Bluebell Motive Power

I don't think that is true - so I believe, at certain times, NR use it for berthing stock.

Tom

 

They do indeed. When we went up to East Grinstead on the Black 5 photo charter at about lunch time, there was a 3 car set there. Both NR platforms were also being used.

 

Yes, I did understand that.

But he did say "The only financial justification for a turntable on a heritage railway I can think of is ... primarily to turn coaches", and you don't need two turntables for that. (Speaking of which, how often does one need to turn a coach [if, of course, you're turning them - many lines can't/don't.]? Is once per season enough - since I gather a paint coat usually lasts several - or would one want to do it, say, every month?)

Noel

 

At a guess, having had a little to do with paint chemistry in the past, I would have thought about half a dozen times in the life of the paint job would be reasonable. Also depends just how one sided the sun exposure on your line is. Not a huge problem for the Bluebell I suspect...

 

Not just sun, it is also the rain - on the Bluebell, that's more of a problem (north / south oriented line, with prevailing westerly wind, so one side of each coach takes the brunt of the weather).

When the LMS BGZ was first painted into faux-Pullman livery, the western side did weather in a very odd way - partly I think that was down to a possibly suspect batch of paint, but the effect was very noticeably one-sided.

Having said all that - given the money, a carriage shed would do more to protect the paintwork of carriages than periodic turning

Tom

 

Ah, fair enough, though surely even if the Bluebell Railway did take that stretch of track for a larger station, the stock needed to be berthed out of the way could still just come into the Bluebell's station then and wait there till it can leave. Surely, perhaps?

Plus one has to argue that if the Bluebell Railway, now a big addition to the town's economy, must be relegated to a single basic narrow platform just because NR uses it to occasionally berth stock, then it is clear that it is not entirely fair in terms of pure logic of the fact that the Bluebell could make far better use of it, in terms of usage and economics, then the NR could in it's current usage.

Basically I'm saying the Bluebell Railway could use that line to expand the station, thereby making it far more flexible and more attractive to tourists, and in turn bring in more money to the local economy, all these benefits the NR certainly won't achieve by just using that track for berthing stock... In the end, who could really make better use out of that track for the good of local area...? Logic would generally only point to one realistically...

 

No because the Bluebell does not have 3rd rail.

 

The Bluebell only requires one platform see my post 1648.The issue is whether the space for facilities required, based on demand, is sufficient long term and when the Bluebell builds a permanent station building they will have to makes sure they make best use of the limited space available.A 2 storey structure maybe required

 

Not just that (though it is important) - but also because we have a defined procedural interface for movements between NR and the Bluebell. So if, for example, that siding was Bluebell infrastructure, we'd have to have someone available any time (possibly at antisocial hours) when NR wanted to move a piece of stock into it. And there would also be the problem that NR couldn't guarantee it was free if they needed it, so it would affect their planning.

As Paul and others have noted - we only need one platform and a run round at EG. If we had more space, we'd use it for more built infrastructure (waiting room, buffet etc), not more platforms or sidings.

Tom

 

Operationally wouldn't a loop around the West Hoathly area be more use than a second platform at EG?

 

From a timetable point of view, almost certainly West Hoathly would be a better crossing point than HK. But HK has a buffet and other things to see, so from a passenger point of view, crossing (or more pertinently, waiting) at HK is preferable and I can't see that changing.

If we do get a station at West Hoathly, I'd bet that it will be a single line without passing facilities or signalling, at least initially.

Something like this would be nice, with the sidings in place for a P/W yard. But I'm just off in fantasy land ...

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/barcombe/barcombe_old2.jpg

Tom

 

I was more thinking of a crossing loop at WH as well as HK and not so much for the ordinary service as for busier times.

 

Yes, though I don't think you gain a lot unless you also have a passing place somewhere between SP and HK - it is only about 8 minutes or so from HK to WH, and another 5 to Kingscote, but 15 between SP and HK. So putting a passing place in at WH doesn't increase line capacity on its own. It might just about make an hourly two-train service possible (rather than the current 75 minute service) but it would be tight.

Tom

 

One possible way around that is to erect a multi-story car park. Yes, that's big money, and probably not something the Bluebell could do on its own, but if the town wanted the Bluebell to have more room for a bigger/better station, that would likely be the way to go.

Noel

 

Well, the Bluebell's own long-term plan does call for " new covered passenger and staff accommodation" at EG. (Not saying it will happen soon, of course - it is, after all, a LTP.)

Noel

 

Why fiddle about with half measures? Clearly what's needed is a project to double track the entire line, plus of course a turntable at each end. A little servicing depot just down the way from East Grinstead so that a new engine could reverse down and take out the train, leaving the old engine to reverse up to the depot and be turned, watered, coaled if necessary and turned ready for the next train. You could get a pretty intensive service with just the single platform, and think of all the photo opportunities...

 

A Permanent station building to replace the temporary accomodation. A Canopy to the platform will happen first.
Planning permisson will be needed for a permanent station building and the previous time they tried a number of conditions were imposed which would have effected the operating of the railway and were not acceptable to them, so it was left to expire i believe.

 

I doubt the residents of the houses on the otherisde of the carpark would like it!