North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Is FS being under cover a new requirement now that it has "changed hands". It was never under cover on either recent visits to Swanage. Not least as at the time there was nowhere under cover big enough to take it.

 

I'd love to see twin tracks through Newtondale, and can easily see the advantages of improved flexibility. But I'm also looking at both long term trends for ridership, revenue and costs, and wondering where cost, flexibility, and income balance. It's 25 years since the GCR doubled to Rothley, and still the remaining 2 1/2 miles to Leicester are single track.

Right now, NYMR needs jam today, not next decade.

 

My hunch is that there is an element in the negotiations whereby the NRM might request / require it where they can, but in the knowledge that on certain railways, the answer is “if we ask for that, we know they can’t provide it at all so why even bother to ask”.

In other words, if you get as far as negotiating a deal with Swanage, you already know before you even start that covered accommodation isn’t possible - so either accept that, or don’t enter into a negotiation in the first place. With other railways, it is a bit easier to at least start from a position of “this is a requirement”.

Tom

 

Who has said anything about double tracking through Newtondale. What I've suggested is extending loops so they become more like dynamic passing loops.
If you need more jam today stop spending so much of it on wages and associated costs.

Sawdust.

 

I agree it wasnt a requirement before. As to secure, when it came to Ropley we had 24hr security. I would have thought the carriage shed would have been ideal for a few nights.

 

Exactly - working as twin track sections through Newtondale! As for staffing, that may be the right answer - but without reopening that particular can of worms, adding additional critical infrastructure is likely to increase the labour requirement.

These may be worthwhile ideas, but my "jam today" point remains - NYMR needs to get a deal stronger before it starts on projects like that.

 

Funnily enough it was not under cover for most of its recent visit to the NRM - nor was it on display despite it being there over the 50th Anniversary Weekend.

Peter

 

Err..... isn't the new carriage barn supposed to super-secure and well-protected? That's what some of who raised concerns about it were told when it was being built? I wonder if that was all a pile of equine ordure to fob us off?

 

So was the Louvre

 

There is a problem with any thought of Double Tracking.

Over the years track renewals have made use of the full width of the formation to reduce the curve radius and in so doing enabled the installation of CWR and Steel Sleepers.

In some locations such as Kingthorpe for one, any realignment there would push the radius below 200m which means the installation of Check rail is required. Probably requiring unnecessary early renewal of the track with Timber or other composite sleepers because the Concrete or Steel sleepers are not suited for tight curves. Tight curves may result in a reduction of speed and an increase in wheel wear.

Each of the other reverse curve areas would also need to be treated in the same manner.

Is the ground alongside suitable for extending the formation width or would it require huge expense in the installation of piling? This may also involve replacement of lineside Drainage systems.
How many bridges have been renewed with the concrete beams set in the centre of the alignment? Or in the case of Overbridges again been centralised to increase clearances.

 

How do you manage dynamic passing loops on a heritage railway with token block working?

 

How is increasing the length of two passing loops and having one additional loop within the fully signalled track circuited area controlled by New bridge going to require extra staffing? It would require the same number of signallers as now?
I know double tracking whole sections is a non starter the reasons Ploughman states. It only requires a relatively short time and length reduction in the Levisham-Goathland section to enable three paths an hour rather two.

Sawdust.

 

Bin the heritage signalling and operate like the Borders Railway. I don't know Graham was signalman at Levisham for years, so must have had a plan, if it was another cabin near summit he didn't say so.

Sawdust.

 

If you had train operated points that removes the point machine problem. Powering LED signals may be a problem in Newtondale. You could run a power cable but that would be expensive and you would probably need some sort of track circuits as well.

 

It sort of feels to me that if you had money for capital investment, there are probably higher priorities - like land for a car park

Tom

 

The Borders railway system is described in this article : https://www.railengineer.co.uk/borders-railway-signalling-and-telecoms-one-year-on/
There is absolutely no way you could make a business case for this on a heritage railway. It would bankrupt the nymr before you ran a train.

 

Or even simpler and cheaper things, like making sure your only non Flying Scotsman service, during a school holiday week when you're only running 5 out of 7 days, is 7 or 8 coaches, rather than 5 coaches... Doing it for one day as an emergency is understandable, but 2 days in a row....

 

As @Ploughman has said, double track through Newtondale is a non-starter because of bridges and alignment changes, unless Jeremy Hosking gets involved, that is! What I believe is still possible is double track to summit but I could be out of date on that score.

 

The only reason to say that covered accommodation was a contract requirement was because @Lineisclear said so in post 8324. That and limited mileage. I do wonder how truthful some of his unsubstantiated statements are at times?

 

Ah! So I'm not the only member of this particular club, then!