The churnet Valley Railway

Whilst watching this video two aspects of modelling become obvious

1. How the railway is dwarfed by the countryside, difficult to model admittedly.
2. Bridges over the railway that are used by farmers, some with a gravel track, others just covered in grass, we rarely model that type of overbridge.

Jim

 

Hi Andy, do you get in specialist contractors and say lay it here or does the group get more involved than that because there is a lot of knowledge required to lay track for use by heavy locos especially as some form of inspection would be required to ensure it meets recognised standards for carrying the paying public.

Jim

 

Hello Andy, and others,
1 / very interesting series of photos, and some of my observations to follow.
2 / I notice that the new trackbed is laid without a geotextile blanket underlay, which I am under the impression is considered current best practice from the 1980s ( even earlier in some particular locations). However, it may be that your Track Engineer deems it unnecessary in your particular area.
3 / Hint for railway modellers. Setting out and laying of points/switches, independent from the connecting track, ensures that the switches, especially where a series of connecting switches is required, can be correctly set up to "flow" properly from the commencement, to the finishing point. Once that is done, then connect up the normal approach tracks. This allows the connecting track to be adjusted to ensure a smooth flow into the switch complex, with the consequent improved running of your trains. This is a lot easier to do, than the reverse. The laying and flow of switches needs to be correct, otherwise, poor running is ensured.
4 / In Victoria, Australia, current practice, when replacing track infrastructure, is the complete removal of the old, the regrading of the substructure, laying of geotextile, laying of under ballast, laying of switches, laying and connecting up the running lines, then finishing the ballasting. As concrete sleepers are now preferred, due to their lower comparative cost over a lifespan of 35-50 years, compared to alternatives, this also means that heavy, specialist plant and equipment, operated by qualified and certificated peoples also required. hence the reason for complete line closures, and bus substitution.
Whilst minor railways can, to some extent, still use manual methods, and hand held heavy tool assistance (powered track tamping tools, etc), any major works really now requires specialist heavy machinery to be done to achieve satisfactory long term reliable train running.
5 / Whilst I like the idea of a fenced off public access to the railway corridor, it does come with some issues that all preserved railways need to consider.
a / it requires fencing to be maintained to ensure separation from the Danger Zone of the Running Line. It also requires the pathways to be maintained, and drained, to reduce the likelihood of injury to users. As some Local Government Authorities have found to their cost, a failure to do so can, on some occasions, result in rather expensive legal action, due to a failure of the "duty of care" to users the facility.
b / Gates, an ability to close the pathway on railway land, also needs to be considered. Ungated public access can lead to a situation where the railway access pathway becomes a legal public right of way without restriction, if the railway cannot restrict access to it at certain times. It used to be the case that railway pathways were locked off for 24 hour period once a year, though I suspect that period has changed, but there is still a need to legally ensure that the railway pathway does not become a public right of way. Suitable signage may also be required to confirm the legal status of the railway pathway.
Gates are also a way of delineating the public right of way, from the railway pathway for public access.
(In metropolitan Melbourne, some railway pathways have been upgraded with lockable gates, and a notice to the effect that the pathway may be closed for railway maintenance purposes. This is a byproduct of some informal pathways becoming formal, new bike paths installed parallel to the railway line, and new equipment boxes, and in some cases road access, provided for maintenance staff, all part of a level crossing removal programme.)
c / preserved railways also face the problem of mixed ownership of the railway right of way. The need to deal with multiple railway right of way owners, property owners which adjoin the railway, and public right of way, and highways, which cross the railway.
d / Occupation crossings, where farmer Joe can run his livestock across the railway line at his occupation crossing (which connects his fields on opposite sides of the line, and are intended for his use exclusively), but who also allows the neighbour to use the crossing to access a part of the neighbour's crossing, which "allowance" of course, will be strenuously denied if there is an accident. (Refer to Swanage railway, Boxing Day, 1999.) The right to an Occupation Crossing expires when when one of said fields is sold to a third party, thereby extinguishing the need of farmer Joe to use said Occupation crossing. (As an aside, there was an instance where a Farming Corporation banned the Railway Signal Techs from access to the farm to maintain the Occupation Crossing. This meant that the Occupation Crossing equipment became unsafe, due to it not being maintainable. Railtrack/NetworkRail then removed the crossing completely, due to it being a danger that was, presumably, no longer required. Access was blocked off with concrete barriers. Farm Corporation later realised that their farm machinery, due to its' dimensions and weight, could not access the fields on the other side of the railway line, except by means of the now removed Occupation Crossing. Farm Corporation requested reinstatement of said Occupation Crossing, and presumably were less than happy that it would both take time, and require around a half million pounds, at their expense, to re-instate. Probably should have thought about that prior to banning the Signal Techs ! )
d / I also like the idea of a viewing space being set aside for general use. Interested persons can then view and photograph to their hearts content in a fenced off safe zone, which does not require a Trackside Permit. Whilst I think that Trackside Access permits for photographers is OK, it does require the issuing railway (consistent with today's more stringent safety requirements) needs to ensure the holder of such a Permit is a responsible person, and a Holder of a current Track Awareness and Safety Certificate, however defined. This, in turn, requires the railway to establish, and then administer, and regulate, such access and usage. As preserved railways are generally volunteer run, and even if some staff are full or part time employees, this is an additional administrative burden which many railways may struggle to accomodate, so fenced off viewing zones are a preferable alternative in my view.
6 / Thanks for a very interesting photo talk of the Churnet Valley Railway, it shows how much work is need to restore a railway, and highlights the efforts of the many volunteers that make this possible.
Best wishes and regards from Australia, Echidna.