Bluebell Railway news

[Neal Ball]

8 hours ago, rasalmon said:

Good idea, Neal, some other "news" (well, things I hope people will find interesting) from the Blog:

 

The February 2021 edition of Bluebell Times includes:
  – An update from the board on the current activity while the Railway is closed;
  – A surprise 100th birthday present for a lifetime Bluebell member;
  – A closer look at H class locomotive No. 263;
  – How smoke deflectors work;
  – Your help needed identifying some old photos;
  – Puzzles with links to local branch lines;
  – And much, much more.

 

A new Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway blog post reporting on a visit by some of the GWSR C&W Dept.’s to the Bluebell over Easter 2017 to ride behind ‘Flying Scotsman’.

 

An updated and improved web page is now available for the Standard Class 2 Tank Engine Rebuild Project, No. 84030, along with an updated leaflet/donation form.

 

 

Thanks Richard.

[73c]

9 hours ago, rasalmon said:

Good idea, Neal, some other "news" (well, things I hope people will find interesting) from the Blog:

 

The February 2021 edition of Bluebell Times includes:
  – An update from the board on the current activity while the Railway is closed;
  – A surprise 100th birthday present for a lifetime Bluebell member;
  – A closer look at H class locomotive No. 263;
  – How smoke deflectors work;
  – Your help needed identifying some old photos;
  – Puzzles with links to local branch lines;
  – And much, much more.

 

A new Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway blog post reporting on a visit by some of the GWSR C&W Dept.’s to the Bluebell over Easter 2017 to ride behind ‘Flying Scotsman’.

 

An updated and improved web page is now available for the Standard Class 2 Tank Engine Rebuild Project, No. 84030, along with an updated leaflet/donation form.

 

 

None of the photo's are being displayed on the improved web page for the standard 2.

[Lacathedrale]

12 hours ago, rasalmon said:

Interesting that it should appear in a search; the Bluebell only have an aim, rather than planning permission at this stage.
The Bluebell owns all the trackbed from Horsted Keynes to Ardingly, and has a lease on Lywood tunnel.  There is no timescale for connecting through to Ardingly at present, but the Bluebell has obtained the bridge sections to replace the viaduct just to the west of Horsted Keynes which was demolished in the 1960s.
Once at Ardingly, the line from Haywards Heath is already there, and used to serve the aggregates terminal.  The Bluebell has agreement for a track around the edge of the aggregates terminal (although it will be costly to re-locate the current facilities which use that part of the yard), and then it would be connected to the existing line to Haywards Heath.  There is space allocated for a Bluebell platform alongside the car park adjacent to the National Rail station at Haywards Heath, but no run-round loop, so operation of trains which might require a steam locomotive on both ends might not be feasible except for special events.  Negotiating track access between the junction and Haywards Heath station on a very congested section of the Brighton Main Line is also going to be a challenge.
So in short, whilst it's a possibility for the future, at present it remains just a possibility.  The BRPS's policy currently is to ensure that the option remains there for the future, (which does entail some limited work on the section from Horsted Keynes to Ardingly), and ensuring the availability of the tunnel and trackbed for when the time comes.  Remember it took us nearly 40 years to reach East Grinstead.  There's no rush!  The 2013 official BRPS "Long Term Plan" (see section 5) sets out the official policy, but is due to be revised this year.

 

Thank you, for your information, specific wording was as follows:

 

(a) Is the property (or will it be) within 200 metres of the centre line of a proposed railway, tramway, light railway or monorail? -  Within 100 metres of the Bluebell Railway Extension

(b) Are there any proposals for a railway, tramway, light railway or monorail within the local authority’s boundary? - The property is within a Local Authority area that will be affected by the extension to Bluebell railway into Haywards Heath.

 

 

[Lacathedrale]

By the way, I'm sure we know - but the main SSL certificate has expired for the site bluebell-railway.co.uk - expired 21/02/21) which is  where the images are hosted and what's causing all the images to fail - the main site on bluebell-railway.com is fine.

[Tony Teague]

2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Thank you, for your information, specific wording was as follows:

 

(a) Is the property (or will it be) within 200 metres of the centre line of a proposed railway, tramway, light railway or monorail? -  Within 100 metres of the Bluebell Railway Extension

(b) Are there any proposals for a railway, tramway, light railway or monorail within the local authority’s boundary? - The property is within a Local Authority area that will be affected by the extension to Bluebell railway into Haywards Heath.

 

 

 

I find this fascinating given what RASalmon has explained above; it seems that the Local Authority itself should not be a barrier to extension - whatever others exist!

