Bluebell Northern Extension - so what's occurring then?

Well just as I've always thought, this extension seems to have been a rather more complex affair, then many might have assumed...

Personally, I'll be just pleased when they've finally completed this highly anticipated project, I would say its up there along with the Llangollen Railway's Corwen extension, in terms of high profile and significance.

My only real concern is the heavier gradient through the cutting, as while I'm sure they've thought this through, I just don't want to see any of the Bluebell's small gems get restricted because they can't get up the gradient, as that would be a great shame.

One of the things I love about the Bluebell is that they really put their smaller engines into good use, whereas most other railways tend to treat such engines as more of a nuisance if anything else...

 

Two quick points: First do we actually know (as distinct from supposition) what the final gradients in the cutting will be, and over what distance? Will these final gradients actually restrict the load for the smallest Bluebell engines? Second, even though a water supply is to be installed at EG, will the smallest engines work all the way to EG in normal service? I assume coal supply might become an issue.
My supposition is that those organising the final contour in the cutting will have checked that the gradients will not unduly restrict the medium size and larger normal service engines.
I suppose the $64000 question will be just how the waste settles under the trackbed once the line is ballasted and track laid with regular "consolidation" from passing trains. If nothing else, a deep ballast bed and working drainage will be key no doubt.

...moves the cushions on the armchair....

 

I believe that the gradient will be 1:60 for about 1/2 a mile. Now a 1:60 gradient would be the same as the ruling gradient on the Cuckoo Line from Hellingly up to Heathfield and then from the Rother dip up to Mayfield and Argos Hill summit. It was the same southbound from Rotherfield and Mark Cross up to Argos Hill and then the Rother dip to Heathfield Tunnel. The H Class's could handle 5 or 6 up that, so that larger Tank locos should be ok. As for the smaller Tanks such as the P's handling 4/5/6 coach trains, not so sure?

 

The gradient is going to be 1:60 maximum. I seem to recall Chris White saying that the 1:60 starts about 1/3 mile south of the cutting, so probably a bit less than 1/2 mile in total. There will also be steeper gradients than originally the case for southbound trains starting out of EG.

The current gradient profile is here Bluebell Railway Map and Gradient Profile. This will obviously change slightly in the vicinity of the tip, but you will see that it already contains a section at 1:60 before the tunnel, and also a fair section at 1:63 that starts immediately off the end of the platform at HK (i.e. has to be tackled from a dead stand). So there is nothing more restricting in the steeper gradient through the tip; just longer at the steeper gradients.

I don't therefore expect it will change the load limits for our smallest engines, which, for a P or a Terrier, are 80 tons as I recall (don't have the relevant sectional appendix to hand). So the 4 Mets or six 4 wheelers will be still allowable. Three Mark 1s would technically be well overloaded, though on occasion when nothing else was available, a single P class has taken that load up the existing line as I recall. (NB I'm sure other lines do the same, but the Bluebell Sectional Appendix has different load limits depending whether the engine is expected to make section time or not. So if you have an overloaded train, such as a P with 3 Mark 1s, it may well be within the allowable non-timetabled load limit, but you just have to make allowance it might not make section time. Not ideal, but sometimes needs must, and there is recovery time in the timetable anyway without delaying other trains. The point being, that we are not running engines in normal service to the point where it is marginal whether they can even complete the journey).

For the medium engines (e.g. 592, B473) the relevant limits are 150 tons normally, but with dispensation to take 185 tons at the discretion of the rolling stock director and workshop manager. So in effect that allows them to take five Mark 1s, and again, I can't see that changing, though it will be fun when it happens.

Of course, if we had more vintage stock, we could take more passengers at a lighter trailing load by not towing around the dead weight lumps that are Mark 1s. But I digress...

As you point out, water is going to be the biggest issue, which is why there are plans for a water tower at EG. If that isn't completed on time (and I'd imagine time is now getting quite tight; I'm not even sure it is on the plan to have ready on opening day), then the interim solution would be to move the current water tanker that is currently at KC; this can be left in the cripple siding at the south end of EG station.

I don't think coal will be too much of a problem, though I'd imagine for safety you would probably take coal with one of the small engines every trip if you had a heavy load. But, for example, on the Obo specials (28 tons trailing load), it is pretty easy to run all day (3 trips) without coming in for more coal using either a P or a Terrier, so an extra 4 miles of round trip will make a bit of difference, but fundamentally even with a big load (within the limit), if you can't get to EG and back at least once on a bunker full, something has gone horribly wrong.

There is no intention (as far as I know) to limit the work the small engines do. The planned timetable (see this thread many pages back) is just SP to EG: there are no trains that terminate at KC. So if a P or a Terrier happens to be the service engine, they will do the complete diagram.

