Bluebell track laying South from EG?

Having difficult getting my mind around all of this.

From a situation a few weeks ago when it seemed substantial fund raising and a lot more waste trains were needed just to move the tip. To talk now of just "any residual trains required next year" and the date for laying the track. I've clearly missed something, but there seems to have been a very sudden breakthrough?

Is this the clue, " A dedicated drainage system will also run through the cutting to capture any leachate flow from the residual waste."

I know it has been touched on here. But has the waste removal proved to "the powers that be", that the waste still in the cutting is non toxic, non dangerous and can be converted safely into an embankment etc? Presumably the Bluebell would in no way plan to leave waste there unless it had been apporved by all those who control these things?

I also guess that "chickens are not being counted until they hatch", or there would surely have been some jubilation in making the official Bluebell announcement that has been posted above?

 

The BB is a very serious and responsible outfit: very probably, they have obtained the "greenlight" for a certain amount(maybe 15000 t)of waste left for conversion in a embankment (look at the official notice on their site)
regards
noel

 

I think the number of trains has always been quite consistent, especially once the decision was made (announced at the last Bluebell AGM last May) to do the partial removal. For example, if you look back through the thread, I think I wrote, while WBR4 was happening, that it was likely to need 4-5 weeks of trains after WBR4. Essentially the statement is not inconsistent with that view; there will be 3 weeks in WBR5 and "residual" trains next year. I don't know what "residual" means, but I'd take it to mean maybe 1 week, maybe at most 2, which is consistent with what I wrote earlier. But I should stress that is my personal view on what has been written in various places and said by people more closely connected with the project; the railway may have a different interpretation of "residual", though I'd be surprised if it were more than 2 weeks after WBR5 has finished.

One thing that does seem to have changed recently is the funding. At the end of WBR4 there was enough money in the kitty for 1 week of trains (e.g. £120k); then all of a sudden 3 weeks of WBR 5 were announced. I don't know where that money has come from, but obviously all of a sudden about £250k has arrived or been promised. It has been said on the Bluebell Yahoo group that this is real money, not a loan. Because of the vagaries of weather, availability of train paths (said to be better going to Didcot than to Bedfordshire, but still an unknown); availability of the stock etc, the digging strategy seems to be get digging while you can, rather than banking a big wodge of money and doing it all in one go. There is a risk that way that you might get to March, find you have the money but suddenly can't get the train paths! So the digging is happening a little and often. Even so, I think it was a surprise to many people that WBR5 is happening quite so soon after WBR4.

I understand that all the necessary licences etc to leave some of the waste in situ are agreed with the relevant bodies. So presumably the waste is, as you suggest, less dangerous than was originally thought. Certainly one of the big initial worries - that it is outgassing methane - turns out not to be the case. If I understand the next steps correctly, the residual waste left behind will be profiled, stabilised with a geotextile membrane and in time plants etc wil grow up through to present a natural looking cutting side.

The other thing that has been discovered during the dig is that at some point (presumably when the cutting was filled), the west side of the cutting was extensively remodelled. A haul road was cut to enable lorries to get in and out, so that there is no clear west side any more. That is why the path of the dig now is following the east side of the original cutting (which happens to be the outside of the curve, so the line will be a couple of yards longer than planned ) Thus, even if money had been available, it would have been very difficult to dig out all of the waste as the western edge of the waste is not well defined and may even stretch into the adjacent current council dump.

Tom

 

Thanks Tom. A very informative post. Gets me back up to speed on this. Especially the reported Yahoo Group comment re the finance. That is the cricial point so far as I am concerned.

 

It's also notable that the efficiency of the process has gone up and the cost come down as the project has gone on.

In the initial lorry dig, the cost was approximately £37 per ton - this is why the "tenner for the tip" certificates say £10 will remove about 1/4 ton of waste, even though the figure now is over 400kg for each £10. However, the lorry dig was expensive and also prone to unforseen delays; for example lorries getting punctures.