 

Just to be controversial, I must say that my personal preference would be that Bluebell had a more open mind to a southward extension towards Lewes, no matter how difficult this might appear. To my mind the HK - HH line is a red herring that would marginalise Sheffield Park - or if it didn't then it would be a complete waste of resources which would be unlikely to have any economic business case - whereas SP - Lewes would be far more strategic and likely to strengthen Bluebell's core.

 

There must have been a time when no-one thought it possible to reach East Grinstead, and whilst the cost of going south might be far greater than going west, I suspect that there are many supporters who woul dig deep to help fund such an imaginative venture. Needless to say this is just a personal view!

 

Tony

 

[Grizz]

Tony I don’t disagree in an ideal world, and I for one would love to see it. However I grew up in the Hamsey area in an old gate keepers cottage on the ‘Hamsey Loop’, the only realistic route back to LWS via the LWS to HHE main line. We constantly heard about the Uckfield line, mostly from well intentioned enthusiasts, but it has come to nothing and I am a life long railwayman and passionate supported of reopening and new railways..  If national rail resources can’t financially justify the relaying of the 7.5 miles of the UCK to LWS route, with little if any physical civil engineering obstacles, with populations of 14.5K and 17.5K respectively, then what hope a preservation branch line with massive obstacles, no realistic achievable business plan. UCK to LWS would also link a number of reasonable sized towns to Brighton (and Hove actually) City, with a population of 1/3 of million three universities and (currently fingers crossed) a premier league football club.  “SEAGULLS!!!!!” ..... it should be said that at least the consultants have done well over the years out of re-evaluating the scheme ever so many years. And the county council highways love the fact it hasn’t gone ahead as the make no money from the competition with their precious roads. 
 

However in the event that HK to HHE is completed in the next twenty years or so, then SP to HK reverts to what is was historically, a single track rural branch line, which is far more in keeping with the era SP is presented. 
 Historically HHE to EGR and on up was a double track railway connecting the two sizeable towns. We are though unlikely to be ever be able to afford or justify double tracking it back, the sizeable towns are now much bigger. Sheffield Park won’t grow beyond a few houses. It was the centre of the universe when the railways was just SP to HK, however now the railway is 11 miles long it is the bottom end of the branch line, where as HK was and is still a large junction station, mid route. SP is only what SP has become since preservation, are we now preserving preservation? That’s only 60 years old and wasn’t there originally. We don’t have diesels because they are not steam and steam finished in 1968.
 

As you said “controversial”......the civil engineering costs South have been looked at by various people over the years and even with limitless cash (millions) it would still involve dealing with numerous separate land owners. After the land buy back, the primary issues are civil engineering ones. The A275 is now re aligned and raised where the old bridge was south of the station and the largest articulated trucks are permitted down this route. A rail ski ramp similar to the East Lancs is unlikely to work as the run up is too short and the current limitless height availability for road haulage is never going to be over turned. 
 

The old bridge under the A272 was a high one because the cutting was deep. Again the heaviest road haulage is permitted over the former bridge site. Then there is what ever is buried in the cutting, is it as well documented as the Imberhorne tip. Taking it out by road would be prohibited and any rail removal would involve solving the A275 issues first, then running miles further out via NR at EGR  Etc etc etc. 
 

HK to HHE, we own the track bed to Ardingly, NR is already connected at the country end of this route. It is approx just over 2 miles from rail end to rail end as it stands with one reasonable sized bridge, that we already own, over a tiny country single lane road that has an 8Ft bridge height restriction at New Road bridge. Then a small cattle creep bridge which we already have. Then it is Fences, Trees, vegetation, drainage, formation, bottom stone, track, top stone, signalling etc etc. 
 

In short a short distance in comparison. If the UCK to LWS route were in place SP to LWS would still be a legendary challenge. 
 

On a positive note look at what we have achieved. Look at the positive things the railway brings to the world. We are already pretty great........and one of our stations has been on ‘Downton Abbey’ and everything!...........erm I am really sorry.....I don’t know why I made that last comment.....I’ll get my coat.... 
 

 

[phil-b259]

36 minutes ago, Grizz said:

Then there is what ever is buried in the cutting, is it as well documented as the Imberhorne tip.
 

 

The landfill in the old cutting at Newick requires special measures as its actively decomposing producing methane and polluted water. That requires specialists to deal with and relocation / of the waste would be incredibly expensive, not to mention the dreaded landfill tax would need to be applied to the works.

