Bluebell Northern Extension - so what's occurring then?

While Kingscote will operate the signalling to EG, perhap the Billingshurst signal box can at the very least operate the points at EG's station, at least that way it can still be used, in a small way, for what it was built for and not be totally for show.

After all, having the points operated by a simple lever frame by the tracks just isn't as good as a good old signal box...

 

Non-starter I'd have thought.

There are actually three sets of points to worry about.

The most southerly is a point that controls access from the Bluebell to NR and vice versa. This has a point (with lock); associated trap point on the NR side of the fence and two dummy signals, and is controlled by the south ground frame. This groundframe is locked by a key carried on the token.

Next you have a loco-release crossover and access to the cripple siding at the south end of the platform. This is a crossover, with FPLs, but no signals AFAIK (because this will be one engine in steam). This is controlled by a second groundframe, also locked from the token.

Finally you have the north end point that gives access to the loco run round; because this will never be crossed by passenger traffic, it is a simple hand point.

Because the whole area is one engine in steam, with the loco crew operating the points, it makes most sense to have the levers near the points they control. Otherwise - particularly on mid-weeks - you'd have loco crew having to arrive, walk to signal box to change points, walk back to move loco, walk back to box to reset points, walk back to loco etc. Maybe not a problem with a three man crew, but out of the question with a two man crew while still maintaining turn round times.

Indulging in a bit of history, the reason why point and signal levers were first grouped - in the mid 19th century - into a signal box was because it was deemed safer in a station with multiple movements taking place, to have all control in one location. But that doesn't apply here where there will always only be one engine; in fact it is safer to have the person controlling the points near the engine so as to facilitate easy communication with the driver. So I can't see there ever being a case to centralise the frames into a central location, despite the eventual existence of the signalbox.

If I had my way - I'd make it a small museum detailling the work done on the northern extension; and open the top up as a viewing gallery, as it would provide spectacular, or at least unusal to most visitors, views; maybe also providing a small cafe while waiting for trains. But it is equally likely that it may become storage and under-cover shelter for S&T electrical gear...

Tom

 

Most interesting, as noted. Pity, though, that on the railway's official website they can't spell "in principle" correctly ....
(I know I'll be shot down for worrying about this - after all, anything goes these days )

 

Tom, you can probably confirm this, but I think that a legacy from the late Handel Kardas was designated specifically for the installation of a new signal box at Sheffield Park. Obviously not a priority at the moment, but it would be beneficial from an operating point of view and also more authentic considering that Sheffield Park is meant to reflect the LBSC era. It's great news about Billingshurst Box baing saved. My one concern is whether it may be subject to vandalism in East Grinstead. After all, was not the decision to use colour light signalling rather than semaphores at EG made to address this same concern?

 

That's my understanding too, though as you say, quite a way off. The one good thing is that, after years of somewhat neglect, SP now has its own dedicated supporters group (the Friends of Sheffield Park - FoSP) who are starting to get stuck in to giving what is, afterall, our headquarters, the dedicated TLC it needs. Hence the recent work sprucing up the down side canopy, restoring running in boards etc.

With regard any future signal box at SP, it is highly likely that it would be new build, just as has been done so skilfully on the Swanage railway etc.

As for the fire risk of putting a box at EG: that is obviously a risk, and there is not a clear picture yet how you would alleviate it. That said, we will hardly be unique in having that problem, so I am sure there are ways that it can be protected. At the moment, it is not even certain where on site it might go, which I guess would have some impact. Sad as it may seem, we may just have to ensure there is secure fencing round the station site.

That said, how much vandalism problem do other railways with town-centre stations (Minehead, Swanage, Tywyn, Llangollen, Kidderminster etc) face? Is there a problem, and if so, how do they deal with it?

Tom

 

I would hope that East Grinstead doesn't have any slum estates (sorry "social housing") as bad as the ones the Great Central has to deal with at Leicester North. Leicester North looks like a fortress but unfortunately it seems that's necessary.

