Bluebell Railway General Discussion

The GN saloon at the NYMR has been modified with a gangway connection at one end, so there would be a precedent for treating the LBSC saloon in the same way.

 

Really? Suit yourself.

In the unlikely event that the only way of getting the LBSC twelve wheeler restored was to fit one end with a gangway connection then, authenticity aside, that would be the way to do it. It would be a better option than another thirty years under a tarpaulin. Or we could all just piss about playing cheap debating tricks. We could for that matter sacrifice expedience to rigid authenticity. Maybe you'd prefer the Super D and Q6 to be scrapped as an alternative to the indignity of vac pipes and steam heating. Let's demolish every preserved station because DDA compliance and decent toilets has spoiled them. Let's scrap every vintage carriage body which sits on a CCT underframe. Let's close every gift shop. Let's get rid of every till. Let's sack all the historically inappropriate female staff and volunteers. Let's insist that passengers pay in the old money. Let's never, ever compromise. It might ruin a photograph if we do.

You want absolute historical fidelity? Build a layout.

 

That would be the (all to) easy option.

 

Hypothetical modifications aside, I'm surprised that the LBSC saloon is not a higher priority. Not only was it beloved of Bernard Holden, but there would surely be money to be made from hiring it out for private functions, much as other lines do with their inspection saloons. It is potentially a very lucrative vehicle.

 

Pictured at Eastleigh yesterday.

 

I'm sure the LBSC saloon's day will come - it was on the first Bluebell train I traveled on, pulled by the Adams tank, and including LSWR 320, and I would love to see all of them back in service. However, priorities probably dictate that normal service stock are needed sooner, and the railway has several Pullmans and the GNR saloon to serve the special services and hire market. And there is the Wealden Rambler set as well. So for a coach that will take a fair amount of time to restore, and considerable space and resources it may have to wait a bit for it's time to come.

Steve B

 

I believe the reverse may the case (61624 can probably confirm) - I think BR removed the gangway from the observation end and put in the window when in use as an Inspection Saloon. (Ironically, for an "Invalid saloon", it has no wheelchair access at present!)

Steven

 

Out of interest, why does the Brighton saloon need a corridor connection? Neither the Obo or the Howlden saloon seem to have needed one to be restored.

 

Beat me to it! It should have gangways both ends but at an early stage of restoration it was decided that the later observation saloon configuration was likely to be of more use than restoration to an invalid saloon!

 

If the Saloon was at one end of the GA set it would allow access to the kitchen/washing up/staff on the GA set were the reasons proposed at the time if my memory is correct.

B

 

Fair do's.

Personally I'm not in favour of adding a corridor connection, but if the economics were such that that would be the only way of getting the thing restored then a certain amount of gritting of teeth would I think be advisable.

 

As an aside, I take it that you have NOT read Railwaywomen (by my friend Helena Wojtczak, BRs first female guard - who found that she was not the first overall).

Historically women have played a much larger role in the running of railways than most people think, particularly in wartime. Most 'WWII galas' are very unhistorical, to be representative around 1 in 6 of the staff should be women.

BTW, its International Womens Day

We return you to your usual bickering.

 

i am very interested and relieved by the above comments on the LBSCR Directors Saloon! wonderful to see some interest in such an historic and neglected vehicle at long last!
yes, it was Bernard Holden's constant wish that this carriage be restored and once again running in service as it was till the early 1970s.
personally i cannot think of any other preserved railway having such a priceless vehicle rotting away outside albeit under a sheet.
i do hope it will quickly find it's way into the carriage shed at HK to 'dry out' and then be restored. far better than drastic recent expensive repairs required to a BR Mk1 bought apparently at some exorbitant price. unlike the GNR saloon, the LBSCR directors saloon is owned by the Bluebell. ok it had extensive latter alterations but these dont detract IMHO from the carriage's importance. if LWSR 1520 got restored despite it's limited capacity and alterations then surely the pride of the Brighton carriage fleet and design can be restored?
i will add a few ££££ to send to richard salmon if this project gets off the ground. as long as it has a brass plaque fitted 'in memory of bernald holden MBE'
cheers,
julian

 

Is anything happening in the near future in regards to West Hoathly Station and/or East Grinstead Station development?

 

A canopy in the short term at East Grinstead. Long Term plan for both see http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/soc/ltp.html and scroll down.

 

Regarding West Hoathly, would the station be re-constructed as near to its original appearance as possible - including on the exact same site where the crumbling platforms survive? The up platform face is in reasonable shape, the down one would need re-building. I thought the intention was to build a housing development in the style of one of the LBSCR station buildings north of EG on the old up platform, with a new station north of it on the old goods yard site? I've heard tell that the trackbed through the old platforms is not level, despite a gradient post at the South end of them saying it is!

Personally, I would love to see the original station re-constructed, as it was one of the most picturesque on the line and could be a real showpiece.

 

I think that was a potential way of raising funds for the extension, but is unlikley to go ahead now. A single platform North of the existing is the most likely. The problem with the existing site is the public right of way across it. The Railway applied for planning permission for a footbridge but this was unsuccessful since some residents objected because they would be overlooked.

 

As far as I know, it is definitively off the agenda. The BRPS gave permission to the plc to develop the land if it was required to raise funds to clear the cutting: when it became obvious that the money would be raised by other means, the BRPS revoked the permission to the plc. That's my understanding anyway, I think it was discussed at an AGM a year or two back.

As for what form a station might take: it is too early to say, as it depends what facilities the railway considers it needs (probably fairly minor). As with all such projects, there is a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiation and planning before any decision would be taken. Probably the one definitive is that I'd imagine the presentation would be 1940's style. There, we've agreed the livery before the thing is built

Tom