Bluebell Northern Extension - so what's occurring then?

Is that a Bluebell requirement? It seems a bit OTT to me. There is no sensible reason for it and drivers being alone on the footplate when running round and even shunting is very common on other railways. It was the norm to single man in industry and even BR had some steam locos single manned.

 

In this day and age of health and safety it is usual for the local rule book to state two crew must be on the footplate. Some exceptions such as operating ground frames exist where the loco(s) will be running at slow speed.
For the lines I have worked on this has always been the case.

Dave

 

I've been involved with 3 preserved railways and I don't think it's been a requirement in any rule book for shunting movements or run-rounds. It does seem a bit OTT as Steve says.

 

The simple reason is cost. By not removing all of the tip, and using a fair bit of the clay capping to build up the levels leading up into the cutting, then the cost of the project is substantially reduced. In an ideal world, all the waste would have been removed along with the clay, which would have resulted in the original profile Imberhorne Cutting. We aren't in an ideal world, so enough spoil and clay have been removed/moved about to enable a railway through to East Grinstead.

Its worth pointing out that Imberhorne Cutting was not a small cutting, but a long and deep double track cutting. If in any doubt about it, have a look at the excellent appeal video at Bluebell Railway - East Grinstead Extension Progress

Daniel

 

A couple of questions have been going through my mind in relation to the signalling at East Grinstead:

1 When the Bluebell says that the signalling of the line to East Grinstead will be controlled from Kingscote, does this imply that eventually the south end points will all be motorised and remotely operated from Kingscote (together with any associated signals)? I'm assuming that there would be no need to change the north end point from local hand operation - it could even be weighted (if such things are still allowed).

2 With regard to the Network Rail connection, is there any interlocking of the Bluebell ground frame with the Network Rail system, or is it done under local supervision and telephone with the NR signallers? I also notice that whilst there is protection for the Bluebell against any unauthorised NR train movement (trap points), is there any protection going the other way? (Not that the risk is all that great at present!).

Just curious and with too much time on my hands...

With regard to the above discussion about double manning whilst running round, I remember in the early 70's when the Bluebell terminated at Horsted Keynes it was quite common on days when there was only one train operating for HK box to be switched out and opened and operated by the train crew for running round. I saw on several occasions the fireman jump off the moving train as it arrived to go and operate the box leaving the train to enter the station without him, rejoining the loco after the run round had been completed and having obtained the token and switched out the box again. I can't see the ORR being very impressed with some of that today!

Thanks

Steve B

 

Is it planned to restore it as such, or retain the lower cladding?

 

The relevant rule says:

The exceptions effectively allow for running diesels, Wickham trolleys etc, but otherwise, since any runround involves travelling on a running line, you must have two crew. Certainly in my time as a volunteer, I have never known an engine to move without two on the footplate, except for an "easing up" manoeuvre.

Tom

 

If my understanding of planning regulations is right, any restoration would have to preserve the form it was in when listed. Even if the reason for listing was that it was a "stilts" box underneath, if it had cladding at the time of listing, any renovation would have to be "like for like". An exception could be made with the agreement of the local council conservation officer. That's my understanding anyway.

It would also depend I guess on what use we wanted to make of it long term, which is still a long way off. I'd have thought closed in would be more useful to us.

Tom

 

Am I right in thinking that it will be run from Kingscote in much the same way as Pickering is run from New Bridge?

 

Certainly not in phase 1. Dim and distant memory says that there is a plan for a more extensive signalling installation, but actually I can't quite see the point, since with only one platform, it doesn't add any real operational flexibility. (It would enable crossing of a goods train and a passenger train at EG, but because there is only one platform, you couldn't cross two passenger trains). But I might have mis-remembered plans for a notional phase 2.

Movements from the Bluebell to NR are done just by local telephone call to the NR signaller. The protection of the NR line is that the crossover points are locked "normal" into the Bluebell station. They can only be released by unlocking the ground frame using the KC - EG token. There is also a metal gate across the tracks which has to be padlocked into the "open" position, but as far as I am aware, there is no "detection" that the gates are open.

Unauthorised movements from NR to Bluebell are protected by a trap point on the NR side. For authorised movements from NR, a member of Bluebell staff has to travel from KC to EG with the token, presumably by road or on foot. After unlocking the gates and padlocking them open, they can use the token to unlock the "south" ground frame, operate the points and trap point to set the road and then clear the shunt signal on the NR side. Once the train is safely on the Bluebell side of the fence, the points and signals are returned to normal, gates padlocked across the tracks, the token removed from the ground frame (which effectively locks it all in the "normal" position) and the train can then proceed to KC with the token and, presumably, a Bluebell pilotman.


