Bluebell extension to Haywards Heath via Ardingly

[Titfield]

A distinction has to be drawn between (1) a heritage railway running on their own metals exclusively into a station also served by "mainline" trains (2) a heritage railway running on a mixture of their own rails and network rail rails into a station also served by mainline trains. With the former an amendment to the LRO should suffice (plus station access agreement etc) with the latter compliance with mainline standards is required.

The latter requirement includes such issues as Delay Repay, Assisted Travel Policy, Complaints Handling Policy, PLI at the level set for mainline rail operations, drivers with European Driving Licences (and thus medicals), pathing, stock which meets mainline standards or has a derogation, the list goes on and on.

It is the much higher standards required for mainline operations which has created so much work (and cost) for Swanage Railway to be compliant.

Indeed one has to question whether the costs of such compliance will outweigh any additional revenues generated from such an operation.

As I have explained in other posts one of the challenges for Swanage Railway is that if passengers who would have travelled to Norden (to join the railway) elect to join at Wareham then the only gain is the difference in fares between Wareham <> Swanage and Norden <> Swanage. That difference may literally only be £5 whereas the operating costs over the new section will probably be in excess of £5 per person thus SRC would be worse off. Admittedly they would get the full contribution from passengers deciding to travel on the SRC only because they can join at Wareham and would not have done so otherwise.

Personally I have grave doubts that all the additional costs will be covered by additional revenues let alone the need for more / higher trained volunteer staff. Paid staff would simply add to the financial burden.

 

[Cowley]

To turn mainline railtour locos you need a 70ft turntable. There isn't space at SP to install one, nor are there many that big available for sale.

Would they need one for tours though? A railtour could enter the line at East Grinstead, stable at Horsted Keynes and then leave via the Ardingly branch or vice versa.

 

[32475]

Would they need one for tours though? A railtour could enter the line at East Grinstead, stable at Horsted Keynes and then leave via the Ardingly branch or vice versa.

Very true but loco any coming south from East Grinstead would still be facing south at Ardingly and Copyhold Jctn and without a turntable the nearest triangles on which to turn around are at Brighton or Keynes Jctn / Lewes / Brighton

Very true but loco any coming south from East Grinstead would still be facing south at Ardingly and Copyhold Jctn and without a turntable the nearest triangles on which to turn around are at Brighton or Keynes Jctn / Lewes / Brighton

Sorry that should have read Keymer Jctn

 

[zwk500]

Would they need one for tours though? A railtour could enter the line at East Grinstead, stable at Horsted Keynes and then leave via the Ardingly branch or vice versa.

They have tours now without one, so no. However today's tours get dragged back to South Croydon then routed via Redhill and Guildford to get back to London with then chimney on the front.
As has been mentioned, exiting at HHE still leaves the loco pointing whichever way it arrived, and therefore needing to work via Brighton if it wants to change orientation. The Hove/Brighton spur won't take a full set for reversal, so you'd only do that for light engine moves. The Lewes reversal is possible although painful to get a platform at Brighton. The other option would be to do the longer route via Eastbourne and Hastings, or Littlehampton triangles.

 

[Cowley]

They have tours now without one, so no. However today's tours get dragged back to South Croydon then routed via Redhill and Guildford to get back to London with then chimney on the front.
As has been mentioned, exiting at HHE still leaves the loco pointing whichever way it arrived, and therefore needing to work via Brighton if it wants to change orientation. The Hove/Brighton spur won't take a full set for reversal, so you'd only do that for light engine moves. The Lewes reversal is possible although painful to get a platform at Brighton. The other option would be to do the longer route via Eastbourne and Hastings, or Littlehampton triangles.

Thanks for the explanation (same thing to @32475 as well).

 

[zwk500]

Thanks for the explanation (same thing to @32475 as well).

No problem! There is space in the fork between the lines at Horsted Keynes to put a 70ft turntable in, but that ground is built up above the natural level with spoil from the northern extension so I'm not sure what kind of engineering would be need to cope with the potential weight. There's also the issue of getting hold of a kit that big.

As @Titfield mentions, by far the biggest problem will be getting an agreement for operating over the mainline. The overheads for it will be eye-watering. Especially the performance risk. The Whitby branch this is not.

