Level Crossings

[csimpson]

This is something really important. I would hate to see this flattened and lost forever. I can think of several locations on our projected line where this infra-structure would fit in. I shall bring this matter up in the next committee meeting. I would hate to see this building join the list of structures lost forever (Fimber station, Addingham Midland Station, etc)

[AlanL]

Perhaps I should add that (personally) I would not be in favour of bringing the actual box to the line, just the equipment.The beauty of the M&DR was its minimal nature - I would be happy to see S & F station with the cute little woodn box on the platform.
The logistics of moving a brick structure are huge, not to mention the fact that because it is sited beside a working railway we would have to pay the cost of a lookout man etc.The gates and signals are another matter - crane them out while NR have their own possession and onto the back of a low loader.The lever frame is a simple job to dismantle too.

[Ricgough]

One of the strengths of this particular line is that it is unique - not built by the major players such as the YNMR or NER and has its own characteristic archetecture and simplistic style.

The Box and Gates on the Brid line would be a real loss, but I have to question whether we wouldn't just be doing the same as many other HRP's and coming up with a pastiche of railway infrastructure which gives a false sense of the historical characteristics of the line.

At some point you have to accept that you can't save everything and that by putting something in which altered the appearance of the original line runs the risk of diminishing our opportunity to offer something different to what already exists.

We have to differentiate our product somehow. The character of the MDR must really be retained (as the Quintessential country branch) if we don't want to be seen as just a smaller NYMR.

I can see the merit in trying to get the re-usable material, Gates, lever-frame and such but there are plenty of YNMR boxes and none left of the nature that existed on the MDR. It would be nice to think we could represent what was lost when the line shut, not something else that just grows out of a good natured desire to save historic infrastructure that just doesn't really 'fit'.

[dodger]

Yes i do see your point on that score with regard to the box, but i think the gates would surely fit into the catagory of what was actualy used originaly on the MDJR, there are not many pics of original gates (that i have seen) except the ones at garton slack which are very similar but smaller i believe, but you must concider the fact that the road between wetwang and garton 50 yrs ago was single carriageway,now its double, as are all the major roads in the area its a question of how far you want to go with the originality theme rather that use what is available to you now at the least cost.

[Rail Rover]

Perhaps Mike Elliott will be able to swing it!

I also understand that Burton Agnes 'box is like Howden - ie: listed but presumably available for reconstruction at a heritage site.

[Ricgough]

Perhaps Mike Elliott will be able to swing it!

I also understand that Burton Agnes 'box is like Howden - ie: listed but presumably available for reconstruction at a heritage site.

I am open to the fact that owing to not having access to a Malton or Botanic Gardens shed then we will need some infrastructure that wasn't there, but I really would caution against changing the character of the line. That's our unique selling point.

The groundframe on platform idea would be my preference, but as for the gates - even if we just replace the current static boundary with the gates - they don't open or close in front of our possible station, it'll grab attention and add to the 'feel' of the place. Then the next-stage would be platform and a couple af track panels down, with optional static rolling stock and build a yard from there....

Awful pun there BTW with "swing it".

[AlanL]

Yes i do see your point on that score with regard to the box, but i think the gates would surely fit into the catagory of what was actualy used originaly on the MDJR, there are not many pics of original gates (that i have seen) except the ones at garton slack which are very similar but smaller i believe, but you must concider the fact that the road between wetwang and garton 50 yrs ago was single carriageway,now its double, as are all the major roads in the area its a question of how far you want to go with the originality theme rather that use what is available to you now at the least cost.

Hi dodger the original gates on the line were what could loosely be termed " farm gates" but the gates at Fimber Road were proper gates of the type used at Gristhorpe.My own personal stance on preserved railways is that you should put everything back "as it was" unless it is either A) Impractical given modern rules or B) Not cost efficient. As I have mentioned elsewhere the original style of signalling on the M & DR was totally cost efficient - it was arranged with the lever frames on the platforms so that a single member of staff could attend to both station duties and working the signals or gates, rather than having seperate people for each job.In a situation where you re-erected Gristhorpe box at (say) S & F station crossing you would gain no advantage - the work involved in actually installing a gatewheel and the linkage to gates is beyond all but the most established RPSes.The gates and box at Grosmont were installed under the late John Boyes who was a signalling engineer, and had the services of a Locking Fitter and many trained volunteers.
The NYMR are rebuilding the bridge south of Goathland at a cost in excess of £300,000 for ONE bridge and they are building it as a single track bridge.This has drawn criticism from some people who argue that the present bridge is double track and that a single track bridge would make it impossible to have double track in future.But the case is unanswerable; a double track bridge would be a waste of money unless there is a proven, immediate need for it.So (IMHO) the priorities are A) Get a running line established. B) THEN think about whether you actually need signalboxes and signalling.Don't do what Peak Rail did and build a signalbox before you have track and signals for it to control, then later find with hindsight that it's in the wrong place and you have to move it! End of rant.

[dodger]

Alan its always a pleasure to read your "rants", and im also a big fan of your flickr photos as well, i think you probebly have the right idea about any future rebuild, that it should be as close to the original as possible, i just hate to see good stuff go to waste, hell i`d have those gates on my drive if i could convince the wife it was a good idea

[AlanL]

Cheers dodger.The gates are eminently practical and would look perfectly at home at Sledmere or anywhere else. Whether the station was rebuilt and restored to NER / LNER / BR condition wouldn't really matter - though I have a soft spot for the BR(NE) Orange and Light Blue/White painting style, with maybe Custard & Cream coaches.I guess it's true to say that anything would be better than the picnic site lol!

[Will]

...In a situation where you re-erected Gristhorpe box at (say) S & F station crossing you would gain no advantage - the work involved in actually installing a gatewheel and the linkage to gates is beyond all but the most established RPSes.

As far as I am aware, although Gristhorpe has a signalbox, it only mechanically controls the signals - the gates are still moved manually by the signalman.