Bluebell Northern Extension - so what's occurring then?

Slightly off-topic, but not by much.

Visited the railway today for the collectors fair at Horsted Keynes, and noticed that the Ardingly spur has had work done, involving the "long siding" being truncated, the mainly line, s-bent over onto what was the "long siding", and the old running line now totally disconnected.
Is this something to do with the turning triangle or something unrelated ? I post here because as far as I can make out, some of the material for the turning triangle is coming from the tip.

 

Was done in connection with a filming job - a biopic about Charles Dickens. They used Furness No 20 as engine and our Victorian stock as carriages.

As I understand, the exact layout of the turning triangle is still to be finalised.

Tom

 

Thanks Tom, I that case will it be reverted to the original layout ?

 

Not sure - I'd assume so but I suspect that any work may depend on the final designs worked out for the turning facility.

Tom

 

Would it be something like umm a Triangle?

 

Yes and no...

Firstly, it is not obvious quite how it would be arranged. The obvious thing would be a third chord linking the Ardingly and Sheffield Park lines; however, that presents a lot of extra signalling complexity on the mainline (something we need like a hole in the head right now...). So another option is to have two chords both coming off the Ardingly line and meeting near to (but not intersecting) the SP mainline. That simplifies signalling (though it is still complex, because the Ardingly line is already fully signalled in preparation of its eventual extension, and there are no spare levers at HK). But then you have the issue of minimum radius, which is very tight if you want to get a minimum curve of say 5 - 6 chains radius and still leave each shunting neck with enough space for a loco or carriage plus a shunting engine (as well as turning visiting engines, we want to be able to turn carriages to even out wear and tear). Then add in the fact that the land between the Ardingly and SP lines drops into a shallow valley, plus the fact that the levels of the two lines are not the same (the SP line falls at 1:75, but the Ardingly falls at 1:60 so the two lines diverge in vertical alignment). So all in all it is quite a complex problem to see how it all fits together.

Some of us think we should just bite the bullet, cross the A275 south of SP (re-instating a bridge over the main road with pumps to stop it flooding); buy the old dairy site and move the loco works there with a turntable. But that is a project for another day!

Tom

 

Now theres a plan, how about a nice roundhouse aswell
:behindsofa:

Joking aside, would be brilliant to head south from SP, but after the epic of the tip and the ardingly line .....

 

If you can accept a turntable instead of a triangle, surely a 70 ft would easily fit in the vee at HK. Stock could be turned on something that size as well.

 

I think the situation is still fluid. A turntable would be ideal but previous discussion around the railway seemed to indicate that it would be a more expensive option than a turning triangle, which also has the advantage of using up clay capping from the tip that would otherwise have to be disposed of at cost to the railway. (We could make a few £/ton selling the clay, but that would be swamped by the £20/ton or more to transport it away, so in effect, if we can't dispose of it round the railway, we would be selling at a loss). Also, there don't appear to be too many turntables on the market at the moment, so we might end up having to construct one from new. Hence figures of £500k - £750k were the general ballpark for a turntable.

That said, were it not for the fact we have the clay capping, it would probably be the best solution, though not where you suggest (too much ground work required) - a better location would be north west of the "up" sidings at HK, where the crane is currently stored - or else find a location at SP.

Having said all that, I'm still not 100% convinced that a final solution has been decided on by the powers that be, which is why you get vague statements about a "turning facility" rather than definitively saying a "turning triangle" or a "turntable". At the very least, I think the signalling complexity introduced by connecting a triangle to even just the Ardingly line is not ideal if and when we actually extended in that direction. So we may end up with a "temporary" solution of a turning triangle for the next 20 years or so, but then investigate a "permanent" solution of a turntable if and when we decide to extend westwards. But that is advanced speculation on my part...

Tom

 

Tom,

Is there any update on the fundraising situation? The outstanding amount has stood offically at £570,000 on the website ever since the AGM, if not earlier. However, the "Fiver for the finish" chap was doing a pretty brisk trade when I had a ride up to Kingscote in April, and although this isn't the most likely way of being given, say £100,000 in one hit, all these small donations must be nibbling away at the total.