 

[fgwrich]

The Bluebell have recently acquired a class 33 from the KESR. Given they own the 4VEP potentially that's the future?

Nope, Though it can provide ETH (as any ETH fitted diesel can), you would need the services of a 33/1 to provide Push Pull Working.

 

[zwk500]

Nope, Though it can provide ETH (as any ETH fitted diesel can), you would need the services of a 33/1 to provide Push Pull Working.

In theory, you could either runround with the VEP left in platform 1, or (if you needed to get out of the way), shunt the VEP onto the siding and run the 33 round through P1. As an added bonus, the shunts into and out of Platform 1 would be on the juice, should you want to fire up the VEP.

 

[Cowley]

No problem! There is space in the fork between the lines at Horsted Keynes to put a 70ft turntable in, but that ground is built up above the natural level with spoil from the northern extension so I'm not sure what kind of engineering would be need to cope with the potential weight. There's also the issue of getting hold of a kit that big.

As @Titfield mentions, by far the biggest problem will be getting an agreement for operating over the mainline. The overheads for it will be eye-watering. Especially the performance risk. The Whitby branch this is not.

Although I’d of course love to see this happen, I just can’t see how a regular service going to Haywards Heath would ever financially cover itself bearing in mind that travellers from London (surely the most lucrative catchment area) can already reach the line by rail?

As an extra string to its bow having a branch to the Hanson site and developing that would be interesting but we’re talking a lot money to achieve even that bearing in mind replacing the viaduct just west of HK etc.

 

[trainmania100]

Lol rather than blue railway trying to extend to Haywards heath, what about an agreement with network rail for mainline services to run to horsted Keynes (or halfway to ardingly) via a mainline extension - just a thought.

Then maybe if the ardingly station is big enough, only run the southern services to ardingly, interchange for steam service to horsted Keynes.

Although back to the initial point, why not take out the trees near the down headshunt and put a platform there near the car park, using the non electrified passing loop.

Obviously that doesn't help with the down slow line at copyhold junction, but if there's time in the weekday mornings for a freight to run around for half an hour, a steam service may be viable if it met the requirements ?

 

[busestrains]

Lol rather than blue railway trying to extend to Haywards heath, what about an agreement with network rail for mainline services to run to horsted Keynes (or halfway to ardingly) via a mainline extension - just a thought.

Then maybe if the ardingly station is big enough, only run the southern services to ardingly, interchange for steam service to horsted Keynes.

Although back to the initial point, why not take out the trees near the down headshunt and put a platform there near the car park, using the non electrified passing loop.

Obviously that doesn't help with the down slow line at copyhold junction, but if there's time in the weekday mornings for a freight to run around for half an hour, a steam service may be viable if it met the requirements ?

Or an even better idea that i would do is transfer the entire Haywards Heath - Ardingly - Horsted Keynes - Kingscote - East Grinstead line to Network Rail and run through Southern trains from Brighton or Eastbourne or Worthing to London via this line. This would also give a diversion route whenever part of the Brighton mainline is shut. That is what i would do. Then the Bluebell Railway could continue running between Sheffield Park and Horsted Keynes and would hopefully have made a lot of money from selling the other line to Network Rail which they could use for their preservation.

 

[zwk500]

Lol rather than blue railway trying to extend to Haywards heath, what about an agreement with network rail for mainline services to run to horsted Keynes (or halfway to ardingly) via a mainline extension - just a thought.
Then maybe if the ardingly station is big enough, only run the southern services to ardingly, interchange for steam service to horsted Keynes.

Which services would you be running through? Anything taking up a path between Keymer jn and Haywards heath is going to want to go to London, not Ardingly. Also worth mentioning Ardingly station is a substantial distance from the village itself, and the village is pretty small.

Although back to the initial point, why not take out the trees near the down headshunt and put a platform there near the car park, using the non electrified passing loop.

You'll need to put in some new crossovers, which don't come cheap. Have a careful look at the track layout - the unelectrified loop is not a passing loop but a run-round line, and you can't get to it without running through P1 first.

Obviously that doesn't help with the down slow line at copyhold junction, but if there's time in the weekday mornings for a freight to run around for half an hour, a steam service may be viable if it met the requirements ?

There's probably a gap or two, the big question will be whether it's at a time that the Bluebell can operate to, and whether it gives an attractive interchange for Brighton passengers.

