Thanks. Would be good for bluebell to have but my blunt reply was due to the fact that I couldn't see what relevance it had for this thread, the horsted to ardingly extension.
A turntable will allow the ability to turn steam locomotives around which is especially important for visiting tours to exit the Bluebell at East Grinstead facing north towards the London direction.Thanks. Would be good for bluebell to have but my blunt reply was due to the fact that I couldn't see what relevance it had for this thread, the horsted to ardingly extension.
I'm guessing they posted in the wrong thread by mistake hence my confusion
If this is the right thread i wonder why they want a turntable? I thought all their locos faced north by choice . Although I may have heard wrong lol
Indeed, it's possible, but if you read the RVR report it's costing them rather a lot of money.
The relevance was that somebody had suggested extending to HHE would permit turning movements, but it doesn't
The Bluebell does indeed prefer to have it's locos facing North as that's the prevailing gradient. However Steam locos arriving from the mainline will generally be facing south at East Grinstead, and travelling tender-first imposes a 45mph speed restriction on NR so it would be preferable if they can spin the loco. At the moment the train has to be dragged by a loco on the rear between East Grinstead and South Croydon (or very rarely it gets dragged from South Croydon to East Grinstead, so that it's facing north on departure) and turn using a route via Redhill and Guildford.
We can only wish. Somehow I don't think it's worthwhile going via 15mph to east grinstead, then up to Clapham instead of just reversing at HAyward heath then 60mph up.
Indeed. Perhaps the capacity released (with the freight not using the line between Haywards Heath and South Croydon) would be worth the longer journey?
Possibly. Consulting the Sectional Appendix...
This sounds awfully expensive. I don't see how the Bluebell could possibly meet even a reasonable proportion of those costs. NR aren't going to be paying for it when the Bluebell has no real need to run to HHE. Can't see funding grants gravitating towards this proposal either. We're looking at a 20- to 30-year fundraising effort by the BRPS, to my mind.
The longest length aggregates traffic ordinarily runs to is 450m, how long is the current standage for a runround?
Thing is, you potentially don't actually need that big a gap between trains at Haywards Heath. You can follow a mainline train at minimum headway into the loop, re-occupy the platform at the minimum value (2 minutes) after it's departure, and then the only gap you need is long enough to change direction (10 minutes?), run to Copyhold Jn (2.5/3 minutes) and the Junction margin at Copyhold Jn (2/3 minutes depending on exactly how it would be defined). So all trains are running DML/P2 for about 16 minutes, which isn't actually a massive challenge on this part of the route at certain parts of the hour.
It would hardly need to be 'on the national network' to host occasional stone trains via East Grinstead instead of Haywards Heath. Horsted Keynes is already a significantly complex layout, rather more than any typical bucolic little branch line, and running a modern freight at low speed through the station is hardly going to spoil it. I believe The Bluebell's S&T Department has a clever scheme under development to only require one signalbox, at Kingscote (with its electric miniature lever frame), to be open to allow both NR interfaces and movements between them at quiet times when no Bluebell passenger or departmental services are running.
Signalling alterations rather than wholesale replacement I'd have thought, or the work might have to wait until a broader signalling scheme was scheduled in the area for other reasons. I wonder if the additional line might be pushed through the side span of the existing overbridge if it's still this structure illustrated in this 1949 aerial image:
Looks like around the same as a 12-car, i.e 240m. My scheme could probably accomodate the full 450m, with the wagons offline in the siding during runround, still with a fast divergence from the main.
Fully agree engineering and operational analyses need to be thorough.
Agree, it would rarely be more than 1 train a week anyway so 99% of visitors will be utterly unaware.
My understanding was that the plan involved Kingscote being able to control the East Grinstead area (and interchange with NR) using TCB and removing the need for tokens. AIUI Kingscote has no ability, planned or theoretical, to control any part of Horsted Keynes. Separately, there is the ability for Sheffield Park and Kingscote to use 'Long Section' working and switch out Horsted Keynes box. If this is being used, then there is no access to the Ardingly Branch as the junction cannot be changed with HK Box switched out. Provision was made for Ardingly in the HK Resignalling, but I'm not sure if that was just for a Section & Home signal and a Key Token instrument, or if the branch can be run without a token. If it needs a token instrument at Ardingly, that's yet more faff.
As I've been told, there's no such thing as a small signalling change. Pushing through the existing bridge may be possible but it'll need a retaining wall and getting access for that wouldn't come cheap.
I make it 460m from the clearance point of the Shunt Neck/Runround (the platform signal is cleared towards the shunt neck and the train drawn forward, btw) to the foot crossing at the north end of the platform. Seems like limited value to NR making it longer.
I can't disagree! This may still be a geographical interlocking area if that element hasn't been renewed more recently. If you can get sufficient refurbished 'sets', the design and changeover can be a little more swift than with other relay based tech. They were planning to do this for the preliminary stages of CARS I believe.