Tom

 

After all this talk of signalling, there is a short extension update, detailing arrival on site of the Kingscote down inner home on site - this will be a BR(S) pattern colour light signal.

Bluebell Railway - East Grinstead Extension Progress

Tom

 

Tom will confirm, but I think that the implication is only that the section will be controlled by Kingscote, presumably in the form of a one engine in steam staff. The points at EG being controlled by ground frame(s).

I don't think it has been mentioned so far, but one reason for not grouping handpoint or ground frame levers into one location is that the points that they control must be clearly visible from the ground frame. This is because you don't have signals to "prove" the route. If I have followed the planned installation for EG (at least to begin with) there won't be any signals, so the ground frames must be adjacent to the points they control. Hand levers obviously are too.

As the section is to be operated "one engine in steam" there is no need to install signals at EG as there won't be any conflicting movements to control. This is very similar to the arrangements at Alton on the MHR for many years (although we were able to bring a second train through the section as we have the meon loop just outside the station as a passing place). Perhaps the Bluebell will also install such a loop one day....when the finances permit. I assume there isn't the room for a second platform at EG.

 

Tom, out of interest, is it a token, or a staff. By which I mean is there a token instrument at each end of the Kingscote / EG section, or is there just one "token" for the section, this often called a staff, and not requiring a token instrument?

 

Thanks for your answers to my questions - much appreciated.

Steve B

 

By that definition then it is a "staff" - there is only one instrument, so once the token (or staff) is checked out of KC, it can only be checked back in to KC - there is no instrument at EG.

Being a mere grubby engineman, the finer points of signalling nomenclature sometimes pass me by - I just know I have to lean out of the cab and catch a big hoopy thing and make sure it is engraved with the right words

Tom

 

Will indeed be one engine in steam, no signals at EG (except the dummies controlling access from / to NR) and all points operated by ground frames, except the north end point in the platform which will be a hand point.

There was quite a long discussion about this a while back on the Bluebell mailing list and I think the conclusion reached was that, because the KC-EG section time (7 - 8 minutes one way) was short relative to any of the other section times (typically 15 minutes one way), having a loop (which would have to be south of the viaduct) added very little extra flexibility to the timetable, while introducing considerable extra expense in P/Way and S&T. Whereas I guess at Alton, the Alton - M4M section is broadly similar length to the other sections on the line, so having that as "one engine in steam" must have acted to restrict the overall timetable to a level below what the rest of the line could support - hence the justification of adding the loop that I guess effectively doubled the line capacity on that section and therefore over the whole line.

Tom

 

I can't see the logic of having a token instrument if the line to EG is to be operated as one engine in steam. It's extra cost, complication and maintenance. A simple Annetts key would suffice as a staff. Unless, of course, an instrument is going to be provided at EG. Trains to & from Network Rail will require possession of a staff it would have to be brought to site by road from Kingscote. Having a token instrument at EG would eliminate this need.

 

Just to re-iterate that point: I can't find my extension booklet that had the facts and figures, but as I recall, the cutting is 484 yards long between the bridges (so probably over 500 in total); about 12 - 13 yards deep and over 30 yards wide at the top. The clay capping was about 2-3 yards deep but of course, that was at the top of the trapezoid as it were, so although only 1/4 of the depth, represents a significant part of the total volume; moreover, to form a seal, the clay cap extended beyond the edge of the cutting to form a kind of "T" shaped plug. So it is a serious amount of stuff...

Tom

 

Listing does not entirely forbid alterations to a building - it just requires that Listed Building Consent is obtained. This process is more difficult than the average planning permission process but certainly not impossible if a good case can be made (e.g. for moving a listed building from one place to another :dance. As you say, whether the Bluebell wants to do it is another question.

 

That rule is in any rulebook based on the earlier BR ones but it is meant to cover train movements and I suggest that the Bluebell is being too pedantic if it is applying it for running round purposes where the fireman is operating a ground frame.
Thinking about it, does the Bluebell presently have any ground frames that are operated by footplate crew? I don't know the line well enough to know the answer but SP, HK & KC are all controlled by signalboxes, aren't they?