What's the problem with Uckfield?

[trainmania100]

Lots of talk circulated around the uckfield branch around what locos are "allowed" and what locos aren't.

In the past I've seen 73s double headed/double tailed on autoballasters at Hurst green, with some people saying 66s aren't permitted.

Yet I've seen 66s on RHTT and there's even a video of 66714/718 on YouTube.

A kind driver told me 69s aren't allowed to uckfield which is why 3W90 (uckfield rhtt) has been 73s the whole season,

But where does this speculation arise? What is the infrastructure limitation preventing 69s from using the branch? It was my first thought that 66s weren't allowed either but obviously with YouTube that has been proven wrong as plenty of 66s, 37s etc have used the lines including east grinstead.

Even before the 69s came along, talk of loco restrictions still floated around. Any ideas

 

[D6130]

But where does this speculation arise? What is the infrastructure limitation preventing 69s from using the branch? It was my first thought that 66s weren't allowed either but obviously with YouTube that has been proven wrong as plenty of 66s, 37s etc have used the lines including east grinstead.

Is there a weight restriction on Oxted viaduct?....in which case it would apply to the East Grinstead as well. Maybe they haven't been able to organise clearance trials to Uckfield for 69s yet.

 

[12LDA28C]

Is there a weight restriction on Oxted viaduct?....in which case it would apply to the East Grinstead as well. Maybe they haven't been able to organise clearance trials to Uckfield for 69s yet.

I believe a Class 66 is heavier than a Class 69 so a weight issue seems unlikely. Maybe more to do with gauging - were 56s previously allowed?

Some lines are 'restricted' for locos due to weight, and some lines only allow a certain number of loco-hauled trains permitted during a set period with dispensation required from NR to run locos - maybe the RHTT falls into this category.

 

[jfollows]

The Sectional Appendix (https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional Appendix full PDFs September/Kent Sussex Wessex Sectional Appendix September 2022.pdf) shows what's cleared for the Uckfield line and any restrictions as well as what's not, for example:


which shows that a lot of classes aren't passed for the route - none of 56, 58, 59, 60, 66, 67, 68, 70 for example and 37/5, 47/x & 57 only with a speed restriction over Red Lane Bridge. That doesn't mean that none of these other classes have ever travelled over the route, of course, but you wouldn't normally expect to see them.
NB "Prohibited beyond 12m 40ch" means not beyond Sanderstead, at which point the line's route availability changes down from RA8 to RA6.

 

[trainmania100]

Thanks for that chaps. Often used the sectional appendix myself but never sure how up to date it is

 

[jfollows]

Thanks for that chaps. Often used the sectional appendix myself but never sure how up to date it is

3 September 2022 in this particular case.

 

[paul1609]

Think that the limiting factor on the Uckfield Branch is/ was Red Lane bridge in Hurst Green itself.
526 Red Ln

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

 

[zwk500]

In the past I've seen 73s double headed/double tailed on autoballasters at Hurst green, with some people saying 66s aren't permitted.

Yet I've seen 66s on RHTT and there's even a video of 66714/718 on YouTube.

As NESA shows, 66's aren't ordinarily allowed however special permission can be granted for certain movements, which can include speed restrictions where necessary.

There are weak bridges north of Hurst Green Jn as well, when stuff moves to the Bluebell the engineers can get quite nervous.

 

[trainmania100]

As NESA shows, 66's aren't ordinarily allowed however special permission can be granted for certain movements, which can include speed restrictions where necessary.

There are weak bridges north of Hurst Green Jn as well, when stuff moves to the Bluebell the engineers can get quite nervous.

With all these campaigners going on about bml2 you'd think they'd strengthen their weak assets lol

 

[zwk500]

With all these campaigners going on about bml2 you'd think they'd strengthen their weak assets lol

Why? BML2 wasn't going to happen even before covid, and it's not 'all these' campaigners it's one angry man and a small band of followers.
No point strengthening assets until there's a viable traffic demand for them. There's no freight on the route, all services are MUs, 73s can fit down no problem and a 66 is only RA6 so RA5 bridges won't be too badly affected by it coming down on the odd engineering train. Movements to the Bluebell are ad-hoc and quite unpredictable. Why spend several million pounds on assets that don't need it when you've got plenty of places in Sussex that could do with that money (Newhaven having £50 for a tin of paint for a start, but also tinkering with the Yard and Town Station to facilitate easier reversals).

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

I do wish that the use of BML2 was confined to its use as the ELR for Northam Junction to Dorchester! Very confusing to someone who isn't a Brighton aficionado!
Pat

 

[507020]

The problem with Uckfield is that it’s not electrified!

 

[tbtc]

Sometimes there appears to be some contradictions/ surprising omissions in terms of what is permitted in the Sectional Appendix

But given the cost/ hassle of the necessary bureaucracy, sometimes it’s more a case of “Only things that might realistically go that way have been applied for”

From memory, there’s somewhere like the Durham Coast line where 150s aren’t approved but the rather similar 950s that Network Rail use for track measuring are allowed - presumably because 950s have either run along the coast or at least might realistically do so at some stage, whereas there’s no 150s working out of Heaton so no particular urgency when it comes to doing the paperwork (just like I don’t think 345s will be able to run on many electrified lines, because there’s no plans to expand their use beyond Elizabeth Line duties)

 

[zwk500]

Sometimes there appears to be some contradictions/ surprising omissions in terms of what is permitted in the Sectional Appendix

But given the cost/ hassle of the necessary bureaucracy, sometimes it’s more a case of “Only things that might realistically go that way have been applied for”

There's certainly a lot of this. The office that checks the clearances can only take so much work so at busy times they'll often ask what needs to be done for the timetable, and leave the rest.
Also old things hang about and sometimes get missed when upgrades etc are done.
There is also the situation where a clearance form has lots of restrictions on, and an operator holds off on putting it into the Appendix so that there's time to get rid of some restrictions and avoid them being made permanent.
IIRC the 80xs came back with pages of restrictions at first, and didn't go into NESA until a lot of platforms had received visits from an angle grinder to remove the restriction.