I am pleased to report that my continuing activities in Lincolnshire and beyond proceed to my satisfaction, so much so that reporting has fallen behind. I have however taken steps to put this right and can now report on my latest inspection, that of the Claremont Light Railway.
This undertaking, while classed as a light railway, appears to be more in the style of a local estate or industrial line. Certainy some locomotives were observed bearing "Caistor Estates" numberplates. The estate owners are clearly sensitive to having their view spoilt by trains so the line, despite its relatively large size and complexity (with triple track in places) in a comparatively small plot. Railway promoters experiencing difficulties with planning permission would do well to study this line's careful planting scheme and unobtrusive appearance. Not even the most ardent ferroequinophobe could object to such a project.
The line is built from commercially available permanent way components, consisting of panels of nickel-silver rail in a moulded sleeper base, curved to fit and pinned to an exterior plywood base. Some sections are exposed to the weather while others have been covered in roofing felt for additional weatherproofing and a simulated appearance of ballast. The value of this is open to question as without heat-sealing this can trap moisture in the wood rather than keep it out, accelerating rather than retarding decay.
It also has a limited lifespan and is prone to both weathering and damage eliminating its protective qualities, as can clearly be seen here.
Had I any doubt about the efficiency of this company's inspection and repair programme I would have grave concerns about the safety of this method of construction, but I am pleased to report that I saw evidence of regular inspection and a sensible maintenance programme, with both emergency spot repairs and complete replacement sections of track-base clearly visible. There is a good deal of maintenance work associated with this style of construction, but the company at least seems to be up to the challenge so I have no concerns.
Civil engineering is to a high standard, with two substantial metal bridges of very hiqh quality. The largest is of welded steel construction, with a semicircular catenary strut and downrods extending from it giving (from a distance) the appearance of a suspension bridge. I am told this was built in one piece before transport and erection, and the design can be built either way up depending on local needs- remarkable! Less remarkable is the complete absence of railings and the large gaps between the walkway and the structure- adequate for trained, qualified staff with a head for heights but frightening and dangerous for passengers should evacuation from a failed train be required. Since there are no scheduled passenger services operating at present this is barely acceptable, but should be borne in mind if the company (which does own station buildings) decides to enter the passenger business.
The smaller bridge is of riveted girder construction and spans a small body of open water. The same remarks concerning lack of a safe walkway apply in this case, though once again the construction is sound and firmly in place.
The track layout is a unidirectional circuit, folded back on itself into what is colloquially known as a "dog bone". Trains proceed on line of sight, all in the same direction, thus obviating the need for staffs or tokens. The restricted visibility caused by the dense vegetation mentioned in my opening remarks make this a problematic undertaking, but due to the tight curves speeds are necessarily low so sufficient braking distance is present if drivers remain alert. There are some very awkward locations where sighting is very restricted, which would benefit from "No Stopping (except in emergency)" marker boards as used by the Manx Electric Railway- a necessity if passenger services are contemplated but for now merely a recommendation. Points are the usual preformed units with locking limited to over-centre springs, adequate only for light axle-loads and low speeds as found on this line. Unusually, some steps have been taken to positively indicate the route set, with the obverse and reverse faces of point lever counterweights being painted in contrasting colours as a visual aid to train crews- something some lines I have visited would do well to emulate.
Two buildings resembling stations were observed, though in the absence of scheduled services it can only be assumed that they are offices and public access is limited to collection and delivery of parcels and sundry goods. The first is of timber construction, sound and of reasonable size with adequate facilities, lacking only nameboard and clock (requirements if a passenger service is contemplated).
The other station is considerably smaller, almost cramped, though more stoutly constructed of masonry. Again this lack both clock and nameboard, along with sundry other facilities (those I was photograhped inspecting when my back was turned!). I am very concerned about the far platform, which gives onto a sheer drop and is will be unacceptably dangerous to passengers until such time as fencing is provided.
One other facility was visited, a terminus with run-round, loop, turntable, siding and lead to a (closed and lifted) indoor rolling stock storage facility. Given the poor and overgrown condition of this area it is to be profoundly hoped that this is out of use, though if that is the case the company really should lock and disconnect the points leading to it (though since they trail to the normal direction of running they at least do not constitute a hazard).
The turntable lacks any form of locking mechanism to check and hold its alignment- clearly inadequate.
The use of retired goods stock as storage facilites is not unknown on impecunious railways. However, even after running gear is removed, some maintenance is still necessary. This grounded van provides neither weatherproof nor safe storage.
Most alarming, however, was the former connection to the indoor sidings. The hatch in the large warehouse can clearly be seen, as can the stub connection, which ends abruptly with only a "stop" sign separating train movements from a sheer drop. Before this facility can be re-opened, a substantial stop-block must be provided at this location, or the stub connection removed altogether.
Moving from the Civil to the Mechanical Engineering department, a step-change in the quality of workmanship is clearly apparent. All locomotives were in sound condition, both as constructed by the suppliers and as modified to meet local conditions. Despite its small size, this line has built several locomotives to suit its own needs (at least eight). The first and oldest steam locomotive was supplied knocked-down and assembled on site with modifications, and remains a good example of this large and popular class. The presence of the water-lifting pipe on the rear bunker is however a clear indication of the basic lineside facilities to be found at this line, and one can only conclude that the motive power is in both quality and quantity altogether disproportionate to the needs of this small light railway. It is as if the line exists to support the endeavours of the CME's department rather than the other way round.
Despite the large, well engineered fleet, further locomotive construction continues. This is believed to be an example of the "Victory" class approaching completion.
Even the diesel fleet, frequently neglected handmaidens, is in sound condition and more than adequate to the tasks before it.
Despite my earlier comments concerning the uneven division of resources between the various department, it is pleasing to see that some of the CME's time and effort has been devoted to labour saving devices for the use of the CCE's department. Examples seen here include a "dribbler" wagon, designed to apply paraffin to the railhead and effect the removal of "gunk" (the oily residue built up by regular steam operation).
Also seen was this rather ferocious machine, built to clear plant debris from the running line. I would very much like to see the rules governing its use, with particular attention to preventing anyone being allowed near or drawn into its exposed machinery when operating. I also note with concern the lack of conspicuity aids such as flashing lights or warning panels to alert people to its approach.
Overall, the line is adequate for its present role, with some excellence to be found and a careful attitude to safety generally apparent (with some glaring omissions). I am happy to permit continued operation "as is", provided it is understood that the terminal station remains out of operational use until its shortcomings are rectified, and that no passenger services can be permitted with the line in its present state. The necessary improvements are all mentioned above, and all must be met for this to be allowed.