Bluebell Railway General Discussion

I see a little counting game for my children:

1 MLV
2 BIL
3 CIG
4 COR
5 BEL
6 PUL

...

OK, sometimes they take their time to put to sleep at night!

Tom

 

Mick = The answer to the problem is Motor Lugage Vans, at least thats what the East Kent ocasionally do. MLVs are self propelled single coaclh full brakes with driving cabs each end and were attached to boat trains. The Quays at Folkestone and Dover had some non electrified lines so the MLV were fitted with batteries to access the non electrified lines. Recharging the batteries would occur on the return journey. At Dover whilst the station was electrified the lines next to the ships were not, passengers needed to walk across them, so MLV could actually run right up to the side of the ship to load mail etc

 

7 SUB, 8 CEP,9TC and 10EPB

note for the pedants: 7 SUB is a 3 SUB coupled to a 4SUB (1950s) and I made up 9TC as I think at least one was delivered as a 3 car

 

Up to a point perhaps. An MLV working with a 4CEP for example would look authentic, but not with anything that wasn't based on BR Mk1 mainline stock.

 

http://www.cep7105.co.uk/ It's intended to do the whole unit and take it mainline.

What would be the point? It would just use up valuable siding space which is at a premium at every preserved line. Having a container / shed or whatever doesn't do that.

 

12 REP+TC+TC
13 CEP+BEP+CEP+MLV
14 CEP+VEP+CEP+HAP
15 Pffft... bang!

 

Half true I think. Physical space is also at a premium (and I believe that one of the objectives of the HK Carriage Shed project is to tidy up the down yard at HK, improving the ambiance by removing containers). The Bluebell is relatively lucky in having a fair number of vans, including most of the main SR types, which are not only of heritage value themselves, but are also useful for storage. I believe the Long Term Plan has a van train as an objective, with one each of all the major types (Van B, Van C, Van U etc).

Tom

 

Of all the lame excuses why something "can't be done" the idea that the fencing is an issue because it won't look right seems to be right up there with the most ridiculous of them.

Have a look at some of the photos on this third-rail-electrified railway, and tell me why your fencing would need to be any less attractive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volk's_Electric_Railway

 

But not an 'old EMU with its windows plated over' train? Which is the proposal I was replying to.

Authentic vans can have whatever one likes stored in them and, if the railway wants to trundle them up and down as a 'van train', then that's fine, it's a handy extra use and makes use of the siding space worth it. But that's not going to happen with an old EMU with its windows plated over - it'll just be left on a siding which the railway would probably prefer to use for other things, no?

 

And that the Bluebell powers-that-be wouldn't prefer some or all of that effort going to higher priority areas.

People seem to forget that there's always an opportunity cost, and that lower priority tasks cannibalise resources from more important work.

Simon

 

But that exists. If we electrified to Ardingly, we would be new build, and I can't imagine we'd get away with less than pallisade fencing.

Tom

 

You'll get away with what your risk assessment says you can get away with. At the end of the day, a steam hauled train has a potential to kill a trespasser to the risk is pretty much the same, already.

Anyhow, you could always put up an electric post & wire fence to deter trespass. As to the voltage.......

 

And that's the point. I'm seeing a wish list on here that ranges from restoration of a luxury Edwardian carriage to running 1970s electric units! Quite a diversity of opinion, and realistically more than one organisation can do all at once.

Fortunately there is an agreed set of aspirations, and some very loose prioritisation of them - the long term plan. Within that document, it says:

"Projects aspired to for the 25 year period to 2038.
Investigate the possible future electrification of the Ardingly branch."

Not "electrify the Ardingly branch", just "investigate the possible future electrification of the Ardingly branch." That investigation may conclude that it is impossible.

(And to give a sense of what sort of priority that aspiration is, it is in the same section and timescale as "Investigation of a southerly extension to Lewes via Newick and Chailey and Barcombe.")

There are plenty of projects seen as much more important than either of those two. The HK carriage shed, a research and archive building, a volunteer hostel, Kinscote Goods Yard, a Craven replica and train, a large exhibits museum ... are all seen as rather more important than even investigating the feasibility of electrifying a branch that we haven't yet opened!

Tom

 

And a partridge in a pear tree

 

Lots of people are saying 'you should do xyz...' Fairly telling that nobody from the Bluebell is saying 'let's do xyz...'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That's the NatPres way - we all know how to run each other's railways better (And guilty as charged, before anyone else jumps in!)

Tom

 

OK
So if a 3rd rail equipped line is not possible for whatever reason.
Then you now have the excuse that you have the perfect location for use of a Thumper.
Ex Southern Region, so in the right area ish.

 

Well I assume all those who think the Bluebell should rebuild and electrify the branch will, in the mean time, be giving all their spare cash and time to the East Kent. after all it's not that far away from the Bluebell and has a number of electric units that need help right now......