Bluebell Motive Power

Thanks for that Tom.

Looking at the Service Two Timetable there are 7 round trips on Saturday and 6 on all other days. Is an addtional crew required for the Evening Golden Arrow when it is running ?
So to run an earlier service whether Steam, DMU or Diesel on anyday other than Saturday, or when there is no Wealden Rambler, an addtional crew will be required.

 

On a Saturday you need five crews and three engines - two crews for the A service (4 trips); one for the B service (3 trips); one for the afternoon WR when it runs; one crew for the evening GA (which uses the B engine).

On Sunday you need three crews and three engines - one of each for A train, B train and lunchtime GA. Recently we have been rostering a fourth as shed pilot - it somewhat simplifies operation early in the morning and provides an important training opportunity as it involves a lot of shunting.

I think on Saturday and Sunday you could run an additional early morning service using the GA / WR loco and crew without making the duty too long - especially if you made the WR run a bit earlier; it might be a bit tight for hours on a Saturday as you have quite a late finish on that service due to the fact it runs mid afternoon.

Tom

 

@fireline - I wasn't trying to imply it was a deliberate choice to site your main loco facilities at the opposite end of the line to your main external visitor attraction, but simply that it was a happy operational coincidence. Whereas for us, we have our loco facilities at the same end as our main attraction, which operationally will always make servicing an early morning service from EG to give a good long day out at SP Gardens hard. But we are where we are: I can't see that fact changing.

I suspect about ten miles is as long as you can get and still have only one operational base, unless your traffic flow is overwhelmingly one way. Get much longer than that and you really need a base at both ends of the line, as the SVR, WSR, NYMR etc show. But that comes with its own additional expense and complexity.

Tom

 

Would there be space for a secure stabling point south of the viaduct? After all, New Bridge MPD is basically an inspection pit with a fence around it.

 

Space? Possibly. But I suspect planning permission might be interesting, not least because there is no road access.

Tom

 

If you could fit it on "operating railway land", you might not need Planning Permission - I don't know if the fact the track had been lifted and missing for a great many years means that exemption is lost. That is why New Bridge is an "interesting" location and shape!

However, you would still be leaving a set of coaches in the Platform overnight and I don't know how you would feel about that at East Grinstead. (Unless a "di**el" brought the stock from Sheffield Park and the steam loco joined it at EG, thus shortening the day for the steam loco - it still lengthens the day for signalmen and other train crew, but they don't have as much prep. and disposal times).

Steven

 

Presumably there wouldn't need to be road access so long as all coaling was carried out at Park and if ash was taken out by rail, because there is ample space for a staff only footpath over the viaduct.

 

I recall from my training that no stock may be left at EG, unless birthed in the one vehicle "disabled" stock siding, which is protected by a locked scotch.

 

As the station is alongside a supermarket car park, I would imagine that stock stabled overnight in the platform road or loop at EG would provide excellent target practice for the local pond life.

 

Storing stock at EG would also block the station for further use. So for example, if we berthed a service set after the last service train on Saturday, (ready for use early Sunday morning) we couldn't then run a Saturday evening GA.

Tom

 

The run-round time at EG and early start for volunteers at SP are precisely why a DMU would be a good idea for the first train!

Well, I've made my point I think. I do agree with others that excess passenger demand is a nice problem to have.

 

The thought occurs, if your talking about a long thin loco compound (ie a fence around a pit and siding) to stable a loco in overnight, why not make the siding a bit longer so 6 coaches can be stabled with the loco ?.

 

I think any thoughts about a northern outpost run into the problems of (1) lack of suitable space (2) lack of access (3) increased signalling complexity. In the end, the cost and complexity probably don't justify the time saving. So I think we are going to operating out of SP for some years yet, and just have to deal with how we resource a suitably early departure from EG.

