine' project, to allow freight and passenger services to operate under the wires from Southampton to Oxford, then on to Nuneaton via Coventry and the Midland Mainline via Bletchley.

However the latest CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan [draft] (.pdf) suggests the conversion is not a priority for early development work, so if it does go ahead it probably won't be for some years yet.

Chris

 

I think that the main reason for turning the power off over night on the Underground is to allow cleaning staff "fluffers" (with a lower level of training that other maintenance staff) access to the tracks.

 

The document makes interesting reading. Whilst the electric spine is mentioned so are a number of upgrades to DC traction suplies, including changes to allow regenerative braking. I would have considered such projects to go ahead with an expectation of a life expectancy ofthe new kit at 20 to 40 years. The economics of these DC enhancements being ripped out just to achieve 25kv AC traction in less than 20years seem questionable.

A little logistical problem is glossed over in the electric spine proposals - what happens to existing services. Thre are problems when DC meets AC, Thameslink had problems during comissioning. Third rail and OHL on the same line is unlikely. If the document is taken at face value the third rail would be removed between Basingstoke and Southampton. This means all trains on the existing Waterloo - Weymouth spine would need to be dual voltage and be subject to compulsory cascade as 25kv moves east. What I mean is the dual voltage trains would first be leased by SWT (or successot) and compulsorily transferred to Southern to allow stage by stage changeover on ex LBSC lines. They would then need to be transferred to South East services.

Conversion of DC to AC will IMHO fall at the doors of the Treasury on grounds as not value for money and excessive interim logistical costs

Dave

 

Realistically any conversion programme is going to take a lot longer than 20 years, and it's quite conceivable some lines may never justify conversion.

I think it's safe to presume they would continue as they do now; all the the Desiros and Electrostars used by SWT, Southern and SouthEastern are designed for dual voltage operation - while most currently lack the necessary equipment this can be retro-fitted, and thus allow a piecemeal conversion of lines as and when they can be justified.

Chris