Ok that makes sense. In which case my new right hand x-over isn't required at all and the existing one nearer the platform would suffice. The benefit of being able to run straight into and out of the siding via a new left-hand crossover might still be worth looking into however so the wagons can be left there while the loco runs round between trains via platform #1. That work might be pursued in advance with the widening to create the independant connection to the branch, carried out later when stakeholders can build a case and raise the finance.
I think there's a plan to move it into the ROC in the near future, not sure how firm it is. (I heard talk about Bi-Di on all 4 tracks, etc but never a date).
Agreed. Being able to stable the wagons in the runround loop would be a massive boost to the flexibility of the freight paths. However for less than 3 trains a week it's difficult to make the case for even a comparatively small signalling intervention.
It all depends on what the Bluebell think they need to run. If they're going to use it for a couple of trains a day a few days a year, then a Ground frame at the yard and Stop board at the NR/BRPS boundary may be enough. If, however, they want to run a regular shuttle all through the day every summer weekend then it'd need something a bit more. It also depends on whether the Bluebell plan to put anything in at Ardingly to allow self-contained operations for any reason.
Could be a control transfer to ROC workstations, with existing interlockings and trackside equipment retained, at least initially.
I wonder if an easier task planning the freight here might lead to an increase in traffic.
Having just poked around the Bluebell's website: https://www.bluebell-railway.com/brps/signals/ it appears that they are intending to use Electric Train Staff working between Horsted Keynes and Ardingly. If they were intending to run only sporadic trains through to HHE, then it could be made to work with Stop boards and 'Stop and Telephone' instructions to confirm Train Arrived Complete and track clear to the relevant signallers at each end. You'd need only minimal intervention at Ardingly sidings to fit the turnout (and possibly a pair of trap points), maybe not even an FPL (if they clip and scotch each time). This would even work for an all-day service, although they'd probably need to make sure there's no freight using the sidings that day.
Almost certainly that's the first step
No, the bottlenecks elsewhere wouldn't be helped. The total number of paths wouldn't change, but it would make what does run more flexible to avoid delay.
I wouldn't like to see a permanent installation relying on clipping and padlocking for passenger operation. I'd put in a small mechanical ground frame at the entrance to the quarry, released by the train staff. For freight to the quarry, the staff instrument at HHE could operate as a remote, without release by the signaller at Horsted Keynes, so as long as the section was left clear a staff might be withdrawn for an out ad back trip without a Bluebell signaller being on duty at Horsted Keynes. Alternatively, a separate 'short section staff' might be provided at HHE, that requires the normal staff system to be in phase, and once withdrawn from its own instrument (a simple Annetts key release device) at HHE would lock out the normal staff system until the short section staff is returned to its instrument.
I don't see why you'd go back to staff operation at HHE, instead of just fitting axle counters if you were that concerned. However I think a GF or Switch panel with staff to advise Train Arrived Complete to Three Bridges or HK would be sufficient. The switching in/out arrangements and potential failure of the staff instrument trapping a freight at HHE would be quite complicated problems to resolve.
That is an interesting diagram. Thank you.
It would be less trouble if the trapped freight was able to sit on the runround loop instead of in platform 1!
Since all 33/1s started out as 33/0s, it would suggest that the Bluebell could do the same conversion to theirs if it became necessary.
They could, but is it really time / cost effective? For example, we are talking about a fairly complex conversion carried out around 1965. Are the components still readily available? Would the Bluebell loco owners want to heavily modify a loco they are already working their way through the restoration of, only to hack it around again? You’d be simpler off speaking to either Nemesis and re-hiring 33103 or any of the other 33/1 owners. Heck, the NRM owned one at the GC could do with a new home or some considerable TLC!
Theres no way regular operation of an EMU would attract other than a very niche band of enthusiasts numbered on one hand Id suggest. The whole operation isnt going to cover its costs.
Then what’s the point in preserving them? Yes they get dragged around occasionally but some sit quietly in sidings slowly deteriorating. To present an operational one in an authentic setting on high days and holidays must surely be an attraction?
when was the last steam hauled railtour into the Bluebell ?
No idea post-covid, but there used to be 2 or 3 a year, plus loco moves when I used to plan them.
You wouldn't turn a tamper, and Selhurst is a pain in the neck to use as the third side of the triangle is part of the depot. The value of turning it would be to enable a departure directly back north to increase the range of potential destinations for tours. A steam loco runnning tender-first is limited to 45mph, running chimney first it can go to 60 or 75mph (varies between locos). At the moment to get the loco facing North involves reversing at South Croydon and running via Redhill and Guildford, which takes a long time.
The lines are absolutely about money now. They're tourist attractions, and if they don't make money they shut down.
Show me one without volunteers to make it happen ?
I believe there are several heritage railways without volunteers possibly (I stand to be corrected..!)- Snowdon Mountain Railway, Paignton and Kingswear Railway, Vale of Rheidol.