 

There are only two secondary schools in East Grinstead and one of them is a specialist engineering school. Get into the schools and invite the youngsters to be involved with the railway.

 

That a good point Enterprise.

Rather than ignore the scrotes, get them involved and make them feel a part of it.

Nice one.

Chris:

 

That's what I was expecting. There can't be many LBSC Saxby & Farmer boxes up for grabs. The Swanage Railway have done a great job - Corfe Castle, Harmans Cross and Swanage boxes all look like the LSWR could have built them. I'm quite sure the Bluebell's S&T can produce an equally convincing LBSC box, but as you say, hardly a priority at the moment.

 

Sounds like too many ground frames. Much better centralising it somewhere...

 

Well, you find a way to permanently overnight increase our volunteer availability for signalmen by 33% then I'm sure we could look at centralising in a signalbox :smile:

Until then, where the ground frames are worked by the loco crew, it seems to me safer to keep the ground frame that controls access to NR well and truly separate from that used in day-to-day operation to control the run round. Plus as I say, means the person controlling the points is as close as possible to the locomotive crew to make communication simpler.

Tom

 

Maybe we should start a "Bluebell 2050" thread to discuss the new SP signalbox, Ardingly extension, Lewes extension, turntable, Craven-era new build loco and carriages, LBSC Balloon coach restoration / new build etc etc :smile:

Anyway, with regard SP box - I wonder what design would be chosen. Saxby and Farmer would be typical for the LBSC, but the boxes on the Lewes & East Grinstead Railway were built to a unique design, exemplified by Horsted Keynes. I seem to recall from seeing a photo that the original SP box was similar design (though smaller). So I'd hope that any reconstruction would be done to that design. We would at least have a "typical" Saxby and Farmer box at EG, albeit not in use as a signalbox, as well as the old "Brighton Goods" box that was rescued for eventual use as Kingscote North.

Tom

 

With such a simple layout and operating principle it's hard to see why there's a pressing need for communication between the ground frame operator and the driver to be a priority.

 

But if you have a signalbox you need an extra volunteer to operate it, whereas separate ground frames can more easily be operated by the train crew.

 

True but you'll never get more signalmen if you don't build a signalbox for them!

 

Not a problem! The Bluebell already has 3 operational signalboxes. Since EG will have, as you say, such a simple layout and operating principle a full signalling installation is not required.

 

Indeed, I can see both sides of this, minor, argument. A simple layout and operating method doesn't really need a signalbox but as a Signalman I'm biased towards seeing more boxes erected .

 

Fair enough - looks like you'll be getting the box here - but no signals .

 

Well, in due course we'll have 6, on a technicality: SP, Wythiam (non-operatioal at SP; used as a signalling demonstration); HK; KC south; KC North (will eventually replace KC south); and Billingshurst (non-operational at EG)...

On the more substantive point of the minor argument , the main advantage of keeping the frame near the points comes when you only have a crew of two on an engine. If you concentrated all the levers in e.g. a single location, inevitably it would be remote from some of the points it controlled - so lots of walking back and forth for the loco crew, bearing in mind you have to have two on the footplate any time the engine is moving, so you can't drop someone off to work the frame while the loco moves about. Not a problem if you have a signalman controlling affairs, but that means an extra volunteer (hence the comment about increasing volunteer signalman resources by 33%!), and as I believe, rostering at least 3 (and sometimes more on Saturdays) signalmen for more than 250 days per year is already quite a big ask, particularly mid week. We don't really want to make that task any harder. We're already looking at about 25% more volunteer-days in the loco department, without even thinking about the extra maintenance requirements to keep enough engines in service...

Tom

 

I received the email newsletter the other day and it's clear the BB has indeed imposed a 1:60 on the original gradient diagram north of Kingscote; it was originally 1:75. Not that this is a problem in any way, I have no doubt that here is at least one good reason for it.

Regards