Extensions - a snare and a delusion?

I just don't know whether rail wear issues are more or less pronounced on standard rather than narrow gauge. Standard gauge lines have a nasty habit of using Class 7 or 8 engines for a Class 2 job which is not good for the health of elderly rail which has probably been cascaded at least once already. This material will cost one hell of a lot of money to replace when the time comes. Some narrow gauge railways have relayed stretches with 100% brand new material which is what needs to be aspired to but it costs.

Whilst on the subject of new material, the largest locomotives to have received new boilers are Brighton Terriers. Another thing which is waiting to take a nip on the collective backside!

It all adds up to "it's a visitor attraction, not a transport service and don't forget it" What the paying customer wants and what you want are not necessarily the same and, as is said, the customer is king.

Paul H.

 

Yes, but which customer?

 

As much as who are what want what and where to and when it must also be considered whether regular upkeep can be made. If regular upkeep can be made on a site not just with what they already have but also the extension then fair play to them to go ahead and extend. If they cannot guarentee all this then it will not be in the best interest of extension

 

I think that extensions can be good or bad, and it all depends on whether the circumstances are right for that railway. Some of the questions might be

1. Will there be an adequate commercial return on the investment, and could that investment have been better spent elsewhere?
2. Are there enough volunteers to maintain the extension and maintain the existing railway?

On many small railways the answer to these questions must be no, as it will be on a lot of the mid-sized ones too. I would prefer that the money was spent on improving customer facilities like better loos, better cafes, bars and restuarants and larger and better souvenir shops. Then there is the problem of deferred maintenance on bridges, culverts, drains, tree clearance etc. If after all of that is done, and most railways are not doing it, then extend, but with the proviso that if the railway was originally double track why not re-instate? It would have the advantage over an extension of not doubling the maintenance of the civil engineering features, which an extension implies, and giving a selling point to the customers

Regards

 

As long as there is a business case for an extension then it's a good idea. You've got to take into account the costs of the extension met by the railway (as opposed to grants, donations etc.), and you have to take into account added maintenance, fuel, wear etc., it all adds up. Counter this with how much extra income the extension will generate and you have your answer.

The Gwili into Carmarthen? Viable.
The Much Dreaming Light Railway to the site of a halt closed in 1868 (no road access, no platform, run round only, no chance to extend as M54 is in the way). Not viable.

Only a very few extensions will be worth throwing Company money at. Quite few more will be worth doing if they can pay for themselves. A lot won't be worth it.

There is probably a minimum length for a heritage line below which they will always be perceived as smalltime and have commensurate visitor numbers - 4 miles maybe? There is also probably a maximum amount of maintenance liabilitiess and length that can be sustained - for example, the SVR although a good 6 miles shorter than the entire WSR packs into its length a long tunnel, a whacking great iron bridge and at least five large viaducts - whereas the WSR has no tunnel and no major underbridges. The idea of the SVR striking north into the infamously unstable geography of the Ironbridge gorge is quite terrifying considering how much it already has on its plate. So although 25% longer, the WSR actually probably has lower liabilities in infrastructure maintenance. Regarding length, obviously this is a visitor enjoyment element - too long and the journey takes up too much time at too high a cost, and you lose traffic - because I know of only one heritage railway that has effectively marketed itself for short journeys. So the WSR is probably about the maximum you can manage - the WHR is that railway that markets itself for short journeys.

There seems to be a thirst amongst a certain breed of enthusiast - the civil engineering enthusiast if you like - who wants to be involved in the extensions. That's what excites them. Nothing wrong with that, my thing's signals, another's might be Wickham trolleys. It's how they can be effectively used in line with financial reason by heritage railways. Perhaps we need a "National Navvies Society" to bring together all those who want to be latter-day deviationists, which can be brought in by different heritage railways as required for their financially viable extensions, thus reducing the urge for non-viable extensions yet answering this thirst to attack embankments and cuttings!

 

No particular problems with this, save for the issue of the double track which, forgive me, is gricer's stuff. Doubling the amount of money invested in rail for no increase in income seems rather pointless. About the only cost which would not be increased is fencing.

PH

 

Inclined to agree. The only time doubling could ever become reasonable would be to improve the service - I believe the WSR was in pre-preservation days doubled Minehead-Dunster. If the reinstatement of that would genuinely improve the service to visitors, easing the timetable to an extent as to be worth the cost of reinstatement and maintenance, then it's worth it.

 

As far as I know there are no plans to reinstate the double line between Dunster and Minehead. If it would truly improve the service, and lead to increased revenue, then serious consideration would be given. That, to me, confirms your statement. On the other hand, the reinstatement of the full loop at Williton, whilst not strictly an "extension" as per the OP and not directly increasing revenue, will greatly improve train operation thereabouts and thus for the whole railway.

Steve

 

I wasn't suggesting there were plans - just that such a move wouldn't be made without a logical return.

 

Quite so - I was agreeing with you.

Steve

 

Perhaps I ought to have phrased it so that it read 'instead of extending why not re-instate double track?'.

Regards

 

As discussed at some length in another dedicated thread, there are few preserved railways which would benefit from substantial lengths of double track. GCR is without doubt the exception, as it's effectively the only genuine main line preserved railway, and by its very nature it seeks to re-create a visitor experience which would not be possible were it a single line.

 

Yes. if your railway has no particular USP then double track "might" give it one. The only problem is that someone has already done it! I am far from convinced anyway that the nuclear family with 2.2 children cares or realises whether there are one, two or three lines; they merely are out for a jolly.

The lack of awareness can be astonishing. One couple, not unsophisticated, stood watching a train drawing up into a terminus with its noisy vacuum system snorting and hissing and steam wisping from the whistles. "Is it a diesel locomotive made up to look like a steam one" asked the lady. The locomotive concerned was well over 100 years old at the time.