Tom

 

Meanwhile, back at the plot: Anyone who fancies one last pre-santa trip, this Saturday (November 30) is a normal service 2 day. Locos in service are the Black 5 (A); 1638 (B); 263 (Wealden Rambler). So Saturday is both the last chance to have an unbooked ride before Christmas, and also the first chance to ride behind 1638 for several months.

Sunday is the start of the Santa trains - the same locos in service, but pre-booked passengers only.

First public services after this Saturday will be on Boxing Day.

Tom

 

Regarding planning permission....

Pretty certain that some developments are "permitted developments" on railway land. Provided the land is designated as such, which by virtue of the BB being there at EG the land is, then they have permitted development rights on that land. It doesn't matter it had a period when it wasn't railway, because permission has been obtained to put a railway back, unless that permission specifically prohibits certain developments as a condition of being granted, (and I am not sure if the local authority has the legal powers to curtail railway permitted rights) the permitted developments accorded to railway land will apply. So they can build an Engine shed, carriage shed or signalbox without obtaining permission. Interestingly though station buildings are not deemed to be operational and so require planning permission. A siding with an inspection pit would also be permitted development. Provided there is room on railway land (that which is inside the boundaries of the operational part of the railway) they wouldn't need permission.

 

As i see it, the only option is to make the first service out of EG at 10.00 deisel hauled if you have an isue with steam crews, either by dmu, or deisel loco, if the 33 is on long term hire it makes sence to use that then change to steam at SP, and if needed then there could be a later departure back to EG again using the same stock and by taking the steam loco off and substituting the 33, ok the last run back would be ecs, but then you could always run it as an unadvertised public service if needed. should anyone want more time in EG. finding crew might be an issue, but not unsolvable as some engine crews might prefer to take the deisel and not have to dispose their engine, so another shed crew would have to dispose the engine,

 

Planning issues aside though, I can't see where there is space.

To be operationally useful, there has to be space to service at least one engine (including space for coal, a lockup for lamps, tools, a signing on / mess / washroom point and car parking for at least three or four cars). There also needs to be storage for, say, seven coaches in the vicinity - no point having an engine at EG but no coaches, or vice versa.

East Grinstead station site itself is massively curtailed. I believe there are only two car parking spaces available for station staff, and the cripple siding - the available station "footprint" was pared back to the bare minimum, which is why we only have a single platform. There's certainly no space available even for the loco part of the above requirement.

Moving south, the viaduct is superficially possible as a storage point for carriages, until you realise the mainline is slewed towards the centre, so there is no longer room for a parallel carriage siding. South of the viaduct, the land is initially on an embankment that becomes a cutting, so again limited space - you could probably put in a carriage siding (there was, afterall an engineers siding there during construction) but a loco compound as well is probably not feasible. There would be no water supply there. There is also no space for staff parking - even if coal came in by rail, it is unreasonable to expect the loco crew and guard not to have secure car parking.

Eventually moving further south you get back to the logical place as West Hoathly, where there is space, access etc. But WH is already four miles from EG, and only seven miles from SP. So the time saving starts to get really minimal relative to the complexity (there would be major signalling implications whatever you did). And that is before you think about the need to have an extra duty fitter, equipped with at least a minimum set of tools, available every day where you plan to start a train from EG.

Which is why I just can't see a viable scheme for doing anything other than early starts from SP. If we were fifteen miles long, I think we'd have to give it serious consideration. But eleven is just within the bounds of possibility to only have a single loco depot. Just a shame it is possibly in the wrong place!

Tom

 

Completely agree it isn't needed. But my, what a lot of luxuries you have in mind for the "stripped back" out-station facility....wash room, mess room, tools, DUTY FITTER! I am definitely on the wrong railway

I think the answer is really to give it a couple of years, see how the traffic patterns settle down and go from there. I do think you should put up a carriage shed at Kingscote or West Hoathly though....just for the expressions on the local residents faces when they realise..... (just kidding)

 

Am I right Tom in assuming it is likely the three Santa sets will be in the charge of 45231, 1638 and 847 then? If so, what's the contingency likely to be, H and C double-headed?