Tom

 

Thanks for the info Tom, hopefully it looks like we should still be able to use our full range of locos up the new gradient. I do worry though about the amount of extensive use the two P's are getting running bunker to bunker on so many service trains. I do fear that they'll end up mechanically knackered out during the second part of their boiler tickets. I think Lewes wrote in Bluebell News a while ago that 75027's firebox was knackered and that it'll need a new one due to the extensive work it did during the 90's/2000's. If that's on a Std 4 then I'd hate to think what the two P's will be like if continually thrashed up the gradients on service trains. Hopefully when we get the S15, Q and Sir Archie back in steam next year they'll take on the backbone of the services and the double-heading of our P's will be used less often on 4/5 coach trains. For me the P's should just be used on Obo specials and vintage goods wagons rather than hauling main service trains with the odd exception on gala events.

Cheers

 

That's a very good summary.

We were confidently assured by some who claimed to remember that we would find a 1970s waste lorry in the tip. Guess what? We didn't. The point is, accurate records of what was done in the 1970s weren't kept, so even after extensive surveys, it is hardly surprising that things changed as the dig progressed and we started to find out what was going on. Interestingly, the fact that the Environment Agency are following things so closely is a sign that even they are really still learning what happens to rubbish tips after 30 or 40 years.

Tom

 

The question, plus the remaining items needed to complete the extension, is not $64,000 but £570,000 according to the Bluebell's funding appeal! It is essential, as you imply, to design and construct a proper trackbed capable of supporting the expected loadings. I doubt any civil engineer would propose to achieve this simply by plonking new ballast on top of unexcavated waste, as some of the critics seem to have been suggesting (as far as I can understand their alternative suggestions).

 

I do (and did) understand perfectly that the railway didn't know either the condition of the waste, or the cutting, until they got into it - and I can (and could) easily see the sense in only having it wide enough for one track (two would be nice, but basically pointless as the line is only single anyway, and it would have cost a great deal more) - but the above highlights the one question I do have now.

It seems that the bed of the cutting will now be somewhat higher than that of the original cutting. If the Western side had been dug out, etc, why didn't they pile up the waste there a bit more, so they could get back to the original level? Yes, yes, I know the engines can take the new grade, but still, I'd have thought it would be preferable to pile the waste a big higher in spots, in order to allow the engines to work a little less.

TONoel

 

The answer to your question is within the Funding for the Finish video, on the Bluebell's website.

 

It won't play on my machine, for some reason. I guess I'll have to borrow someone else's and watch it, then.

TONoel

 

Try here - direct link on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oBp6g5fI04 --

Tom

 

Actually, the Cuckoo Line had a number of stretches at 1 in 50, notably Horam-Heathfield and either side of the Rother dip between Mayfield and Heathfield. Mind you, 1 in 60 is still quite steep, but at least (as far as the use of small engines is concerned) the Bluebell will only have short sections of line at this gradient, unlike the Mid Hants, with three miles of solid 1 in 60 from Butts Junction to the summit near Medstead. 1 in 60 is also less steep that the last mile up to Tenterden on the K&ESR, and the P and Terriers cope well there given sensible loads. I also think that the long 1 in 75 from Horsted Keynes up to the tunnel has been slightly re-profiled due to embankment slippage and now includes a short section of 1 in 60.

 

It has, the 1 in 60 is near the tunnel around Black Hut. I have a photographers PTS and it is very noticeable how the gradient changes as you approach that section on foot, I wondered why it was there when I last walked that way and your explanation of an embankment slip would make sense.

 

There is also a corresponding section at 1:134. If you are on the footplate, you can definitely feel the change of pace of the engine as the gradient changes. It's much less obvious from within a carriage.

Tom

 

Not part of the Northern Extension but after a survey on plans surrounding the redevelopment of Haywards Heath station. 71% of people felt that safeguarding the Bluebell to be important/very important which is very good news for both the Bluebell and Haywards Heath (not that there's really anything of interest there). Obviously n
as the Bluebell website says its a way off with other jobs to do on the line not least this last half a millionor so pounds for East Grinstead.

 

Just looked at the latest Philpot blog and nothing appears to be happening ,i assume because of the weather, if things dont improove on the weather front, allowing the cutting to dry out it must surely put any hope of opening to East Grinstead at Easter in dought or are the Bluebell holding back to raise the bulk of the cash first?

 

There's more to the northern extension than just the tip (which is all that Robert Philpot chooses to record) - a lot of work has gone on at Kingscote in relaying the track and changing the signalling in preparation of extending north.

The weather is clearly not helpful (though the glass-half-full side of me says better that we had poor weather this year, when ultimately there is no real problem with delays at the tip, than that we had it last year, when delays would have been financially catastrophic). There was a certain amount of contingency in the plan, though I suspect that has been eroded. I think there is also a fair amount of re-ordering going on, getting on with tasks that are less weather affected.

Tom

 

Coming down the new gradient James you'll be lucky if the glass is even half full.

 

Nah, just a case of keeping an eye on the level and making sure the jack is on when you go over the hump. :smile:

It's Tom by the way...

Tom

 

Touche!