Don't lets kid ourselves, these are the people who pay the bills. They want a pretty run, preferably by steam although many can't tell the difference, decent customer care and clean facilities. They are conscious if it begins to get expensive; just read the Tripadvisor entries such as "Expensive but worth it" and hope they don't start to read merely "Expensive". Ill considered extensions make this more likely.

Paul H.

 

On a side note all the more reason to be polite and patient with the public! Sarcasm doesn't go far

 

That brings back a memory! Whilst duty SM at Loughborough back in the day, 1306 and another engine were being propelled into platform 1 dead by the diesel-hydraulic shunter "Alen Grice", which was a very quiet locomotive and also virtually invisible behind the steam locos. A young mother with kids asked me how they were moving like that, and I could not resist replying, "Batteries, madam"; in my defence I'd had a bad morning.

To my everlasting shame she thanked me and started explaining this to the kids. I went back in the SM's office as quickly as my crumbling dignity would allow.

 

If I may I would just like put aside for a moment the business case aspect for a little excursion into the acceptability of an extended heritage railway to the public interest. Look back at the old black and white photographs of major railway centres of 50 or 60 years ago and one realises that they would not look very different on colour film, so dirty were the surroundings. Steam railways, en masse, were pretty filthy in urban surroundings although often pretty in the countryside. BR's steam cull meant that the provisions of the Clean Air Act glossed over the pollution of steam locomotives as they could be tolerated until extinct. Today, steam is tolerated because its rarity means that its contribution to pollution is negligible and its popularity with the public wards off any seriously restrictive regulation; a bit like Formula 1 motor racing.

That acceptance, or toleration, is not limitless, and I have always thought that extension of a railway that leads from nowhere to nowhere via a central headquarters area, and where all passengers come by road, is very much open to the accusation that it is a giant train set for big chaps to play with. It would be iniquitous for me to name those "at risk" but I will congratulate those who started with an isolated operation but have clawed their way back to an urban centre and the national network.

So much has been achieved or committed in recent years. Most of all of course, congratulations to the Bluebell which has overcome a mighty obstacle equal to the Dduallt deviation of years past, but also those who are striving to do so. The Wensleydale is very close and should reach Northallerton this year and the Kent and East Sussex is creeping back to the main line. Once the Llangollen has reached Corwen, will it gather its corporate breath for a push to Ruabon? The West Somerset has always had a link but as yet not a service to Taunton. The Churnet Valley, through its alter ego of Moorland and City Railways, is hacking through the Staffordshire rainforest towards Stoke. The Gloucestershire and Warwickshire has its sights set on Honeybourne, although there is much ambivalence towards Cheltenham. The North Norfolk has bridged the gap of a few panels at Sheringham and I hope that my nearest preserved line, the Ecclesbourne Valley, will one day fill in those same few panels at Duffield.

As yet, no standard-gauge heritage railway has linked to the national system at each end. Any that achieve that will truly be able to point to a wider public benefit than a recreational train ride. I understand that the North Yorkshire Moors sees no business case for extending to Rillington Junction. Maybe so, but if a fairy godfather came along with the complete capital cost I think that minds might change about operating it. In relation to public acceptance of such, I know that some of the natives in Pickering don't want the town complicated by level crossings again but, offer them a through service from York to Whitby and crossing gates would become suddenly no problem at all.

So, my view is that extending isolated railways that have no hope of reaching anywhere, especially the national system, is not something that public policy should support. Encouraging linkage back to the national system is highly desirable and deserves public support and double connections deserve double support! None of my comments above are intended to criticise the management of the railways mentioned; I have simply picked out cases where a public benefit beyond the enthusiast community might be established.

 

Thanks John, that does make a good point. For the AVR, I think that the extension to Avon Riverside was a huge milestone as it finally gave a destination at the end of the line, and not just a reversal in a field. To get to another centre of population in Bath (And if Saltford GW station gets reinstated, a passenger connection to the mainline) would be a huge boon to the railway.

 

Personally I would say that going from somewhere to no-where is only one factor that might lead to a perception of "playing with trains". How many staff are employed, how often the gates are open (is it a weekend only operation, even in the summer) ,how many other comparable heritage railways nearby and what sort of markets the railway attracts (Coach parties en masse for example?), proximity of other local attractions are other pointers towards how seriously the railway might be taken in the community. There will be exceptions to every rule. It really depends what USP, if any, the said railway has.

 

I do not generally have an issue with extensions. They seem the logical progression for most preserved railways as I historically I expect the majority of lines preserved lines opened a short length and extended over time. Would we really have wanted the SVR do got no further than say Hampton Load.

Generally extensions have a purpose as most who run railways know the general public have price and time sensitivity. They do not what to pay £50 for a two minute ride but equally they do not want in the main to be sat for several hours and it is potentially suicide not being aware of that.

I have actually have more of an issue with the number of lines and the continued proliferation of lines as I think we are reaching saturation point as far as the public is concerned and staffing, maintaining and funding these long term are bigger issues than the odd extension

 

To be blunt so what?

To be blunt again so what with respect to "playing with trains. They are not a real transport facility and can't be judged by that standard. Had it not been for World War II a vast mileage would have had to be closed long before Beeching. In 1939 the second generation of pneumatic tyred motor bus was doing to standard gauge branch lines what the first generation had to the narrow gauge equivalent ten years before.

As for USP there is less of it about than might be supposed. The Ffestiniog Railway has double engines, the Welshpool and Llanfair open balcony passenger stock whilst the Isle of Wight has 100% pre-grouping carriages. All of these the general public might just about notice. Probably the same goes for being narrow rather than standard gauge. However, leaving aside personal preferences, how many lines really have any USP at all?

PH