Bluebell Railway Extension To Ardingly

Hi all,

I found this on another forum today. Looks like there are plans for the Ardingly line extension. Maybe someone at the Bluebell knows a bit more about this. Would they like to comment about this?

http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/cttee/plng/plng301110i4ai.pdf

 

I think the notes on the drawing answer your question:

"This drawing is indicitive and is intended to aid discussions towards a final solution"
"Issue 0; Oct 2010 preliminary for information only."
"Appendix 9 - Bluebell Railway Feasibility Drawing"

When the Bluebell railway purchased the branch it was fairly obvious that they would eventually extend in this direction.
The spoil removal from Imberhorne to this area for use in filling in missing parts of the formation, showed that the railway was keeping this project in mind and using opportunities to repair parts of the line without costing lots of money or distracting from the northern extension. I think it was mentioned in Steam Railway or Heritage Railway recently that Hanson (who own the Ardingly station area) wanted to redevelop their site, so it makes sense that the Bluebell is negotiating to leave a route for a connection, even if it isn't used for another 10?/20? years!

Keith
(Not a Bluebell member, but an interested onlooker!)

 

I've heard about the redevelopment plans before. I don't know how regularly there are stone trains. I occasionally see them waiting at Three Bridges.

Looking at the drawing it seems that Haywards Heath is the goal which makes things difficult in that about half way from Copyhold Junction and Haywards Heath there is a set of points and the line from Ardingly becomes electrified plus having available space in Haywards Heath for run round and water facilities (which I think Roy Watts has said would be needed)

But before then its concentraing on East Grinstead.

Am I right in seeing 2 tracks on the drawing at the top of the drawing in blue or is that something else

 

My theory on the colours used:

Blue track - Network rail
Black track - Hanson (existing)
Red track - Hanson/Bluebell (new)

Keith

 

If you look at the text document (planning report about planning application by Hanson to replace 1960s plant on the site with something more modern) you will see that any future Bluebell track beyond Ardingly, through the aggregates terminal site, could be many years away (which is fine, since we need to get to East Grinstead, and then have quite a bit of work to do on the remaining railway, before we think about either rebuilding the line to Ardingly, let alone beyond). The important thing is that the way forward to do that at some stage in the future is protected (as per the MSDC Policy AR2). The following is extracted from the report to which the drawing is an appendix:
"8.39 The northern part of the application site, defined by the red line boundary, encroaches onto the line of the disused railway between Horsted Keynes and Haywards Heath. The proposal involves retaining the existing concrete paving where the site intersects with the former railway line. The major works would be in the south of the application site where the replacement plant would stand clear of the former track bed. The proposed development involves no significant changes that would preclude the possibility of reinstating the railway at some time in the future. However, the present and proposed operation of the Ardingly Depot rely upon the import of stone brought into the site by rail. The imported stone is transferred by conveyor belt to bunkers occupying the former track bed. This land, which is in applicant’s control, lies to the north of the plant area outside the current application site (see area marked as ‘STOCK BAYS’ on Appendix 5 – Proposed Site Layout).
8.40 Mid Sussex District Council has objected to the application on the grounds that, in the absence of clarity, the proposed layout does not appear to safeguard the possible reinstatement of the railway link and, therefore, the proposal conflicts with Policy AR2.
8.41 It is acknowledged that the proposed development has the potential to delay the possible reinstatement of the railway line. However, the Depot site is an existing lawful operation safeguarded as a railhead under Policy 37 of the Minerals Local Plan and the applicant is entitled to beneficial occupation the land he leases. Accordingly, the current activity, in planning terms, can continue on the site. If in the future the current use ceases and there is no longer a strategic need for a railhead, then, subject to negotiation with the then landowners and the nature of any intended future use of the land, the opportunity to reinstate the railway line will arise.
8.42 Discussions between the applicant and the Bluebell Railway have identified more precisely the extent of the land required to reinstate the railway. (Appendix 9 – Bluebell Railway Feasibility Drawing) It is clear that the Depot at the safeguarded railhead, as currently configured, could not continue to operate alongside the railway. Reinstatement of the railway line may however prove possible before the current use ceases if the applicant’s operation of the Depot alters such that the land currently used for storage of stone (and which lies outside the current application site) is no longer essential for operational purposes. In support of the feasibility drawing it is understood agreement has been reached on ‘Heads of Terms’ between Hanson and the
Bluebell Railway which provide stronger recognition of the scope for reinstating the Bluebell Line.
8.43 On a practical note, the proposal involves replacement plant that would be transported from another site operated by the applicant. As this plant is capable of being transported, it is likely that it could be removed at the end of its life or transferred to another site and therefore its siting would not prejudice the possible reinstatement of the railway line.
8.44 In conclusion, the proposal complies with Policy AR2 of the Local Plan as the development, by virtue of its siting and ability to be relocated, does not prejudice the possible future reinstatement of the railway link to the north of the site."

 

I think there were plans mooted to perhaps have the Ardingly branch as 3rd rail electrified section to allow running of heritage electric traction, or was that wishful thinking on someone's behalf?