A rural Sussex BLT

[dseagull]

1 hour ago, DLT said:

Adding narrow gauge I see.  Its a slippery slope, ng can take you over!!!

So I hear...!

 

20 minutes ago, phil_sutters said:

I think that the red wins

Must have been the reason why I'd always imagined it there! Certainly makes sense in that it flows nicely from the preferred of my two Alfriston locations, and also would allow the narrow gauge to follow the bottom of the valley, running, with some inevitable deviation in places, pretty much alongside the river.

 

[Nearholmer]

Phil, whether we take the SG all the way to where the EST&T plant was, as I always imagined, or the narrow gauge extends up to Litlington, the line has to cross the main coast road at Exceat, but I think at the date we are talking about, and probably until the 1950/60s, that would be pretty much a non-issue.

 

 

Mr Seagull, are you intending to run the narrow gauge on the flood plain? I think that would get difficult below Litlington and that you have to be up at road level.

 

Here’s the gradient profile of the road from Exceat to near the pub in Litlington, which makes the hump Phil points out pretty obvious.

 

 

Finally, isn’t the plan the wrong way round? Shouldn’t the line northwards be at the left, and southwards at the right if we are looking eastwards into riding ground?

Edited April 30, 2023 by Nearholmer

[phil-b259]

On 28/04/2023 at 18:49, Nearholmer said:

 

Now, l’m sure that Litlington could drum up a bit more trade, but there were plenty of places that managed without a goods shed, having simply a goods lock-up, for which there was a standard LBSCR design, and plenty where everything was dealt with on one siding.

 

 

 

Indeed

 

For example despite the extensive and lavish provision at Horsted Keynes for Passengers,  no 'goods shed' (as in a covered building which railwaay wagins were shunted into) was EVER provided!

 

What the LBSCR did provide for freight was THIS....

Yes, just THIS - just a simple lockup for a 5 platform junction station!

(Relocated to Kingscote so as to allow for expansion of the Carriage and Wagon Works many years ago)

 

As such I would say that having a 'typical goods shed' on your Cuckmere Valley railway is overkill and should be done away with in favour of something like an even smaller version of the above.

[Nearholmer]

In his article in here (p56) Paul Rhodes refers to what I think is the definitive article about these goods lock-ups in The Brighton Circular No.19. https://www.lbscr.org/Models/Digest/LBSCR-Modellers-Digest-12.pdf#page56

[Nick Holliday]

On 28/04/2023 at 18:49, Nearholmer said:

Now, l’m sure that Litlington could drum up a bit more trade, but there were plenty of places that managed without a goods shed, having simply a goods lock-up, for which there was a standard LBSCR design, and plenty where everything was dealt with on one siding.

 

I always flinch a bit when people quote "A standard LBSCR design" as the company seemed to find it difficult to adhere to the concept with regard to architecture in particular. Certainly there were design themes, but the details seemed to vary, such as the station buildings for Slinfold and Rudgwick being to an identical design, but were the mirror images of each other! And anyone who has tried to come up with standard windows for a signal box to one of the "Standard" designs has found that the dimensions for each one were significantly different.

The Brighton Circle article @Nearholmer has cited, identifies over thirty such sheds, erected over a period of 12 years between 1888 and 1900, costing around £50-70 to provide.  Where details are known, it is apparent that most had subtle differences, such as elaborate corner brackets, fancy barge boards, windows or no windows, sliding or hinged doors and all manner of variations in planking and framing.  A subsequent piece by Gerry Bixley also showed that dimensions could be slightly different, most being 20' ± a few inches, and 8'± or 10'±. The photos of the one on the Bluebell suggest it has been "modernised" during its various reconstructions - unlikely to have originally a corrugated sheet roof, and the rear valance seems to have gone astray, and it is a unusual design, being 32' 4" long. There is a fine example of a more typical example at Isfield on the Lavender Line, and a trawl through the Middleton Press books could reveal a number of other examples.

 

Photo courtesy of Phil Clarke - Lavender Line website

It is surprising the variety of locations, varying from the tiny rural (FIttleworth and Selham) to suburban London (Gipsy Hill and Streatham Hill) with some large towns included (Haywards Heath and Three Bridges)

Edited April 30, 2023 by Nick Holliday
Photo added

[Nearholmer]

Interesting.

 

in my defence I will say that standards can be highly prescriptive, detailed construction specifications in effect, or something far less detailed that sets a bare outline of what is to be achieved. Although, TBH, I did think that what the LBSCR did was a little more uniform than seems to have been the case.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Nearholmer

[dseagull]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Finally, isn’t the plan the wrong way round? Shouldn’t the line northwards be at the left, and southwards at the right if we are looking eastwards into riding ground?

 

Yes, undoubtedly the wrong way round. Practicality again I'm afraid - If the layout 'runs' the other way, the end curves would have to be across the shed door, which is possible with a lifting section but less than ideal.