 

The infill at Imberhone by contrast was pretty stable - no gas emissions or polluted run off and as such partial removal* was actually pretty straightforward, plus the railway beat (just) the expiry of the need to pay landfill tax.

 

 

* Due to the then looming landfill tax deadline - which tripped the costs of removing the waste at a minimum, the Bluebell have actually left half the waste still there - some underneath the track (hence the steep gradients going into the cutting each way) and some against the western cutting side suitably retained with specialist membranes, soil nails etc.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

Shame you can't stick it in a train and send it off to Newhaven

[phil-b259]

48 minutes ago, Grizz said:

Tony I don’t disagree in an ideal world, and I for one would love to see it. However I grew up in the Hamsey area in an old gate keepers cottage on the ‘Hamsey Loop’, the only realistic route back to LWS via the LWS to HHE main line.

 

 

 

If the Bluebell by some miracle found the funds to get close to Lewes then I expect it would end up building a new 'Lewes North' Station rather than attempting to share any NR infrastructure with all the restrictions* that poses.

 

In reality there is simply no point - if you want to improve rail connections from the south then a link to Haywards Heath is a far more realistic and affordable goal to aim for.

 

 

 

* No wooden bodied stock, no opening droplights from 2023, TPWS /AWS on all locos, etc and thats before we come to the lack of any suitable place to terminate without spending a fortune adding extra infrastructure at Lewes itself.

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, The Evil Bus Driver said:

Shame you can't stick it in a train and send it off to Newhaven

 

You need to be allowed to dig it up first!

 

Newhaven deals with collected waste (i.e. the contents of bin lorries) before its had a chance to start to really decompose - not stuff that has already been in the ground for decades and presents enormous environmental problems to extract.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You need to be allowed to dig it up first!

 

Newhaven deals with collected waste (i.e. the contents of bin lorries) before its had a chance to start to really decompose - not stuff that has already been in the ground for decades and presents enormous environmental problems to extract.

Ah ok. I read somewhere there are two such tips between Sheffield Park and Lewes

[phil-b259]

18 hours ago, rasalmon said:

Once at Ardingly, the line from Haywards Heath is already there, and used to serve the aggregates terminal.  The Bluebell has agreement for a track around the edge of the aggregates terminal (although it will be costly to re-locate the current facilities which use that part of the yard), and then it would be connected to the existing line to Haywards Heath.  There is space allocated for a Bluebell platform alongside the car park adjacent to the National Rail station at Haywards Heath, but no run-round loop, so operation of trains which might require a steam locomotive on both ends might not be feasible except for special events.  Negotiating track access between the junction and Haywards Heath station on a very congested section of the Brighton Main Line is also going to be a challenge.

 

 

Technically there is also the possibility of building a 5th line between Copyhold and Haywards Heath itself using the down siding north that runs back towards London from the station (and handily feed directly into the freight run round loop that would need to be used for a Bluebell platform. It won't come cheap though - as you would need to widen the railway footprint on the eastern side to create a route round the eastern pier of Wickham Road bridge then widen the embankment until the mainline has reverted to double track.

 

 

[Oldddudders]

Of course it would be marvellous to extend down to HH, but even if the capital cost were magically covered by some super benefactor, I'm not sure it helps the Bluebell's bottom line very much. Extra route mileage means extra mileage for locos and rolling stock, thus increasing maintenance costs. And would it bring new crowds, extra footfall? Of course in the first few years the gricers would flock in big numbers, but as I observed earlier they are not the main revenue stream these days, and I'm not convinced the family market wants many more miles if they cost more money. 

 

The fact that present management seems to be ensuring all options remain open for the future generations to have the chance of extending is excellent, but the financial model needs to change a bit before I see any real justification. In that respect, going south from SP seems equally unremunerative to me. We still have no idea what a post-Covid world is going to feel like. Consolidation and recuperation will be the watchwords for some years to come, I suspect. 

[PenrithBeacon]

There are always people who want to extend heritage railways,  but revenue will never cover the costs of doing so. IMO most preserved lines are too long already.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

Of course running and terminating at Ardingly and having trains run SP-EG-A-EG-SP would actually be less mileage since SP is further from HK than A is. It would mean that the first train from Ardingly would be much later than the first one from SP unless you ran it SP-HK-A of course. This is all theoretical, obviously as the track doesn't go as far as A yet. Of course that also means plenty of time to work out everything/ In the meantime once the bridge goes back in there's enough scope to put in low grade track as needed to make much needed siding space until such a time that the board decide to fire the starting gun.