Or an even better idea that i would do is transfer the entire Haywards Heath - Ardingly - Horsted Keynes - Kingscote - East Grinstead line to Network Rail and run through Southern trains from Brighton or Eastbourne or Worthing to London via this line. This would also give a diversion route whenever part of the Brighton mainline is shut. That is what i would do.

Have you got access to a very large pile of subsidy?

Then the Bluebell Railway could continue running between Sheffield Park and Horsted Keynes and would hopefully have made a lot of money from selling the other line to Network Rail which they could use for their preservation

Preservation of a couple of miles shuttle between two stations? Whatever they got for HK-EG in compensation wouldn't scratch the surface of extending south towards Chailey.

 

[AzureOtsu]

Giving access to Network Rail may create a strategic BML diversional route so it's probably in their best interest to get the project completed.

I also like the idea of Southern running a shuttle service from Haywards heath to Horsted Keynes, perhaps a 171 shuttling back and forth. however this would mean the bluebell railway would be limited to mainline certified stock on this route.

 

[busestrains]

Giving access to Network Rail may create a strategic BML diversional route so it's probably in their best interest to get the project completed.

I also like the idea of Southern running a shuttle service from Haywards heath to Horsted Keynes, perhaps a 171 shuttling back and forth. however this would mean the bluebell railway would be limited to mainline certified stock on this route.

Southern barely have enough 171s for the Marshlink and Uckfield services. Especially with the four 171s going to EMR recently. I really do not think they would have any spare 171s to operate such a service.

 

[AzureOtsu]

Southern barely have enough 171s for the Marshlink and Uckfield services. Especially with the four 171s going to EMR recently. I really do not think they would have any spare 171s to operate such a service.

Would southern's 73 be viable for passenger operation hauling the bluebells mainline certified emu? this is very speculative but if the marshlink and uckfield lines get battery units to eventually replace the 171s, they could also be used on this hypothetical route.

 

[zwk500]

Giving access to Network Rail may create a strategic BML diversional route so it's probably in their best interest to get the project completed.

Diversionary capacity is never a reason to build a line on its own. Diversionary capacity is a happy bonus from lines that stand up on their own. Haywards Heath-East Grinstead does not. Ardingly and Horsted Keynes stations are over a mile from their respective villages, Kingscote station has no appreciable population nearby and the only serious village near the line (Sharpethorne) has had its station (West Hoathly) demolished, and it's too small to justify a rebuild.

If the Bluebell extend then it'll be as a single track, Electric key Token line at 25mph max. It'd be their signallers who signed the line, so any emergency diverts would require finding the requisite number of volunteers to drop everything and come in (I don't know what the BRPS's switching out arrangements are), as well as somebody on standby in a car in case the token gets trapped at EG (this could be an NR MOM). The available capacity would be pitiful. Even worse if the Bluebell were running a 2-train service.

If NR took over the line, they'd need full control and access and the BRPS would need to upgrade any stock running beyond Horsted Keynes to full mainline standard. NR would relay, resignal and redouble the line and remodel Horsted Keynes to segregate heritage and mainline movements where necessary. You're looking at well into the hundreds of millions to open it. Given the lack of traffic available to a regular service and the fact that a diversion would be used a handful of times a year, it really doesn't look like it's in NR's 'best interests' to go anywhere near the project.

I also like the idea of Southern running a shuttle service from Haywards heath to Horsted Keynes, perhaps a 171 shuttling back and forth. however this would mean the bluebell railway would be limited to mainline certified stock on this route.

Are you aware how busy Haywards Heath station is? An all-day shuttle is not a good idea. Also, would this only run when the Bluebell is running or would you reopen HK as a regular mainline station?

Would southern's 73 be viable for passenger operation hauling the bluebells mainline certified emu? this is very speculative but if the marshlink and uckfield lines get battery units to eventually replace the 171s, they could also be used on this hypothetical route.

depends what you mean by 'viable'. It could theoretically haul it yes, but there's no way the costs involved make any sense whatsoever.

