Bluebell Northern Extension - so what's occurring then?

If water capacity is a possible issue for smaller loco's then another water column at Kingscote could be the answer. The biggest issue with low water will be locos that face towards Sheffield Park having enough water in the water tank and the boiler to compensate for the steeper gradient. Thus ensuring the water level doesn't drop below the firebox crown when tackling the steepest part of extension.

 

THanks Chaps for encouraging answers. Glad to hear that the vintage fleet can continue to "earn its keep" on one or two coach specials, in between the longer regular services. That's what makes the Bluebell a bit special.

 

Sorry, that's a bit of a nonsense. When the engine gets to EG (which is level), the crown must be well covered whichever way the loco is facing, so the requirement for water is basically the same either way. Yes, your boiler management to get there may be different between north and south facing locos, but the overall water requirement is the same.If you get to EG and there is no water left in the tanks, you have cut it too fine!

Which is the point I was making about load limits: I suspect they are chosen at least in part to ensure that the smallest engines always have a reserve of water in hand, rather than working out what is the largest load an engine of given size could theoretically shift on a given gradient. The ability of Terriers and P tanks to move quite big loads up the steep grade into Tenterden on the KESR would seem to indicate that our locos are working well below their theoretical haulage capacity, but the difference is that at Tenderden you don't have about 7 miles of near-solid 1:75 to use up lots of water before getting to the final steep bit.

As for water at Kingscote: won't happen. There is no historical precedent, and the objective is to try to return that station as far as possible to its 1950s appearance. There is also not a convenient source to get water from, e.g. a river, and I suspect there would also be Environment Agency and Water Board issues to cross even if there was one. With a water supply at East Grinstead, there will be no need to take water at Kingscote.

Tom

 

Re water supply there is one small historical artefact that I do not think exists at any preserved station (correct me if I'm wrong) but was once a feature of many country stations and that is the windpump. It was once quite common in the South of England for rural stations to have a water tank fed from the chalk aquifer using a nearby windpump (Tenterden had one I think, Ropley definitely did). These have almost disapeared from our landscape now but if water for locos was ever required at Kingscote this would be a novel but legitimate way to provide it. I hope someone preserves a windpump as they are all rusting away in fields now!

 

Definitely; the Autumn Colours trains with the ex LNWR observation car (that once plied the Llandudno Jn - Blaenau Ffestiniog branch) are a great reminder of the original Bluebell ethos.

 

Would you mind if I said "show your working" (for my benefit)?

Thanks

 

Hi Tom,
Having a pedantic side, surely an excellent fireman, a novice third man and anyone in between is under the supervision of the driver, who should be keeping an eye on things at all times?
Andy

 

Yes, though assuming the absolute novice third man isn't doing anything dangerous (for example, water too low) or that would be detrimental to driving (for example, water too high, risking priming), then the driver may decide to let him / her get on with it so they can learn from their mistakes. So it is entirely possible that, what with excess blowing off due to poor (but not dangerous) firing, an engine getting delayed and spending time waiting at a station steam heating while waiting for a delayed service the other way, an engine in poor condition etc etc that there could be 20 or 30% difference in water consumption between "best" and "worst" case scenarios.

My feeling is that we have set load limits so that even at the "worst" case, we still have some in hand to get at least from SP to KC (and soon EG) with a reserve of water. Whereas in the "best" case with the same load (and remembering that on our line, most of the water consumption is in the up direction and you don't use much coming back) it is often possible on a small engine loaded to its maximum to do the round trip without taking water at KC and still have a comfortable amount in reserve. With tender engines and the larger tank engines, there is never any problem.

Tom

 

There is one (a wind pump) at the Weald and Downland Museum at Singleton, though admittedly not in a railway context.

Since it seems to have sparked some interest, this is a brief description of the historic and current water supply points on the line:

Sheffield Park

This is the natural watering point on the line, since it is where the railway crosses the River Ouse, meaning a plentiful supply of water. The old water tower at the country end of the station is still in use, though the old steam pump is now replaced with a modern electric pump, which also provides a high pressure supply for boiler washouts.

Waste rainwater from the roof of the new Woodpax carriage shed is harvested into a large tank situated behind the water tower and periodically this is pumped into the main water tower. This reduces the amount we have to extract from the river, saving water charges, though it will be interesting to see what the long term impact on boiler chemistry will be, as it will be completely different in pH etc to the river water.

Horsted Keynes

The old water tower still exists, though the tank has gone. There are dummy water cranes at each end of each platform and the pipework connecting them up was recently renovated during a period when the track was being relaid through the station. So given a suitable water tank, the water cranes could be connected up quite easily. However, the water table is at extreme depth (something like 90 feet) so that water has always been scarce at HK, to the extent that each crane carries the prototypical warning to enginemen only to take water in extreme necessity.

I believe it is an objective in the next version of the long term plan to eventually reinstate the water supply. Apart from the visual improvement that would make to the station, I assume it would be a necessity if we ever extended towards Ardingly.

