The Coverdale Light Railway

[Big Jim]

While I don't know how available they are across the pond, ex MOD thermals are my secret weapon when it comes to working in subzero temperatures. You might look a bit like a wally wearing them ( well they give the wife a good giggle), but at least you are a warm wally.

[bazzer42]

A real operator's plan. Despite the recent ice and snow it gas been relatively balmy compared to -13°. Not had to prise the dogs off of anything but old Hamish has had trouble staying upright on the ice.

[Dwayne]

Peter, my view focuses on the bridge crossing over the Leyburn branch. Will you have enough of a run to gain the necessary height with a reasonable grade? Other than that point I love the simplicity of the plan and the operational possibilities.

I made it a priority on the NT to keep the track as level as possible for my finger burner across the layout. As much as I'd like to have track crossing over track, I simple lacked the necessary space to achieve this and maintain any gradual gradient and keep the little steamer happy.

[IrishPeter]

Dwayne,

That has been bothering me too. I need to do the maths on it. Given I will take 1 in 50 (2%) with steam traction, I would need about 25' on either side of the intersection to make it work, so I will probably need to move the junction back a bit. Given that Ga.3 wagons on transporters are a distinct possibility I need about 9 1/2 inches between the railheads and the underside of the bridge, which is likely to be of girder construction. Where it not for the transporters, I would only need about a 16' run up on either side, which is what was probably in the back of my mind when I drew the diagram. It may just be easier, if visually less interesting, to come off the outside of the bend and straight in, pushing Leyburn a little further up the slope.

Bazzer - I hear you about Hamish. Our old Westie, Geordie, has difficulty remaining upright too, though some of his problem comes from having a rebuild right ankle, and the rest from being 16! We also have a rumbustious terrier mix puppy, or should that be poopy, who was rescued as a border terrier/dachshund mix, but looks increasingly rough coated Jack Russell and something, with the Jack Russell predominant, as he grows. He tends to function as a fur covered torpedo, and scourge of the local squirrels.

Jim, I think I may be getting to the age where I have to breakdown and get thermals for outdoor work. Digging in itself used to be enough, but nowadays the cold and damp seem to seep in more than they used to do.

Cheers,
Peter in Va.

[Lonsdaler]

I'm a bit concerned about how you are getting from Middleham to Leyburn without crossing the River Ure? It would be a great opportunity to model a bridge to match the road bridge!

middleham bridge.jpg (339.01 KiB) Viewed 5318 times

[Peter Butler]

What a magnificent structure, just for the sake of it! Is there any reason why the far tower, left side, doesn't match the rest? Has it been re-built at some point?

[IrishPeter]

What crossed my mind - initial design-wise - was a straightforward girder bridge a little up stream from there, otherwise most engineers, and especially Calthrop, would have had your guts for garters for useless and ornamental expenditure! Besides, you have to dodge the small hill the Castle is on to successfully get a railway through Middleham. BTW, that bridge has less vertical clearance than one would need for goods vans and transporter wagons.

Cheers,
Peter in Va

[LNR]

Is there any reason why the far tower, left side, doesn't match the rest?

Gee! nothing wrong with your eyesight Peter. Ti's a lovely structure.
Grant.

[IrishPeter]

The four towers are more or less identical. What makes the far side left hand one look different in the original photo is that it blends with the gable end of the house behind it, but it is a bit fatter anyway. Have a sneck on Google street view and you will see what I mean.

Cheers,
Peter in AZ

[Lonsdaler]

What a magnificent structure, just for the sake of it! Is there any reason why the far tower, left side, doesn't match the rest? Has it been re-built at some point?

You're right Peter, the far left tower is an oddity. All off centre, and for some reason, the spout for rainwater runoff emerges on the river side of the bridge, rather than the 'outside', as with the other towers. I honestly know nothing of the history, other than as a frequent user since the mid 70's.

And Peter, I accept your point entirley regarding frivolous expenditure on useless decoration

Edited to add: Okay, I've now done what I should have done initially, and had a 'google': Grade II listed, built in 1830 and altered in 1865 and 2008 (strengthened for 44T euro trucks)

[IrishPeter]

Okay, I have given the track plan a tweak. This version is largely traced and rearranged from the previous, so dimensionally there are some quirks which I need to iron out in the final draft. Trains leave Leyburn, and do a lap or three of the continuous run before diving into Middleham. After working any traffic there, they head back on to the loop, and do some more laps perhaps stopping at the small intermediate station on the continuous run. At the end of the journey it is in to Coverdale to terminate. I managed to get in a river bridge, and I did not have the space for the multi-level arrangement for Leyburn so I eliminated it in favour of turning it back against the kitchen wall.

