Bluebell track laying South from EG?

Is it possible that creation of a through channel may increase the productivity of removing the remainder of the rubbish?
Rather than having to split the train and shunt, load the whole train at once.

 

I wonder how stable the cutting would be if only part of the land fill is removed. Would there be a possible land/rubbish slip if heavy and prolong rain was to accrue in winter months.

 

As an EG resident I watched most days of the last tip extraction; as I see it the problem is not the speed at which they can remove the tip; that takes very little time. It's the rate at which the trains get filled up, the wagons being pretty low sided. What they were doing was effectively to create a single track cutting through the spoil; they had to use the down side formation to work from and so this was not a lot higher than the up side level. I don't think it would be practical to dig a cutting down from the top.

What needs to be addressed pronto is a cheap way of getting the spoil out of the formation of the running line, it's not going to happen by rail in such a short timescale. I don't see why they can't just pile it on top of the down formation; there's enough room and it's hardly a beauty spot well out of sight of the road and next to a (closed apart from weekends) amenity tip. They could always create a cut and cover tunnel with concrete sides to contain the spoil; no reason why that could not be permanent and if they are spending £500k to concrete the cutting it might as well be. They ought to forget recreating Hill Place cutting as it was in 1958; it's not a priority; getting rails to Imberhorne Lane is. Wasn't there also an idea to buy a field and just tip the spoil on there raising the level by about 1m? it's just old refuse not nuclear wate.

Also is someone able to clarify that the line may have to retreat back to Horsted Keynes if the project is not completed by a certain time. I've seen it twice but neither went into detail about it.

I think it was to do with the use of Kingscote as a temporary terminus; now it's been used for 17 years with 0 disruption to anybody I can't see them not allowing it for as long as it takes.

 

Because if it is both feasible and cheaper than Plan A then that is a very good thing. If not, they won't do it. The EA may have questions but the Project Engineers just might have convincing answers, given the chance to put their case. Any project which runs into serious financial or time constraints MUST be re-evaluated and any alternative options seriously considered. Otherwise things can only get worse.

 

Well I've just purchased another couple of tenners for the tip. In the circumstances it is the best thing any of us reading this thread can do to ensure the outcome we all want to see.

 

Zoomeg: If it were that simple, as you say "buying a field and tipping the spoil". Not so, there are strict regulations relating to the disposal of the waste, hence the need for it to go to a licenced site. Not too many of which are rail connected.
I do wonder however if the Bluebell have investigated whether they could use a sort of tunneling "shield" to drive a railway-sized metal tube through the base of the tip? This is I imagine fairly well established technology. Whether or not it is any cheaper that actually pressing on and removing the rubbish is another matter.

 

the field idea was just something someone told me a few years ago; probably not serious;

I believe the tunnelling idea was discounted at an early stage because of the risk of methane gas, although if they could show that the material was now no longer a threat they could reinvestigate. I assume a cut and cover tunnel would be both cheaper and more feasible; the material seemed to be very loosely packed from what I saw in the extraction; it was basically falling away as the diggers removed it. Are there not fairly strict rules about passenger trains in tunnels (or cuttings for that matter)? there would need to be room to evacuate from the side in an emergency;

Another idea (just an idea) would be to climb over the top like the ELR had to do when the BR line was converted to tram and they could no longer use the level crossing. That would be a problem with the bridges at each end of the cutting though; and I doubt the tip could support a train without some extra reinforcement.

another idea was to sell some of the land adjoining the railway for housing development to fund the extension; judging by the shoe boxes they are throwing up elsewhere you could get a dozen "Executive Homes" in the former station yard at West Hoathly

it's all a bit last minute to be thinking about this unless they have had this "Plan B" for a while

 

I was thinking of the tunnelling option if by the critical time for the increase in landfill tax, next April?-- they had just a short length of infilled cutting to deal with. Put a metal tube through it until such time as they can go on and clear the stuff.

Anyway..."greater minds" as they say!!

 

i also wondered why the bluebelle hadnt thought about a cut and cover tunnel through the tip or was removal the only option apart from west hoathly there isnt much land that they could sell for housing , but wouldnt that create as many problems as it would solve? unless a railway buff buys the house, or houses that could be bult , but how much would the station site fetch?