There is also a (modern) parachute tank in the down yard. This is mainly for the convenience of engines spending all day shunting at HK, or engines like Baxter running Ardingly shuttles all day during galas. Although it could be used by a service loco, it would be operationally inconvenient as you would have to uncouple and run into the yard, delaying the service. So it is a "last resort". I believe the supply comes from the domestic mains.

Kingscote

Historically there was never a water supply there. Currently, we have a 1960s petrol tanker stationed there (tucked behind the north signal box) for watering locos if required via a small electric pump. The supply comes from the domestic mains.

I'd imagine that this will be taken away once we get to EG, though it is possible that it may spend some time (in the cripple siding) at EG initially if the line is opened before the new water tower at EG is commissioned.

Eventually, I think the tanker wagon will be put up for disposal once it is no longer needed as a water tank, since it is not considered part of our heritage fleet of wagons.

East Grinstead

A new water tower, in traditional style, will be built at the London end of the station; the money for this has come from Mid Sussex District Council as a grant. Recent photos from Robert Philpot show that currently the tank exists on site (as it has done for a couple of years) and there is a large pile of bricks, but construction hasn't yet started. I'm not sure what the actual watering arrangements will be; there isn't a water crane on the platform so I assume it will be via a hose, as is currently the case at Kingscote.

The water will come from rainwater harvested from the viaduct; any shortfall I imagine will be from the mains.

Tom

 

Probably the most commercially valuable carriage on the line, and almost certainly the vehicle that has run the biggest mileage of any carriage in preservation; certainly on our line. :smile:

Tom

 

I remember being told, fairly authoritively by a fellow volunteer, years ago that the reason for discouraging the taking of water at Horsted Keynes was due to the quality of the water there - apparently it wasn't very kind to boilers. Tom 's comment about the depth of the water table is interesting, and I'm now wondering if the quality issue was one of those stories that grows because someone sees a sign (only take water when essential) and then thinks up a reason for it. Or maybe both are correct!

In case anyone misunderstands, Tom's remark about "dummy" water cranes shouldn't be taken to mean that they aren't real. They are the originals - they just don't have a water supply at the other end of the pipes!

Steve B

 

View attachment WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID(A).doc

This chat about "worst case scenarios" reminds me of a night a few years ago that I scribbled some reminiscences about. The crew were very experienced, but life conspired to chuck several large metaphorical spanners in their works. If I can manage to insert the file, you may find it of interest.

 

Thanks JTX - sounds like you had a bit of a night of it. Why does it always choose to rain on days when everything goes to pot?

Tom

 

It may be a bit of both. Klaus Marx, in his line history, mentions that water was always in short supply and the situation got worse when the local water board tapped the Holy Well to supply Haywards Heath. The well in the HK water tower was rebored twice, looking for water that seems to have been receding! But, once the instruction went out not to use the water except in emergency, the water in the tank would have filled with algae &c as a result of rarely being drawn off. Such water is not the best, sometimes causing foaming in the boiler and possibly leading to increased priming. So it is quite possible that the instruction about not taking water was due to its scarcity, but that in turn led to poor quality. Some of our drivers prefer not to take water from the petrol tanker at Kingscote if they can avoid it, for the same reason.

As for "dummy" water cranes - yes, they are genuine, complete with Brighton works plates just like any engine, carriage or wagon!

Tom

 

Also known as "The Law of Sod"

 

Thanks for that - makes a lot of sense!

Steve B

 

Wonderful worst case scenario, brought back many happy memories of days on the footplate on the SVR, many familiar names and some brilliant characters. Thanks Gary

 

Not to doubt you, but somewhere in a Blue News (mine are all boxed up somewhere so I can't check), wasn't there a table for some of the coaches which said that the disabled access coach (Mk1?) had run a massive mileage too? I could have sworn that it was higher than the Obo, but thinking about it, the Obo would make more sense...

Also, Tom-you mentioned Klaus Marx's history of the line-I've never seen that before... Is it on sale anywhere?

Thanks,

Dan

 

Agreed! Any others like that?

 

It was a quick and simple calc simply along the lines of P class TE is 7810 lbf. On a 1 in 55 grade that equates to a balancing load of 7810 x 55 / 2240 = 191 tons knock off 15% for friction, etc (because I couldn't be bothered working it out properly and that's what we always did when working out loads for our (NCB) locos) gives 162 tons. take off the loco weight of 28.5 tons gives 133.8 tons at starting. You have to haul it at some speed and TE drops of as speed increases and I don't have any info to hand so I opted for 120 tons payload. As I said, very basic and on a fag packet.
As for horsepower, 80 tons at the drawbar on 1 in 55 is 1.454 tonf x 20 mph x 1.467 (to get it to ft/s) x 4.073 x 1.15 (to include the magical 15%) gives 204 hp at the drawbar. That's far too much for a loco of that size as a continuous output and I'm making a sensible guesstimate that it will be more in the region of 100 hp.
if I was going to do the calculation properly, I'd be looking at an awful lot more info than I've used for this basic calc but I bet I'm not far wrong. I spent years doing these rough calcs in my head . Load (tons)/gradient x speed (mph) x 7 will give a pretty good estimate of what horsepower you need and you don't need a calculator. Don't try it with long trains on shallow gradients, though!