Bluebell Railway General Discussion

The loco roster for the month has been updated. 30541 takes the bulk of service this month, 6989 is planned for service over 17th and 18th as well as the Beer Fest the week after with in addition - 72 "Fenchurch" subject to usual caveats. https://www.bluebell-railway.com/locomotive-roster/

 

London, Paris, Munich, Bahrain, New York.
Madness are playing support.

 

Don't you mean New York, Paris, Peckham?

 

The Bluebell has begun a public consultation on the relaying of the Ardingly Branch. Documents here: https://consultations.tetratecheuro...J431BxX60YDL081lew0XosjFZ-fDmdjmNkCjdwUUmqN8A . It seems the plan is to sneak around the builders yard on the Ardingly site and then add a mainline connection (can any other heritage line boast two network rail connections?) to allow through running. I'm guessing it would only be used for special events, like the Mountsorrel Branch is at the GCR, as there doesn't seem to be plans for a station or a loop anywhere, though I guess you could divert some mainline charters through too.

 

The Plans have provision for a platform accessible from trains only. I wonder what sort of service is envisaged.

 

I think we'd all like to know that ...

The most likely scenario that I can see is that it could be used for what I'd term "special non-passenger services", i.e. things where having a live railway is useful, but without disrupting the core Sheffield Park - East Grinstead service. That would be things like filming contracts, footplate experience, training services for e.g. Network Rail, their contractors, emergency services etc. Currently, we are restricted in offering those types of services primarily to times when the main railway is shut.

That is all pure speculation on my part, though.

Tom

 

The plans on the above link are indeed concerned only with the route; nothing about how the line might be used. My impression from recent discussions here was that extension to Ardingly was a possible long-term aspiration but with a dubious cost-benefit ratio if the trains would only go that far, while running through to Haywards Heath would be more useful but also raise additional problems. The proposed deviation around the Hanson site does imply an intention to run through to Haywards Heath: otherwise why not stop just before the Hanson site?

There's also at least one elephant in the room. With the Bluebell having to be very selective about expenditure on overhauls of the rolling stock, where might the capital for re-instating a few more miles of railway come from?

 

The proposed deviation looks like it cuts off part of the current Hanson's site and the Box Tunnel approach to go around the site looks very tight, especially on the Google Earth view.

I'm someone who's always liked the idea of the Bluebell reaching my hometown, but I struggle to see how things would work beyond Ardingly to Haywards Heath, as there's very little room to provide the Bluebell it's own running line from Copyhold Junction into the station (not without significant reprofiling of that section), plus lack of suitable space at Haywards Heath itself (despite space supposedly being left for the Bluebell's own platform during the station redevelopment).

The only way I think it would work going into Haywards Heath, is via mainline certification of rolling stock, which brings large cost and operational issues with it, that would rule that approach out, I think Tom's suggestion is one that would make most sense for the extension.

 

As a recently joined member I’m very impressed with the information I get from the railway. No other railway I know of issues a weekly news email or provides a monthly loco roster.

 

better then Swanage at least

 

.... and immeasurably better than the NYMR!

 

TBF the 'In the Loop' videos on YouTube that Will Stratford presents for the MHR are really excellent.

Getting back to the subject of Western Extension at the Bluebell. Tom's comments on providing 'special non-passenger services' seem sensible. It would also enable special services to run from East Grinstead all the way into Brighton- although the line from Haywards Heath to Brighton is very congested. But given the current economic climate I do wonder if the consultation approach is primarily designed to keep the extension alive and that any work to reinstate the branch would be some time off.

 

Yes, I agree.

One of the factors is that the only part of the line not owned by the Bluebell - Lywood Tunnel - is held on a lease from the DfT (or one of its subsidiary agencies); and there is a risk that when the lease ends, the DfT could choose to lease it to someone else, or even just pump it full of concrete. That lease was ten years, I'm not sure how much is left to run but I think it is a fairly short remaining period. So one objective - and why I think there has been an increase in apparent activity of late - is to demonstrate that we are making serious progress in reinstating the line, of which obtaining planning permission would be a serious marker of intent.

Beyond that - my understanding is that the aim of the current Western Extension Project is effectively to obtain the necessary planning permission, (and presumably renew the lease or purchase the tunnel outright) so as to safeguard the option of extending in the future. It isn't within the scope of that project, as I understand it, either to define how the line would be used, or funded. So I don't think the recent planning and other activity on the branch should be taken as a sign that steam trains will be turning right out of Horsted Keynes any time soon.

Tom

 

One does form the impression that this is a purely paper exercise, designed to keep the necessary permissions in place.
Whatever one may think about 2 miles of railway kept solely for special events and filming contracts, that, particularly in today's economic climate, is a WIBN of herculean proportions.

 

But think of the size of the linear scrapyard that could be created!

Considering how long it took the Bluebell to re-acquire all the land between Horsted Keynes and East Grinstead, the fact they already own the majority of the Western extension is a big plus.

 

Edit: ignore or delete

 

Just to remind there was an update on the western extension and next steps in Bluebell Times no 33 (May 2022)

 

How much traffic currently runs between the Hanson site and the national network? Is it presumed that that section of the line will remain open as part of NR (or GBR)?

 

I think it is basically one movement in and out each day. There is nothing in the Bluebell’s proposals that affects that section of the line except adding a connection; indeed, I believe the bypass of the Hanson site is basically to avoid interfering with their operations while still gaining access to the line to Copyhold Junction.

I think there was also some renewal work on that section of line earlier this year, so presumably both NR and Hanson see their operation as being for the long term.

Tom