As the waste has rotted down to soil is it still only a landfill site option cant it be dumped any other way because as i see it its the possible increase in landfill tax thats the problem, not the removal cost ?
can the railway not just dig out a channel, enough to join the track together, then they could load the trains quicker and run more trains, they could run to kingscoat empty run round then load and be on their way or en ED on hire from another preserved railway could be used to shunt the full wagons at east grinstead

 

Cut and cover tunnellling solves nothing not only because it requires all the material to be handled - even if only relocating it temporarily - but the earthworks, foundations and civil engineering costs would far outweigh the cost of simply removing the spoil rather than dumping it to the side, performing a massive (even larger) excavation then just moving it back on top of a (massively strong) concrete overstructure. It is a non starter. A bored tunnel is also impossible due to the unstable nature of the tip material. Zoomeg has the right idea that as more material is removed the loading platform length is increased so that 5 then 6 then 7 wagons and more can be loaded in one shunt. Gradually the turnround time of each train is reduced. When the breakthrough is finally made on one line initially the full train can be moved without any wagon handling at all and the loading platform on the down formation is gradually removed as the last step.
My view is that the planning team are right to consider contingencies such as plan B (and others) but I also suspect these will be quickly discarded as achieving little as only deferring costs while creating more earthwork problems (such as drainage and subsidence) for the future. The reality is that unless supporters provide the cash the railway will be forced to take out a loan to cover the balance of the project. WHile this is unsatisfactory it is still far cheaper to repay (say) £3 million over 5 years than to create an immediate landfill tax burden of £5 million or more when the tax breaks stop.
The Mid Hants proved that this can be done to fund their 7 mile extension to Alton. I just hope it will prove unnecessary for the Bluebell. Members (and I am one) will need to be both brave and pragmatic.

 

I haven't been a member since the kids got bored of anything that wasn't a computer game; but will definitely rejoin when I can walk 10 mins to get to the station to catch a train; I've done all the station open days with and without trains and it's great just to see my old house from the viaduct (plus I really hope they keep the 4VEP with a diesel / ED if only for off peak days)

out of interest what is the turnover of the company that could be used to repay the loan? I think they will be justified in raising fares a bit when they get to EG it really will be the best preserved line in the South if not the Country/

 

getting such a large loan could be promlatic these days. Plus the Mid Hants and the Swanage did get in to differculties when they used loans to cover extnesions...

 

It would be nice I must agree...but unfortunatly part of the BB membership dont wish to see diesels and keep the railway as a steam only railway...

 

The initial maths there seem obvious regarding getting a loan.

But of course what is not obvious is what income stream would be needed over what length of time to firstly convince a lender to lend that sum. And then for it to get repaid.

I also wonder how rigid and non negotiable the end date of the tax break is?

Issues that I have no doubt are being exhaustively examined by the Bluebell Directors etc.

 

This is narrow-minded of the BB membership. There is a growing band of rail enthusiast that are will to pay good money to ride behind modern traction. Surely there is room for both types of rail enthusiasts on the BB. The money gained from running a class 73 and the 4 VEP could be used towards overhauling another steam loco or used to enhance the railway infrastructure.

 

To be fair though they have the 08 shunter still on loan and the CW Department also bought a shunting diesel (something I'd have thought Baxter could have been used for). Also why hasn't the 08 gone back yet if they have their own diesel.

I guess the 4VEP will be used (probably with a diesel or ED) otherwise there wasn't really any point in buying it other than the Grinstead-Imberhorne North shuttles.

I think Roy Watts said in Steam Railway in regards to a loan that he would never put the future of the line in danger.

 

As a shareholder of the BB(since 1987) I quite agree with you! I hate the narrow minded people notably in the preserved railways circles:wacko:
regards
noel

 

couldnt the bluebelle apply to the peoples lottery for some help to make up the short fall , after all its for good causes isnt it? its a pity that there isnt some railway friendly mps that could raise this matter who knows there might be some eu fund somewhere that could help? after all when you look at govermnent spending its hardly anything at all and when you think of what the bluebelle does for tourist numbers in the South East , it seems strange that some help of some kind isnt forthcoming

 

HOW much would you pay to be on the first 4 vep /33/1 train to run to sheffied park , thats one way to try to get extra money coming in with the first train the other way being the pulman rake headed by the BB

 

I agree with the Bluebell stance in part. The first Standard Gauge line preserved, it holds a special place and 4VEPs werent even built when it opened. Maybe now and again as a special treat but I think their emphasis should be 99% pre 1960 (which leaves room for a 33 just about I think hauling a 4COR or 2BIL but not for a VEP, much as I like them.

As regards that rubbish dump, more power to the Bluebell for tackling it, I doubt whether anything short of a fully restored cutting(with no steel tunnel or concrete walls) will do for them.