Bluebell Railway General Discussion

Further to Tom's post another coach has been mentioned as a wheelchair accessible coach
I think it is this one http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/exhb_coach.html.
rather than one of 4441 or 4444 orignally considered.

 

Tom, does the obvious momentum with the current carriage shed appeal mean that the structure is now likely to get walls and doors as well as a roof?

46118

 

I believe there is due to be a project steering group meeting later in November, where the next priorities will be agreed. However, I think that the lean-to building along the East wall that will serve as a store, trim shop etc, is likely to be considered a higher priority than the walls.

Tom

 

That makes sense. It doesn't seem to have much of a future without conversion. Operating departments tend not to like dragging low capacity coaching stock around unless they can charge a premium for people to sit in them.

 

Tom

The (so called) lean to building is not the store other than for moquette for the trim shop - it is moquette store, trim shop, office, varnishing shop, locker room and some other facilities to replace the various temporary buildings around the site. The main store is a separate building down towards the salt yard which will replace aprox 20 shipping containers.

David R

 

Hello,
Any more news on the shed project....


Another £20.00 plus gift aid deposited tonight.


Nick

 

Thanks Nick for the donation.

I haven't heard anything. There was apparently a steering group meeting for the project last week, at which it was hoped to decide on the next steps and therefore what the next financial milestone would be, but I haven't heard any news, even via the grapevine. It is possible I guess that they are waiting to give a project update in the next issue of Bluebell News, which is (touch wood) out just before Christmas.

Current reported income is about £364,500.

Tom

 

@nick813 - apparently there is going to be an update in Sunday's e-newsletter - I'll post here when it comes.

Tom

 

For anyone who is interested, as part of the project I am currently working on, today I had to walk from Haywards Heath to Copyhold Junction along the railway. It is very noticeable, from trackside, that it is feasible (albeit I suspect effing costly) to make room for an extra track from the point where the Ardingly line joins onto the Down Slow right the way through to the carriage sidings at Haywards Heath.

It would involve a fairly short length of civil engineering works (a new retaining wall on the down side of Old Wickham Lane bridge, allowing excavation of the cutting side in order to bring an extra span into use, plus widening the cutting, and the embankment from Old Wickham Lane to Copyhold Junction). A quick finger in the air guestimate says that the amount of spoil from widening the cutting isn't quite enough to widen the embankment, but it isn't far off. This work could also all take place within existing railway land, as the land boundry fence is quite a way from the foot of the embankment along there.

Now I understand that this is quite a hefty amount of CE works, but it isn't anything compared to the work undertaken at Imberhorne, or the work still to be done at Sheriff Mill, and is at the very least a technical possibility in the future to allow an independent running line down towards HH station. Platform capacity at HH would still be an issue, though the possibility of putting a platform on the carriage sidings is there - I've been working on this project for months now, and the only time I've seen them in use is whilst we've had possessions of the line up to Three Bridges, and they've been used then. Generally speaking, they seem to be be only used as a headshunt for the stone train to run round. I won't mention the fact that the S&T troughing routes, location cases and whatnot are in the way as well (if only because I imagine that a full blown resignalling of the area would have to occur as part of the work)

Food for thought, perhaps.

John

 

I assume (dangerous statement) that the clearance required would be a 10ft or more.
Would there also be a requirement for it to be separately fenced off? As possibly considered as a separate railway system.

 

I wonder just how onerous operational restrictions would be, even if we could get an entirely segregated line? I seem to recall there are restrictions on the Spa Valley at Eridge both in personnel who can work on the line, and the type of rolling stock they use, and that is just adjacent to a 60mph line - running parallel (even if separated) to a 90mph 4 track mainline is presumably much more restricting in what would be allowed? (I imagine that the NR concern would be if there was an incident on the heritage line, whether it could be dealt with without causing obstruction or interference to the main line).

Nice to know that there is, at least in theory, space though!