 

[AzureOtsu]

Diversionary capacity is never a reason to build a line on its own. Diversionary capacity is a happy bonus from lines that stand up on their own. Haywards Heath-East Grinstead does not. Ardingly and Horsted Keynes stations are over a mile from their respective villages, Kingscote station has no appreciable population nearby and the only serious village near the line (Sharpethorne) has had its station (West Hoathly) demolished, and it's too small to justify a rebuild.

If the Bluebell extend then it'll be as a single track, Electric key Token line at 25mph max. It'd be their signallers who signed the line, so any emergency diverts would require finding the requisite number of volunteers to drop everything and come in (I don't know what the BRPS's switching out arrangements are), as well as somebody on standby in a car in case the token gets trapped at EG (this could be an NR MOM). The available capacity would be pitiful. Even worse if the Bluebell were running a 2-train service.

If NR took over the line, they'd need full control and access and the BRPS would need to upgrade any stock running beyond Horsted Keynes to full mainline standard. NR would relay, resignal and redouble the line and remodel Horsted Keynes to segregate heritage and mainline movements where necessary. You're looking at well into the hundreds of millions to open it. Given the lack of traffic available to a regular service and the fact that a diversion would be used a handful of times a year, it really doesn't look like it's in NR's 'best interests' to go anywhere near the project.

Are you aware how busy Haywards Heath station is? An all-day shuttle is not a good idea. Also, would this only run when the Bluebell is running or would you reopen HK as a regular mainline station?

depends what you mean by 'viable'. It could theoretically haul it yes, but there's no way the costs involved make any sense whatsoever.

I'm aware there is a long stub of unused doubled trackbed just north of the road bridge on the east side of Haywards heath station. if the bluebell railway wanted to make a station at haywards heath this would make sense as the best location as segregating it from Haywards heath NR station would avoid all the crowds and confusion.

Although I can see your argument in the line not being beneficial to network rail. but the line itself only makes sense as a way to get customers to the bluebell railway at Horsted Keynes because as you said there isn't a whole lot going on on that route that would appeal to the average rider of the bluebell. That is why I proposed a shuttle service to do so.

 

[zwk500]

I'm aware there is a long stub of unused doubled trackbed just north of the road bridge on the east side of Haywards heath station. if the bluebell railway wanted to make a station at haywards heath this would make sense as the best location as segregating it from Haywards heath NR station would avoid all the crowds and confusion.

I don't think it's totally unused, Isn't there still at least 1 siding there? Also, that doesn't solve the problem between Copyhold Jn and HHE and it destroys the convenience factor of the cross-platform change.

Although I can see your argument in the line not being beneficial to network rail. but the line itself only makes sense as a way to get customers to the bluebell railway at Horsted Keynes because as you said there isn't a whole lot going on on that route that would appeal to the average rider of the bluebell. That is why I proposed a shuttle service to do so.

But why would you run a shuttle service with Southern, with all the problems a publicly contracted operator entails, rather than giving the Bluebell running rights to nip into the station and back out? Hard as it will be to get all the problems sorted, it'll be easier than upgrading the line to a standard that GTR are allowed to carry passengers over it.

 

[32475]

A theoretical solution at the Haywards Heath end would be to have a station near Copyhold Jctn with road access off Copyhold Lane. The site which is to the north of the lane and to the east of the bridge over the main line is a field which could accommodate a passing loop and single platform so as not to interfere with aggregate trains. ‘Copyhold Halt’ would have plenty of room for a car park and shuttle bus from Haywards Heath station. I know it’s not the ideal solution but it would be an achievable one which would still allow access for specials onto the main line rather like Norton Fitzwarren is to the West Somerset Railway. Just a thought!

 

[zwk500]

A theoretical solution at the Haywards Heath end would be to have a station near Copyhold Jctn with road access off Copyhold Lane. The site which is to the north of the lane and to the east of the bridge over the main line is a field which could accommodate a passing loop and single platform so as not to interfere with aggregate trains. ‘Copyhold Halt’ would have plenty of room for a car park and shuttle bus from Haywards Heath station. I know it’s not the ideal solution but it would be an achievable one which would still allow access for specials onto the main line rather like Norton Fitzwarren is to the West Somerset Railway. Just a thought!

Have a look at the lie of the land. The railway is elevated on an embankment north of Copyhold lane then in a deep cutting immediately south of the bridge. To get a runround loop and platform will require serious earth movement and land purchase. You'd also then have the problem of Copyhold Lane not being especially suitable for buses/minibuses (look at Street View). It'd probably be cheaper to contract West Coast or somebody to haul the 4VEP over the main line.

