North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Heres a Drone video from last year, found on Youtube, credit to Michael Lazenby Studio on Youtube/Facebook/Instagram.
Shows the NYMR and landscape.

 

For those who are followers of the NYMR and are missing their Easter visit. I came across this training/rote learning feature of a trip from Grosmont to Battersby on the Esk Valley, with Chris Cubit one of the Moors longest serving and senior Drivers giving a running commentary highlighting various aspects of the route.



On thing I find curious/interesting is that many of the bridges [both over and under] along with various embankments/cuttings have been built to accommodate a double track formation. The second line was never installed other than as passing loops at some stations, with the Grosmont Battersby section staying as a single line throughout it's existence.

Edit: and here's part two the return trip.......

 

Wartime event cancelled.

https://www.nymr.co.uk/news/nymr-confirms-cancellation-of-railway-in-wartime-event

 

I think that wasn't unusual in the 19th century - what they'd call passive provision nowadays. We had a family holiday in Whitby and rode both the Esk Valley line and the NYMR. The Esk Valley is certainly very scenic although you couldn't call it a fast run.

 

An example of Passive Provision is the Leeds - York main line between Neville Hill and Micklefield.
The Overbridges along here are built for 4 track even though only 2 tracks installed.

4 track may actually happen in the near future if HS 2 goes ahead.

 

The Board of Trade Inspectors took the view that a single line railway was an unfinished railway. As a result many new build railways were required to have land and structures suitable for double track, even if the earthworks were still only fit for a single line. On the Mid Hants this happened between Alton and The Butts. the original cutting was hand dug, and widened with a steam shovel c.1900. As a result the embankment out of Alton was originally made of small material, which consolidated well, and widened with big lumps, which had significant air pockets. All was well until the Gas Board tried to mole through to provide a gas main to the brewery. It got 2/3rds of the way ... ... ...
Pat

 

I think the Lewes to East Grinstead line was the same. Although Lewes to Culver Junction and Horsted Keynes to East Grinstead sections were double track, the Culver Junction to Horsted Keynes section was only single track but built to have a second track if it was needed (although trying to get a second line through Cinder Hill Tunnel would have been interesting).

 

The Llangollen railway from Ruabon llangollen was made to accomodate double lines im not sure about any other stretch of the trackbed though to Barmouth bridge. And the east Lancs line was built to accomodate double lines from stubbins to Bacup although it was single from stubbins jct i think ive read in the Lancashire and Yorkhire book then and now, im not sure about the stretch of trackbed from Bacup to to Rochdale though.
Davo 56F.

 

Doing some of the work to double later was said to be little more expensive, something like 12 to 15% on the initial outlay.
This meant doing things like over bridges wide enough for double track and I have seen culvert foundations wide enough for a double track.

The idea of this in principle has always always seemed to me to be unanswerable but I have always wondered about the practicalities with the money and the civil engineering.

Financially there is no doubt that before the crash of the Railway Mania Hudson was seeking economies and apart from closing lines - not very convincingly, diverting traffic circuitously - was making great play with saving the cost of doubling lines by installing the electric telegraph to pass trains more flexibly on single track. To really get the
advantage of this was only to come forty years later with tokens or minture electric staffs, hoops, automatic catchers, track layout and signalling so that a train that did not
stop could go through at full speed without slacking either to exchange hoops or for the curves of the points at the end of the loops. As prophesy of unforseeable circumstances - how much traffic how quickly, whether money would be available or needed when and what terms and that major advantages of double track were indirect - the ability to feel ones way and hedge ones bets must have been most attractive.

The civil engineering, however, especially widening embankments already built - like the one out of Alton, apart from the difficulty in holing through through the tougher side,
one would expect differential settlement simply because the extra fill was new and unconsolidated even if it was identical material and a natural tendency to simply slide down
the consolidated slope it was laid against. Inspecting finished works with an eye to a future second road I would have been much more concerned with embankments than
cuttings. (There are various solutions to the recent slope failures under railways but where it has been to remake with fresh fill the old embankment is carefully cut back to
steps where it is solid and has not slumped - steps not a slope - and then rebuilt against these.)

 

Whereabouts Pete? I can think of a few locations where there's space for double track (Bridgnorth to Eardington) equally I can think of a few locations where there's not. (Eyemore Forest through the cutting, Victoria Bridge and the embankment on the approach to Arley) Would it have just been double track in places?

 

The NYMR may have been double track throughout pre 1915 when Newbridge Levisham was singled.
However since then various track realignments and bridge replacements have meant that it could only ever be considered as a Single width formation.
It would take miles of relaying of check railed track and imposition 0f slower speeds to even consider any redoubling.

 

Wasn't redoubling part of the NYMR considered few years ago?

 

Really just the extension of Goathland loop and provision of a passing loop in Newtondale.
With a possibility of extending the loop at Pickering to becoming a running line to south of Newbridge, but that may be affected by the Stable.

 

People often talk about it as a means of improving line capacity but that is all it is; talk. No matter which section you propose to double, it only moves the bottleneck to the next section and, a section times are relatively equal, it creates no advantage.

 

Interesting films. I'm sure someone will be able to answer this question; Approaching Battersby there is a colour light signal protecting the junction. It was displaying a "red" aspect. The driver said something about passing at danger and did. There was no mention of any authority from the signaller or the reason. So, why?

 

Whitby to Grosmont?

 

Not part of the NYMR, alas. If it was, life would be so much easier. Form an operating point, that is. Having an extra nine significant bridges to maintain wouldn't find favour with the civil chappies.

 

You are right in that assumption.

 

Well, at least one loco in steam for VE 75. Before everyone jumps in, Piglet knows DVL is actually a 2-10-0, it was just a slip of the tongue

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=280941146275079