Tom

 

Hi Bryan, from what I've seen (in photos only I hasten to add) the heritage and NR lines at Eridge aren't separated by a fence and don't look as if they have much more than the usual '6 foot'. Wasn't that why the out of gauge Polish 'Ferrums' couldn't work beyond the junction? Maybe someone associated with the Spa Valley can confirm.
Cheers Ray.

 

I suspect that operationally it would be limited to stock that could be upgraded to "main line" standards, so probably only the Mk1s and possibly the Bulleid and Maunsell Stock, plus locos fitted with AWS and TPWS at the very least - there would be, at Copyhold Junction, a point at which you could take either the new "back road" that I postulate, or join the Down Slow, and that type of potential conflict would need full train protection to current main line standards - a separate running line there may well be, but it would undoubtedly be Network Rail infrastructure, as would the whole line from Ardingly . I'd imagine that staff would have to be limited to those PTS and DC Conductor Rail trained, due to the immediate proximity of the juice rail, so yes, it would be a logistical nightmare - but I wasn't really talking about the logistics, more just the physical practicalities, which I have heard used as a reason for trains never running into HH in the future.

John

 

Just a note that, despite the start of the Santa / Christmas service, there are still some "ordinary" services available.

Specifically, Monday 8th and Monday 15th, there are "Christmas Shopping Specials" for £5 return SP to EG - depart 10.00am, return 3.30pm. (Essentially these are balancing workings for EG to SP "Festive Feast" services, which are sold out both days). With free parking at SP, you'll probably save relative to the all-day parking in EG!

The Loco Roster for December is now online - five engines in steam this Sunday and both days for the following weekends! http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/loco_roster.html

I haven't seen the traffic notice, but reading between the lines, I think the plan is:

Saturday

• 1638 on the first Santa
• 847 on the second Santa / Evening Golden Arrow
• 323 and 263 on the Reindeer Special
• 323 also the morning pilot engine.

Sunday

• 1638 on the first Santa
• 847 on the second Santa
• B473 on Lunchtime GA
• 263 on Reindeer Special
• 323 on pilot duty

Tom

 

Regarding the possible issues with running adjacent to a 90mph 4-track main line - what happens at Cholsey?

 

To run wooden bodied coaches on Netrail track you need a section for and aft of the train, so the main line trains must be only running at 1/4 of the line compactly at the time of the wooden bodied coach train was running.

 

No fence between us and it is the normal 6' separation.
The Polish locos cylinders were out of gauge about 3" I seem to recall.


No 4 wheeled stock/locos or locos with flangeless wheels as these are deemed as stock the most likely to derail and intrude onto the NR running envelope. Might need a reinforced fence/barrier if you want to run these then.
All carriage doors on the NR side are locked

Brian

 

Is that from an existing line or has track been relaid to that clearance?
In the Bluebell instance I suspect it will be New construction so different standards may apply.

 

Presumably this means that "North Downs" is not a candidate for overhaul?

 

From the Infrastructure Director, via the Bluebell e-Newsletter:

Infrastructure News: Planning Continues

Following the highly successful Cash for Cover appeal, focus is now on planning the carriage shed construction. Initial work will be directed at clearing the site, a mammoth task in itself. Existing sheds, offices, and storage all have to be relocated and some temporary facilities provided. Important though the new shed is, it's equally important that the day-to-day business of repairing and maintaining our carriage fleet is able to carry on unhindered.

All this is likely to take some months, meaning it will be well into 2015 before the construction phase gets under way. Meantime there is much to do behind the scenes to award contracts and mobilise internal resources to carry out enabling work. The timely effort to commence foundation work this autumn has given the project a useful kick start, and some early knowledge of ground conditions was captured and will help the tendering process.

It was a conscious decision by the September Steering Group meeting to wait for the funding appeal outcome before attempting to plan the project further. Sufficient funds needed to be in the bank to justify mobilisation against a plan that would deliver something tangible. As it happens, the results were all that we could wish for, and a shed will emerge in due course to match the appeal objective.

A fuller report on progress will appear in the next Bluebell News.

By Chris White, Infrastructure Director