Discussion on EMU's from the Cig 3 thread.

Because there may be a link to NR it may be more practicable to use track circuit block rather than one engine in steam, admitedly it would not be the cheapest optin

 

Most likely i wont see it Im 60 this year, but i wonder if once the line is rebuilt will the service become more of an East grinstead to Haywards heath service than East Grinstead to Shefield Park.? with some services just running a shuttle between SP and HK?

 

Probably it will be a shuttle. Dont hang your bucket up yet. I am 66 and hoping to at least see it started

 

I've heard rumours that a group are looking at preserving a Class 442, but would any railway take it up or is it to modern and most heritage railways in the south don't want an EMU set on their line.

 

The Eden Valley Railway has already got an MLV with a generator inside:

from the website "S68005 has had a diesel generator installed which is used to supply power for lighting, heating, compressors and the MG sets of the 4-CEP when used in passenger service, enabling the batteries to power the train. Both MLVs have also had additional batteries installed to ensure there is enough power to complete a full day's service of journeys to Sandford Bridge and back. They are currently awaiting some new batteries to allow them to work over the extended line to Southfields without needing an extended gap between journeys for recharging."

It is possible that new batteries might be procured later this year, which would enable sights such as this to be seen again:

2315 at the head of a train approaching Warcop in 2009

S68005 and S68003 propelling the train

 

That is an interesting question. I believe that before proceeding, the Bluebell would do well to think very carefully about the potential risks associated with reopening the Ardingly branch. Safety risks of doing this extension with 3rd rail may not be the main point at issue.

If the Bluebell reinstates the route from Horsted Keynes to Haywards Heath, having already spent lots of money to unblock Imberhorne Cutting, this would also re-create a potentially useful through (and diversionary) route from south London to Brighton, via East Grinstead, HK and HH.

The public transport environment has been transformed since the 1960s when this under-used route was closed. Social trends now include a rapidly growing population in the South East; expanding rail services; congested roads; reductions in car ownership in cities; and future limits on consumption of fossil fuels. In these new circumstances there could be pressure to share a revived EG to HH route with a commercially run (and probably in due course electrified) commuter rail service.

While the track and other infrastructure would be in Bluebell ownership, politicians might claim that wider access to it ought to be given, to serve the public good. It might even be argued that such a handover would not be unfair, given the indirect public funding (landfill tax credits, Imberhorne viaduct for £1, favourable planning treatment, etc) that the Bluebell enjoyed for its extensions. Worst case scenarios could even include compulsory purchase.

The Bluebell might perhaps respond by offering to run commuter services itself, but that would be a substantial distraction from preservation activity - and would tend to reduce the HK to Sheffield Park part of its operation to becoming a heritage branch off the new main line.

Presumably that would be a deeply unwanted consequence, as the present loco, shop, restaurant and museum facilities at SP would then be in the wrong place. In effect the Bluebell might end up being penalised for all the hard work it had done in clearing the way through its two extensions.

 

You assume that a reopened Ardingly branch would go through to the Brighton Main Line. As I understand it, the quarry operation at Ardingly makes that doubtful - especially if 3rd rail is in the mix.

Also, who would want to use the route? While I'm sure there would be some at Horsted Keynes and Ardingly who'd find a station on their doorstep useful, surely most would just find it quicker to drive to somewhere on the Main Line than take a slow train via East Grinstead?

 

As someone who worked extensively managing 3rd rail areas, is deeply involved in railway heritage and is still privileged to retain my mainline PTS I am not so amazed.

The gain to preservation of running 3rd rail electrification against the safety consideration of operating an open, lethal conductor would be tiny. Get real about that balance.

Set that against the extensive 3rd rail network available for thoroughly refurbished vehicles (I can't speak highly enough of the Brighton Belle project.) and it will be rapidly apparent why Horsyed Keynes to Ardingly wont be 3rd rail anytime soon....

If those who advocate 3rd preservation are serious, then best to set to and solve the problems in getting the 4-Sub and 2-Bil back on the main line.

I'll happily buy the first share in any viable scheme to do either. (I have a feeling my money is safe!)

Robin

 

Haywards Heath is the Bluebell's acknowledged ultimate if long-term destination for the Ardingly branch project. It is thought possible to lay track past the aggregates depot, if that remains open.

As for who would use it - there is already substantial pressure to open diversionary routes for the congested Brighton main line. The future scenario I laid out also envisaged a general reduction in use of cars; there are signs of this happening, see the bit about social trends in my previous post.

Actually I think the best counter - argument (i.e. in favour of the Bluebell not worrying too much about the risk of reopening to Ardingly) is that my scenario might happen anyway. We've already done the most difficult bit in reopening to East Grinstead, any public project to run commuter services over the whole line to Haywards Heath would find the remaining engineering challenges easy by comparison.

 

It seems to me, and Robin may well have a better insight than I do, that there are the early signs of 'the beginning of the end' for 3rd rail in the UK, certainly on the 'main line'

 

Not in my lifetime.

Robin

 

If you read "Modern Railways", you will see suggestions of the beginning of the end, and then of that beginning drifting further and further back. I do not see it happening in my lifetime, or indeed that of my 10 year old son.

 

50033 would be ideal for this

 

There were some suggestions of this a while back, including I believe some comments from a Parliamentary committee.

But more recently, it's been said in the modern railway press that the escalating cost of the Great Western electrification have pushed into the indefinite far future any prospect of such wholesale conversions of SR 3rd rail routes to overhead. Can't say this is surprising; it would be an enormously costly and disruptive exercise. Won't there always be more pressing railway needs to spend the money on?

 

given the ammount of 3rd rail already in the SE, There is no way such a change over can happen, except on a piecemeal basis, what you will see is more duel voltage units, able to work on either 3rd Rail or overhead, its already happened, all new stuff is already duel mode i do wonder, will we see a modern electric loco one day that is designed to be used on long haul passenger and capable of running on 3rd rail or overhead if it was ever thought that it was viabe to have a fleet of such machines? the class 92 is the only on i know of,but its a freight lco, so might not have a 125 mph top speed and do they even work on 3rd rail these days? that would be the most obvious answer to have duel mode vehicles, than to wire up large bits of the south of england .

 

That seems about right, as far as it goes. Greater use of dual voltage trains is technically very feasible (and new 3rd rail stock is being built with pantograph wells for that reason).

Such trains do not however tackle the wider objections to the 3rd rail, that it (1) is less safe - or alternatively, that it does a better job at punishing trespass (!); (2) with its lower voltages, it's less efficient as a way of distributing and using electric power; and (3) therefore it is less suited to high speed, high acceleration trains.

I suspect that the question of converting the 3rd rail Southern network to 25kV overhead is now parked, until some time after Network Rail has converted all its lines to ERTMS; which might perhaps take 20 - 50 years. The advantage of doing things that way round is that ERTMS is supposed to do away with all the trackside signalling, which would not therefore have to be immunised before the power changeover.

 

The Electric Railway Museum is now under serious threat from development, supposedly Jaguar Land Rover have planning permission for the site according to the Electric Railway Museums Facebook page. Please note this was in April this year so it could have changed since. https://www.facebook.com/electricrailwaymuseum/

 

Being reported on WNXX that CIG 1498 has been sold and is going to Ireland to be used as camping coaches in a 'glamping' complex along with a Boeing 767! Oh well Stuart I guess that's the end of that!

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

Don't tempt fate! His next bright idea'll be to have it reguaged, and lay 3rd rail over there...

 

actually not a bad idea, i'd call it mixed gauge though.

this is it's destination
http://quirkyglamping.town.ie/