 

Use the clay to infill the vee and build the turntable on top. I suspect the clay could be stabilised with cement beneath the turntable location. I'm also wondering if a novel turntable design could reduce the cost. Something more like a traverser with multiple support wheels rather than the standard pit with large steel beams as found at most BR mpds. After all it wouldn't be used every day and all day as BR turntables were.

 

Friction might be the enemy with multiple wheels, but there are other ways of cutting costs - one is the brick wall surrounding the pit. In Australia I've seen turntables (I'm thinking of Woornambool, which I helped to repaint many years ago) that are just shallow earth pits with a concreted in pivot and no brick ring, just cast concrete abutments at the entrance and exit points.

 

float it on compressed air? or steam? Heh the first captive hovercraft.

The warnambool turntable seems to have the girders above ground instead of sunk, (Looking on google mapping) which doeas away with the deep pit, but still requies a lot of steelwork fabrication.

 

From memory, there's definitely a shallow pit, and I don't remember the steelwork being noticably heavier than a british 'table, but as I said, it was abot 20 years ago (and a very memorable and enjoyable weekend with Steamrail Victoria)

 

John

There is not a more up-to-date figure that I can find (and I have been doing a bit of sleuthing...)

I think the main reason is that the Bluebell prefer to report a "funding gap" (i.e. the difference between cash in hand, and what they estimate they still need to spend), rather than report those two figures separately. Obviously the funding gap can change as a result of changes to project cost independently of how fast funds are flowing in. For example, the recent wet weather delayed work at the tip, but some money was still being expended on vehicle hire. Naturally, the project has a contingency budget built in for such things, but it does make it harder to say what the exact funding gap is on a day-by-day basis.

So I am expecting that the next time a funding gap is reported will be when the heavy profiling work at the cutting is finished, as that will be another job ticked off and one less uncertainty in calculating how much funding is still required.

In the meantime, fundraising continues, both in regular donations (such as Fiver for the Finish certificates sold on trains) and pre-planend events, the next of which is the "Track Trek" - a sponsored walk from KC to EG and back (or vice versa) taking place on 30 September - see Bluebell Railway - Funding for the Finish - Track Trek. If you want to see the cutting up close and personal before trains start running, that will be your only chance.

Sorry for the slightly equivocal answer!

Tom

 

All this talk of turntables is fun - but with the caveat that I still think a turning triangle is more likely, at least in the first instance.

But assuming the decision was for a permanent turntable, my view is that between the V is unlikely simply because that location would inevitably require a point somewhere off one of the running lines. That means a point, a facing point lock and a signal, and we don't have the spare levers in HK box! Moreover, HK has recently been re-locked and the current electrical system of points and signals is slowly being transferred back to the lever frame, with mechanical signals (traditional dummies replacing position light signals where appropriate) and electric points worked from the frame with mechanical interlocking. So I can't see the S&T guys being too keen to "plumb in" another connection from the running lines. HK box has a 40 lever frame, but with bi-directional runing through 4 platform roads and a junction to signal, it is already at its limit. And the frame can't be extended as the box is listed and can't be extended to take the extra length of a bigger frame. That means if we did have a turntable as a permanent fixture, it would have to lead off an existing siding: the obvious places are at the north end of the "up" yard (most likely in my view) or at the south end of the "down" yard (less likely as that is the PWay yard, and I doubt they want to give it up).

But anyway, innovative design or not, I suspect this is all years away...

Tom

 

Thanks for your effots, Tom. Still very helpful. The walk through the cutting would have been fun if I still lived in Sussex, but we're about 150 miles away now - rather a long way to come just for a short walk, albeit a very intersting one. I hope it goes well.

 

From the weekly Bluebell email newsletter:

 

Blimey 1:60 out of EG. Looking forward to listening to a few soundtracks coming out of there with 6 full mark ones.

 

Yes, and also 1:60 going the other way from someway south of the tip up to the summit. Is going to give a different dynamic to firing on the line.

Tom