 

[32475]

Have a look at the lie of the land. The railway is elevated on an embankment north of Copyhold lane then in a deep cutting immediately south of the bridge. To get a runround loop and platform will require serious earth movement and land purchase. You'd also then have the problem of Copyhold Lane not being especially suitable for buses/minibuses (look at Street View). It'd probably be cheaper to contract West Coast or somebody to haul the 4VEP over the main line.

I did say theoretical! In the overall scheme of things the land level issues are not insurmountable and as nought compared to what was achieved with the northern extension.

 

[Ploughman]

The KESR have just built a new T/table in built up ground in a tight location.

 

[trainmania100]

The KESR have just built a new T/table in built up ground in a tight location.

What's that for ? Don't see how it could be any use to bluebell railway lol

 

[Ploughman]

My mistake it is not the KESR but the Rother Valley.

Turntable and the pit -x9

Mid Aug '22 - More Turntable. Efforts have now been placed to the sidewalk on the turntable bridge. image 1 above -placing the decking mak...

rvrailway.blogspot.com

 

[gc4946]

The Bluebell will need to own stock conforming to Network Rail standards, in the same way as NYMR does from Grosmont-Whitby, if they want to run beyond Ardingly to Haywards Heath.
At a minimum, a class 33 hauling their 4VEP could suffice, otherwise they'll need to have a pool of main-line certified steam locos and Mk1s if they seriously want to have a presence there.

 

[alf]

What's that for ? Don't see how it could be any use to bluebell railway lol

Read the thread.... & you will see someone saying there might be a problem with building a heavy 70 door turntable on built up Bluebell land at Horsted Keynes.

Ploughman at post 52 has very sensibly contributed to the discussion by saying it has just been done successfully on similar built up land in a tight location at
So it can be done at Horsted.

 

[BayPaul]

One thing that I can't quite see is how an economic timetable could work. At the moment in off seasons they run with a single train. I can't see how that would still be practical, especially if a steam engine couldn't run around at Haywards heath. Even on peak days, it would be difficult to get balance between the branches, and are normal people really going to be happy having to change trains in order to see the whole railway.

Also, is Haywards Heath mainline Station a good enough destination? The current destination stations are attractive and have plenty to do whilst waiting for the next train.

 

[zwk500]

One thing that I can't quite see is how an economic timetable could work. At the moment in off seasons they run with a single train. I can't see how that would still be practical, especially if a steam engine couldn't run around at Haywards heath.
Even on peak days, it would be difficult to get balance between the branches, and are normal people really going to be happy having to change trains in order to see the whole railway.

I suspect running to HHE would only take place on really busy days, like Galas and peak summer weekends (3-train timetable or more). The Branch would likely be a shuttle to HK only, so punters would be able to look at the carriage shed before going down to SP for a look round there, before a round trip to EG, changing at HK for the branch again.

Also, is Haywards Heath mainline Station a good enough destination? The current destination stations are attractive and have plenty to do whilst waiting for the next train.

HHE wouldn't be a destination station, but purely an interchange.

 

[BayPaul]

I suspect running to HHE would only take place on really busy days, like Galas and peak summer weekends (3-train timetable or more). The Branch would likely be a shuttle to HK only, so punters would be able to look at the carriage shed before going down to SP for a look round there, before a round trip to EG, changing at HK for the branch again.

HHE wouldn't be a destination station, but purely an interchange.

That seems to make it a really poor investment. And my point about destination stations is that if you start at East Grinstead, you are going to end up spending a little time in Haywards Heath and vice versa (yes, you could go back on the next train, but most people would prefer to stretch their legs)

 

[zwk500]

That seems to make it a really poor investment.

Agreed.

And my point about destination stations is that if you start at East Grinstead, you are going to end up spending a little time in Haywards Heath and vice versa (yes, you could go back on the next train, but most people would prefer to stretch their legs)

If you start at East Grinstead, the majority of punters won't have any particular interest in the Ardingly branch at all. The primary attraction is Sheffield Park with the museims and sheds. If people are track bashing and don't want to return immediately there's a Waitrose and a pub next to the station.