Edited February 22, 2021 by The Evil Bus Driver

[The Evil Bus Driver]

2 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There are always people who want to extend heritage railways,  but revenue will never cover the costs of doing so. IMO most preserved lines are too long already.

The WSR is, although that's almost the whole line so it's the complete package.

[Zomboid]

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There are always people who want to extend heritage railways,  but revenue will never cover the costs of doing so. IMO most preserved lines are too long already.

I wouldn't say that. About 10 miles is a sweet spot; long enough for a decent run and to make a long enough activity to be worth a bit of effort to get there (and use the facilities,  cafe etc), but not so long as to be tedious.

 

In that sense the Bluebell is pretty much the perfect size. An extension would be a nice novelty, but they've already got the main line connection and plenty of train ride. If they want a connection to HH then they'd be better off getting the local vintage bus enthusiasts involved and run a service to whichever station has the better road access from there. 

[Dunsignalling]

Length of line determines whether you offer a day out or a half-day out attraction. I therefore think it needs to be either around ten miles or twenty.

 

The WSR has the advantage that the punters getting on at the end nearest the M5 can look forward to a run of around an hour, ending at a real (seaside) destination. Unfortunately, many of said punters will take lunch in Minehead itself  rather than the railway's offering. On the other hand, the longer run greatly increases the appeal of a Buffet Car compared with a trip of 20 or 30 minutes.

 

John

 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[SR71]

As I recall when the Ardingly branch was secured by the railway the justification given in some parts (remembering the railway was still a way off East Grinstead at the time and some felt the funds could have been better used to further that) was that it would give somewhere to use heritage outside third stock in the future.

 

It was contentious at the time and I don't expect time to have aged it well, given how much tighter safety is now compared to even then. Still I'm interested enough in what the current feeling is to risk posting this message...

 

... trainers on and running far away to hide!

 

As a post script I would say, for the loss of originality, modern battery technology could solve the issue of outside third safety in the next 20 years.

[PenrithBeacon]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

I wouldn't say that. About 10 miles is a sweet spot; long enough for a decent run and to make a long enough activity to be worth a bit of effort to get there (and use the facilities,  cafe etc), but not so long as to be tedious.

 

In that sense the Bluebell is pretty much the perfect size. An extension would be a nice novelty, but they've already got the main line connection and plenty of train ride. If they want a connection to HH then they'd be better off getting the local vintage bus enthusiasts involved and run a service to whichever station has the better road access from there. 

I think 6 to 10 is about right, trying to keep the kids amused beyond that is difficult.

[rasalmon]

57 minutes ago, SR71 said:

As I recall when the Ardingly branch was secured by the railway the justification given in some parts (remembering the railway was still a way off East Grinstead at the time and some felt the funds could have been better used to further that) was that it would give somewhere to use heritage outside third stock in the future.

Hardly a cost compared to EG, since the purchase cost was only £40k and the extension to EG cost 12 Million.  And in any case the cost was covered by a loan from a member, who wrote it off in his Will.  There was no indication at the time that any owners of 3rd rail electric stock would be willing to stump up the estimated £1m cost of electrification, so no one tried to use that as a justification for obtaining the line that I can recall.  It's in the Long Term Plan as an option for many years hence.

[rasalmon]

Going South is a non-starter in my view.  The cutting at Chailey contains industrial waste from the printing industry.  Probably £50m to remove. Don't think we'd get planning permission to extract a rubbish tip that close to people's houses anyway, so add another £20m to buy out all the householders.  It's not going to happen!
Cheaper to dig a new cutting round it on a new alignment, which also avoids the purchase of large numbers of back gardens. But you'd still be looking at many 10s of millions to get to Lewes.

[rasalmon]

10 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

By the way, I'm sure we know - but the main SSL certificate has expired for the site bluebell-railway.co.uk - expired 21/02/21) which is  where the images are hosted and what's causing all the images to fail - the main site on bluebell-railway.com is fine.

Indeed, I'm afraid the SSL certificate for the .co.uk server has expired.  I picked up the problem last night, and it's being renewed, but that may take a while to propagate around the web.  You can still view the content if you use a less fussy browser!

[rasalmon]

A further update today on the Camelot Locomotive Society Facebook page, provided by Workshop Manager, Chris Shepherd:
https://www.facebook.com/The-73082-Camelot-Locomotive-Society-381518251989806/
(This maintenance work is being done to cure a niggling problem with the foundation ring rivets, taking advantage of the current quiet period whilst nothing is running, and will result in a new 10-year certificate for the locomotive.)

[Grizz]

Mmmmmmm look what crept in last night.

 

20118, 20132 and DR73950......clagtastic.