Bluebell Railway General Discussion

I guess that would see the demise of SWT's Thunderbird 73s.

 

I'm afraid they were seen off years ago, the only 73s used by SWT these days are for shunting vehicles in the depot at Bournemouth.

Chris

 

According to Railway Mag two 4cep cars 61229 and 61230 have been sent to Eastleigh to be put in to original condition for use as hauled stock on the East Kent Railway.

 

In the unlikely event of HK -Ardingly being electrified, whether the current is switched on and off is irrelevant. As far as everyone is concerned it is always on. The idea that people may know that there are periods when it isn't live is going to lead to a fatality, sooner or later.

 

If there isn't a future for these units what about plating the windows up and removing the interior and using them for storing item in?

 

Steve I am not suggesting current on / off times should be public knowledge.....but I do not believe trained staff would be in danger from such a system.

 

Let's rephrase that to "non-existent"

I just can't see it happening - ever.

Firstly, there is the cost, as we have discussed. Then there is the need for a storage and maintenance shed - in an area where space is short and planning controls tight. Then there is the safety aspect - as well as what you do through the Ardingly site, assuming that the long-term aim is to enable through running to the mainline.

And then look at any 3rd-rail electric line now. The fencing seems to be designed to be pretty intruder-proof: lots of rigid steel palisade fencing with vicious spikes. Expensive to construct, but not exactly fitting the heritage appearance of the railway. I suspect we'd have to have it right up to HK - concrete post and wire would almost certainly be a no-no, certainly for a new installation.

3rd rail is an important part of the railway heritage down here, dating back more than a century on suburban lines, and eighty-odd years in the country. But the cost-benefit simply isn't there to recreate for a heritage line: too few people interested, too much cost and complexity to install, and too detrimental to the overall appearance of the railway - surely, selling our birthright for a mess of pottage!

Tom

 

Incidentally, talking about steam railways (we were talking about steam railways, weren't we - about twenty pages ago?)

We should have four in steam this Sunday - two normal service trains, a GA and a station pilot at Sheffield Park. It looks like we will be rostering a station pilot on Saturdays and Sundays for the foreseeable future - if I've understood the plan correctly, on Saturdays the pilot loco will be the WR engine when the Rambler runs, but otherwise will be a dedicated loco.

Tom

 

well done, tom!
nothing like keeping the mad schemes at bay and concentrating on the important stuff that brings the punters in and the coffers full!
(is my suggestion about restoring the LBSCR Director's Saloon another mad scheme?)
cheers,
julian

 

It may end up being non-existent but I prefer to stick to unlikely.

However, given the simple fact that it would be sensible to preserve a few southern EMUS and, assuming that there was the volunteer workforce and national will to pursue this, I have to say that the Ardingly branch is probably the best and most sensible location for it within the present heritage railway movement.

 

I find it amazing that there are at least three locations in England dedicated to running heritage electric trams yet not a single facility for preserved EMUs. Is it that the cost of providing a third rail installation is an order of magnitude higher than providing a similar sized overhead supply for trams; are they more attractive to the general public, or is there another reason that I haven't even considered?

Does classifying an undertaking as a museum open any additional avenues of funding that wouldn't normally be available to a heritage railway?

 

The LBSCR Saloon is a sore point with me.
I am old enough to remember it running in service (and accepting ones memories tend to be rose tinted ) it knocks socks off any rancid 3rd class Pullman costing hundreds of thousands to restore. Some of us contributed decades ago to a fund for the restoration of this unique treasure but apart from the fund being used for tarpaulins and limited gcontractor repairs a couple of decades ago, little else has been done to it to the Bluebells lasting shame. I seem to remember the PLC lost a spat years ago over the fitting of gangways to it and so it has been set aside ever since.
I suspect it has now been so long out of use very few understand or appreciate how good a coach it is and thus it will continue to be unloved and forgotten at the back of the scrapyard HK is resembling these days. Sadly the coach seems to be in the mad scheme unimportant category never to reappear.

Brian

 

It has been mentioned in the Bluebell Yahoo group that they hope to start the restoration of Maunsell Dining Saloon No.7864( http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/7864.html) in 3 years time.

 

I think it is chalk and cheese - overhead electric for trams is much safer than an electrified rail at ground level; the physical infrastructure costs of relatively lightweight masts and wires are lower; and (with the possible exception of the Seaton Tramway), I don't think any of the tram museums are running over a distance of around 4 miles, which we would need to get to Haywards Heath. Even Ardingly is about two miles, and that leaves you cut off from the main electric network.

Then add in that most trams have a genuine heritage feel, being quite unlike anything you can ride in today, and to me it looks obvious that the costs of a heritage tram system are much lower than a third-rail railway, while the attractiveness to passengers is greater.

I don't think so - if we were so inclined, we have options to raise money either through share issues or charitable donations (including funding by other grant giving bodies). Raising the money needed would of course be hard, but structurally I don't think there is any intrinsic problem in our corportae structure that rules out certain avenues.

Tom

 

About three years ago there was a big article in Bluebell News that made it look like something was imminently going to happen, but then it went quiet again. What happened to that scheme?

I get the sense that the Brighton Saloon is a bit like the - sharp intake of breath - Adams tank: A big bill for a vehicle that would have relatively limited opportunities for use. I suspect that restoring three or four four-wheelers, or a couple of Maunsells, is probably considered a better use of money and resources. But it is always a shame when a vehicle that was serviceable in preservation days is no longer serviceable, and - from an outsider's viewpoint at least - appears to have no momentum behind it.

Tom

 

As I grew up in North Kent SR EMU territory, I would certainly like to see some of them in self-powered operation in a heritage environment. However, as Tom has stated earlier in this thread, there are huge issues around providing working third rail infrastructure. But is there an alternative solution? Several European cities are now looking at making their tram networks at least partially catenary free by installing capacitor storage systems in their tram fleets to provide power in the wire free city centre sections, and I am wondering if this technology could be adapted to power heritage EMU's operating a short distance shuttle service on a non-electrified preserved line - and the Bluebell's Ardingly branch does seem to be the obvious historically accurate choice for this. Dare I say that one could even lay some purely cosmetic third rail on the approach to HK for appearance sake?

I admit that I have no idea about the cost, weight or size of this equipment, though I hope that it would be small and light enough to be installed in the EMU's guard's van area, nor of how long it would take to recharge from a land line between trips. Perhaps the capacitor storage equipment could even be made to be reasonably portable so that it could be transferred between units to add economical operational variety.

Cheers,

 

Yes ... but ... That assumes that there is a sufficient and credible group interested in doing just that. It's not my department, but I get a sense that the next big volunteer push, for both funding and volunteer resource, is the Maunsell Restaurant Car 7864. Plus there is the carriage shed to worry about, and there are three 4-wheelers currently in the works (Two Stroudley and one Chatham). Oh, and another Maunsell nearing completion. And a Bulleid under repair. And the LBSCR fruit van. And a couple of wagon projects...

In other words, there is a lot going on. There's a process to go through before starting new projects to ensure that the project is viable, i.e. that the group taking it on have the skills, the space and the capability to raise the funding. (I think that came out of earlier bad experience, in several departments, of projects being started and then not finished - of which the Director's saloon was one). Which is why I am confused about the article in BN a few years back, because it came with all the trappings of "we're going to do this and start raising money etc etc", in other words it looked like an official project, but then nothing happened.

Anyway, I thought the collected wisdom of NatPres was that our next big fundraising push should be to electrify the Ardingly branch, buy a 3CIG, move the 4VEP to Sussex, restore the 4COR...

Tom

 

Don't forget the 5-BEL!