So the process changed to rail (which meant EG station had to be built). Straightaway the notional cost came down to £25 per ton, and when the dumping site moved to Oxfordshire, it came down again to £24 per ton. That might not sound much, but it meant in effect that during WBR4, we got one whole train "for free" (e.g. we got 25 trains in WBR4 for the price of 24 in earlier phases).

Also, much of the costs are fixed - e.g. hire of the locomotive and crew; hire of the wagons; hire of the diggers and plant etc. As the project has gone on, the number of wagons has increased (from 18 to 19 to 20) and the loaders have got much more skillful at getting the wagons as close as possible to the optimum weight. This is limited by loads on a viaduct north of EG. Although notionally each train can take 1,000 tons, in actual fact the real limit is the maximum permitted weight of engine + 20 wagons + load. I think when you subtract out the weight of engine and wagons, this gives a maximum permitted load of something like 1090 tons. In earlier digs, the amount removed was often around 990 tons, but as the team has got more skilled, this has crept up: as Noel said, yesterday 1064 tons were dispatched. There is a fine line here, since if too much is loaded, it has to be unloaded before the train can depart, potentially delaying operations. But if too little is loaded, that is wasted capacity, since the fixed costs of a day's operations still have to be paid whether the train departs with 1000 tons or is empty. So getting the average loadings up round the 1020 - 1030 ton mark, as was regularly achieved in WBR4 also has a substantial effect, adding perhaps 2-3% to the efficiency, or, in other words, taking 2-3% of the project costs.

Anyway, whichever way you look at it, the day of breakthrough is getting close (touches wood hurriedly)! The timetable set out by the railway probably precludes regular trains in 2012, but 2013 is a distinct possibility.

Tom

 

Given the comments above re leaving some waste in situ and creating a new cutting side, was the original line double track through the cutting, whereas presumably only a single track is now required?

 

Yes, the whole Lewes and East Grinstead Railway was laid out as double track. However, traffic never materialised to the extent envisaged, so the section Culver Junction - Horsted Keynes (via Sheffield Park) was always only single track. The sections Copyhold Junction - Horsted Keynes (via Ardingly) and HK - EG were originally double track. If you visit the line (or see photos), the generous size of the bridges, tunnel (and the Imberhorne viaduct) is apparent.

incidentally, there has been some speculation as to whether only digging out some of the rubbish precludes us from ever laying the KC - EG section as double track in the future. Sadly that won't ever be possible, regardless of the state of the tip. Quite apart from the tip, modern safety regulations concerning stock without central locking (i.e. - all our stock!) forces a greater distance between track and parapet on the viaduct. So the track has been laid nearer the centre line; there is insufficient room to lay a double track over the viaduct and still comply with modern regulations.

Tom

 

Tom,

I would also like to thank you for your informative posts. It will be interesting to see what the tip looks like afther this three-week dig.

Even if it will never be possible to put a second track all the way from East Grintead to Horsted Keynes, a partial doubling sounds a good idea, but as has been pointed out both on this forum and in some official BRPS publications, once East Grintead is reached, a good long pause for breath seems to be next on the agenda - and understandably so.

 

I'm a bit sceptical about the value of doubling, but I guess we have to wait and see.

With a single line KC - EG, and no ability to cross passenger trains at EG, the most frequent service that could be run would be a departure about every 30 mins. (e.g. 7 mins KC - EG; 16 mins to run round and take water if needed; 7 mins back). But that is effectively the same as elsewhere on the line: with the SP - HK and HK - KC section times being typically 13 - 15 mins, then the quickest possible departures on an intensive service is effectively 4 trains with a departure from each end every 30 minutes. We occasionally achieve this at some points on our normal timetable (for example, we sometimes have a 12 noon service train; 12:32 Golden Arrow; 13:00 service train and 13:30 Wealden Rambler or other special departing from SP).

So increasing the capacity from KC to EG, without increasing it elsewhere, won't actually enable a more intensive service to run. We'd still be limited to a 30 minute frequency of departures from either end, but could have 5 trains running rather than the 4 possible at the moment. At galas these days, we tend to slow down slightly to a 35 - 40 minute interval, rather than a 30 minute one that is theoretically possible, simply to give a bit more resilience and recovery time in the timetable.