 

No goods shed planned, although it was included on early plans it was more of a placeholder to ensure I had left enough space in the yard for goods loading.

 

 

[phil_sutters]

On 30/04/2023 at 03:23, phil-b259 said:

 

Indeed

 

For example despite the extensive and lavish provision at Horsted Keynes for Passengers,  no 'goods shed' (as in a covered building which railwaay wagins were shunted into) was EVER provided!

 

What the LBSCR did provide for freight was THIS....

Yes, just THIS - just a simple lockup for a 5 platform junction station!

(Relocated to Kingscote so as to allow for expansion of the Carriage and Wagon Works many years ago)

 

As such I would say that having a 'typical goods shed' on your Cuckmere Valley railway is overkill and should be done away with in favour of something like an even smaller version of the above.

Now I understand what this rather attractive building on Burgess Hill up platform might have been.

Edited May 1, 2023 by phil_sutters

[KingEdwardII]

On 30/04/2023 at 03:23, phil-b259 said:

just a simple lockup for a 5 platform junction station!

Horsted Keynes may have substantial passenger provision due to its nature as a junction, but in freight terms, the village itself is tiny and would probably not have had that much traffic.

 

Provision of goods sheds at rural stations could vary a lot, not always in a logical way. The Cheddar Valley / East Somerset line through Wells had a mixture of provision, some places with just a loading dock, others with full blown goods sheds. The bigger settlements tended to have a goods shed, but for the smaller places it was somewhat hit and miss. Notable that Witham, the junction station with the main line at the eastern end of the branch, had no goods shed - the local village of Witham Friary is small even today.

 

Yours, Mike.

[RobinofLoxley]

I hope the roof on that Burgess Hill building isnt asbestos

[Nick Holliday]

9 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

Now I understand what this rather attractive building on Burgess Hill up platform might have been.

This quirky building is indeed of interest, although nothing really to do with the goods shed train of thought.

As Wikipedia notes:

The first station at Burgess Hill was opened on 21 September 1841 by the London and Brighton Railway (L&BR), at the time of the completion of the route to Brighton. The original facilities were all in the small wooden hut (which still stands as a refurbished waiting room on platform 1) and wooden platforms set beside the main line. The L&BR became the London Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR) in 1846 and a track plan of the station dating from 1874 shows that by then several sidings and a signal box had been constructed at the station.

The present station building dates from 1877 and is typical of LB&SCR stations of the period.

The earliest OS map shows the original layout with the building in the photo being the main station offices, with a road access from the east.

Later maps show the 1877 building on the road overbridge, and the substantial brick built goods shed on the west side of the tracks.

As there is still road access down to the building and the minimalist goods yard, it is likely that the building was retained to handle parcels and perhaps milk traffic, but, essentially, it is a converted waiting room.  The "standard" timber goods sheds only dated from 1888, so this one pre-dates them byfour decades!

[Nick C]

2 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

I hope the roof on that Burgess Hill building isnt asbestos

Looks like it is - but then it's fine as long as you don't disturb it...

 

I'd agree that it looks like a converted waiting room, with the former opening at the front.

[phil_sutters]

4 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

This quirky building is indeed of interest, although nothing really to do with the goods shed train of thought.

As Wikipedia notes:

The first station at Burgess Hill was opened on 21 September 1841 by the London and Brighton Railway (L&BR), at the time of the completion of the route to Brighton. The original facilities were all in the small wooden hut (which still stands as a refurbished waiting room on platform 1) and wooden platforms set beside the main line. The L&BR became the London Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR) in 1846 and a track plan of the station dating from 1874 shows that by then several sidings and a signal box had been constructed at the station.

The present station building dates from 1877 and is typical of LB&SCR stations of the period.

The earliest OS map shows the original layout with the building in the photo being the main station offices, with a road access from the east.

Later maps show the 1877 building on the road overbridge, and the substantial brick built goods shed on the west side of the tracks.

As there is still road access down to the building and the minimalist goods yard, it is likely that the building was retained to handle parcels and perhaps milk traffic, but, essentially, it is a converted waiting room.  The "standard" timber goods sheds only dated from 1888, so this one pre-dates them byfour decades!

Clearly an historic building that could do with a light refurb without losing its character.

Edit 1 - That comment was based on my photo from 2016. It did get a facelift, with the rest of the station in 2020, according to this report - https://railinsider.co.uk/2020/11/26/1-2-million-facelift-for-burgess-hill-station/

Edit 2 - In 2021 it was returned to use as a waiting room. While I liked the refurbed look of 2020, I suppose that giving it back some active life is a recognition of its original purpose. https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2021-03-20/the-railway-station-where-waiting-for-a-train-has-never-looked-so-good

Edited May 2, 2023 by phil_sutters