Version 1.5

CLRNER.jpg (139.03 KiB) Viewed 6049 times

I am also back to thinking about the original rolling stock. The idea of modelling the original stock after the Autocars, and the 1904/5 Tyneside electric stock still appeals. After all, saloon stock was supplied to the W&LLR, the Campbelltown and Machrihanish, and the Leek and Manifold in this period, so why should the NER do anything different? The trouble is do I go for a 42'9" (577mm) vehicle with large end vestibules which would provide the basic template for both 3rd and Brake-3rd vehicles, or do I go with a 36' (486mm) long vehicle. Part of me favours the shorter vehicle, but the Newqida Rekos are fairly long. I will see if I can draw a basic outline of both types for the projects page.

Cheers,
Peter in Va

[Dwayne]

Hmmm... I downloaded both plans to my phone so I could flip back and forth for comparison.

My 2¢ opinion... the former plan seemed less busy whereas the latter seems crowded and pinched. Would you be favorable of a level crossing of the Leyburn branch instead of a bridge? Might give the impression of a second railway connecting with the primary.

[IrishPeter]

Yes, Dwayne, you are right. It is a bit cramped. Flipping back and forth between the 1st and 2nd version it looks like I do need to get something out of that area between the kitchen and the property boundary. I think it will be Leyburn that gets shifted back to being along the line of the sleeper wall. I do, however, like not having Middleham station on the continuous run, as that enables something a bit closer to timetable running. Time to juggle the elements of the design around again and see what emerges.

I am not enamoured of the idea of a flat crossing between two running lines. From a UK signalling point of view they are a bit complicated, and impose all sorts of operating restrictions. I am most likely to put Leyburn on a turn back road, and then flip the entrance to LB so that you have to go through Middleham and turn back in order to gain the track into Leyburn.

On the rolling stock side of things, the Newqida Rekos are 20.75" long over headstocks translates to a shade over 39', which is all but midway between the 36' and 43' designs in the other Coverdale thread.

Cheers,
Peter in Va

[IrishPeter]

The mean that lieth ever between the two extremes...

Version 1.6

NERCLR Final.jpg (127.89 KiB) Viewed 5978 times

Route of train: leave Leyburn and do one lap of the continuous run before entering line into Middleham. Leave Middleham, and the complete x. number of laps of the continuous run before entering Coverdale to complete journey. Or t'other way about!

Hopefully this is a lot less crowded looking. One interesting problem was running two trains on the old layout. On this version departures from Coverdale and Leyburn can both run clockwise until they are due to cross at Middleham, at which point both reverse direction and head to the opposite terminus... if I have planned this out right in my head!

Did I miss anything?

Looks like we have a warmer spell coming next week, but with that comes the chance of snow; so, I might be able to get digging, or then again, I might not. There is always the rolling stock projects to keep me busy!

Peter in Va

[Dwayne]

Peter, looks like a viable concept. Appears to have several options with two trains running and their respective meeting and stops at Middleham.

[Soar Valley Light]

Hello Peter,

I've liked each one of the proposals but the last one looks really interesting. Operationally it appears to give the maximum flexibility, whilst looking very prototypical and is certainly the most 'open' and spacious of the three.

Looking forward to seeing more details as it develops.

All the best,

Andrew

[IrishPeter]

Looks like I am in for another delay in getting started. The landlord next door has final has finally decided to make up the arrears of maintenance on his building, so they are working along the property boundary between the two houses close to the area where I wanted to put the railway. Hmmm, goes I, but at least I think I can get started on some ground clearance even with the works next door. So far so good - inconvenience rather than delay. Then HERSELF puts the tin hat on it, she has moved 'finishing the fence' up the priority list. Grrrr!

Peter in Va

[ge_rik]

Operationally, I like Plan 3, though I also liked Plan 2 as well. My only reservation about #3 is that Leyburn now looks quite cramped and has no run round loop. Can it be positioned in the top right corner where there seems to be more space or is that area off limits?

Rik

[IrishPeter]

One snag with the wife's scanner and my scrap paper supply that we can only go up to about 8.5" wide. Therefore I only sketched in part of the track layout at Leyburn. It would actually consist a loop and two or three exchange sidings stretching off the right hand side of the drawing as presented here.

I am also planning on staging that construction, so that

Phase 1 consists of the continuous run and the small intermediate halt
Phase 2 consist of the 'turn back road' and Middleham station
Phase 3 Coverdale, then lastly
Phase 4 Leyburn.

It is important for me to get trains running because then it acts as a spur to get more done.

Cheers,
Peter in Va

[ge_rik]

One snag with the wife's scanner and my scrap paper supply that we can only go up to about 8.5" wide. Therefore I only sketched in part of the track layout at Leyburn. It would actually consist a loop and two or three exchange sidings stretching off the right hand side of the drawing as presented here.

I am also planning on staging that construction, so that

Phase 1 consists of the continuous run and the small intermediate halt
Phase 2 consist of the 'turn back road' and Middleham station
Phase 3 Coverdale, then lastly
Phase 4 Leyburn.

It is important for me to get trains running because then it acts as a spur to get more done.

Cheers,
Peter in Va

Ah, hadn't realised Leyburn was truncated in the plan. That makes operational potential a lot more interesting.

Rik