The only advantage I can see to a partial doubling would be to allow an outgoing special from Bluebell to Network Rail to be held near EG, waiting a path, without interrupting the normal Bluebell timetable; or to allow an incoming special to get clear of Network Rail and then wait while an "up" Bluebell train passes.. But you could probably achieve that with a suitably long loop between the tip and the viaduct (e.g. roughly where the current siding is). It seems a lot of extra infrastructure to install, and extra signalling complexity, for what will be a fairly rare occurrence. And in any case, once a special is clear of NR, it will only be another 7 minutes to get down to KC where there is a long loop.

It is also notable that when the line was originally sold by BR, the parcels of land were subdivided down the centreline of the two track formation. Although the Bluebell was successful in buying most of the land, there is a short section of about 200 yards where they did not buy the parcels of land on the eastern (down) side of the formation. Thus, for about 200 yards there is another part of the line where only a single track can be laid. (This section is between KC and the tip, just north of KC. When the line opens, it is likely that this section will have a permanent speed restriction due to the limit clearance between track and boundary fence, coupled with the limited visibility as this section of the line is on a sharp curve).

Tom

 

I heard about that bit in your last Paragraph last year at the 50th Anniversary Gala on one of the Shuttles by one of the staff.

I to appreciate the informative posts you provide Tom.

 

Re doubling the line, I would doubt if it would gain the railway much and it would increase the maintenance workload, but, having said that I can see the virtue in having a loop to hold visiting mainline specials in between EG/KC.

I would have thought that the next infrastructure job would be the maintenance of bridges. Many of them are showing the effects of deferred maintenance with perished bricks, lack of pointing etc. The New Road bridge has a massive settlement crack in it. As a Bluebell member I really wouldn't want the railway to get into the difficulties that have occurred elsewhere. The railway's civil engineers are very good at keeping the drains and culverts open, but these structures need maintenance and that will cost a lot of effort and money, but it must be done.

Regards

 

This is the section of line referred to by Tom above :

RD5174 Heading north | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Without wishing to tempt fate in any way, is it reasonable to assume that the continuing dry weather, and the relatively dry earlier part of 2011, has helped with the waste extraction, ie no "descending into a sea of mud" ?

 

Well, I don't suppose it has hindered waste extraction, at any rate!

The biggest problem in the winter (apart, obviously, from ongoing availability of cash!) is the short daylight. This means a lot of the work has to take place in the dark (remember, the empties don't arrive until after lunch, so all the morning light is gone as far as loading is concerned) which isn't conducive to quick working, and I guess also means equipment like floodlights has to be hired in. It's for that reason that, even if money was available, the current phase will be the last digging this year.

Tom

 

I suppose also that if the material is relatively dry, a given volume weighs less, and you are not carting so much water away in each trainload.

 

Imberhorne Cutting Removal - Page 4 some more pics from today

 

Just noticed the latest update on the Bluebell website which comments: "Its all going to plan with very little waste left to go out...". From that do we assume that "break through" is imminent, and work will then be more related to landscaping what is left to form a new cutting side, etc? And also moving the large clay capping mound, material likely to be reused elsewhere on the railway.

 

Best not speculate. Just be patient and wait for further progress reports to appear on the Bluebell website. Whatever you do, ignore the regular inaccurate diatribe offered by Mr Philpot.

Chris

 

Chris: What I have quoted in my above post in quotation marks IS from the Bluebell website! No speculation, thats what the words say. I think if there is little actual waste left to move then it is a reasonable inference that the path through the cutting/waste tip is well on the way to being cleared.

In fairness I guess those involved with the actual day to day running of the latest "WBR" operation, and the project as a whole, will be entitled to say "it will be done when it is done...".

 

I was referring to the future and in particular to your question: "From that do we assume....". Nobody should assume anything. Yes the waste clearance is drawing to an end, but even the workers on the ground don't know if or what problems they will encounter to finalise this part of the project.

Chris