"Welsh Highland Railway Developments & Progress"?

[The Stationmaster]

 

Shop and cafe revenue are as important as establishing a fair rate for running costs or a revenue split.

 

John

 

That is, I think, an important point with all the leisure/tourist sector railways and obviously one which they are keen to protect and expand. The last time I visited the FR I followed my usual pattern on such a visit and spent some money on food & drink and in the souvenir/book shop as I think it is good way of offering a bit of extra support. And in the case of the FR it was just short of 30 quid on books while for a couple of people any cafe visit is likely to create anything between a fiver and tenner in revenue as a minimum.

 

Clearly no operator is going to wish to lose such income - whoever they are and some railways put a lot of effort into actively encouraging and chasing it.

[Guest Phil]

Can someone please explain what has actually happened at Penymount and the immediate area ?

 

From what I recall (somewhat hazily) some years ago there was a set of points laid on the WHR (1964) formation which I assumed was the "junction" which either turned left to head across town to the Harbour station, or turned right to head along the former standard gauge formation to the present day WHR terminus next to the standard gauge.

 

I assume that the Festiniog Railway-built track from the Pont Croesor, over Cae Pawb crossing towards the Harbour must have taken over some of the WHR (1964) trackbed. Do the WHHR still have enough railway on which to run their recent service ?

 

 

EDIT

 

Having studied the Isengard website it is a lot clearer now.

 

Reading between the lines I'm guessing that even though the WHHR invested some time and money in the section from Pen y Mount to Traeth Mawr, they never opened it up to passenger service.

 

Are they still able to run as far as their original "terminus" of Pen y Mount though ? I

[Captain Kernow]

The above doesn't absolve the WH64co from all blame, but quite frankly the FR should grow up.

Somehow I doubt that an immature organisation could have completely rebuilt the old Welsh Highland Railway. The achievement is incredible, absolutely incredible. I just cannot believe that the WHHR could have achieved this reconstruction in the manner and timescales that the FR did.

 

As others have said, the public disagreement is very unfortunate, but to my mind the F.R. motives appear to be more business-led and with less emotion. Revenue abstraction from potential competitors is a real issue in the wider railway industry. As such, I think we should be glad that the most amazing railway restoration in the world (IMO) is in the hands of people who understand business planning and what it will take to ensure the survival of this line in uncertain economic times and beyond (not that I'm implying that the WHHR can't run a business, but I know who would get my vote).

 

I do hope that they 'kiss and make up' in due course, but of course none of this will stop me enjoying my annual ride on the WHR main line, nor my visit to the excellent second hand book shop at the WHHR shop either!

[Bomag]

Captain K

 

You assume that immature is the same as not competent. It does not necessarily follow - there are plenty of organisation who have what one could call 'behaviour traits' but can still effectively put one brick on top of another.

 

 

Given that a significant amount of the cash was in grants and it was run by professionals (whether paid or not) , who would likely have worked on the scheme whoever was 'running it', then the WHHR would have got in a similar position to the FR i.e. not quite finished. If fact with the WHHR you would have probably been able to get from Porthmadog to Beddgelert by train by now

[Adrian]

Pre-emptive strike - Please don't feed the trolls!

Adrian

[Captain Kernow]

You assume that immature is the same as not competent. It does not necessarily follow - there are plenty of organisation who have what one could call 'behaviour traits' but can still effectively put one brick on top of another.

Well, I respect the right of those that argue in favour of the WHHR to do so, but in my experience on the 'big' railway (nearly 30 years and counting), the correlation between 'immature' and 'lacking in competence' is fairly secure. I see it regularly in terms of the longevity/experience of the various (smaller) railway organisations that I deal with on a work basis.

 

To clarify, I only used the expression 'immature' in response to the exhortation by a previous poster urging the FR to 'grow up'...

 

Given that a significant amount of the cash was in grants and it was run by professionals (whether paid or not) , who would likely have worked on the scheme whoever was 'running it', then the WHHR would have got in a similar position to the FR i.e. not quite finished. If fact with the WHHR you would have probably been able to get from Porthmadog to Beddgelert by train by now

As stated above, I respect your right to hold this view, but I'm afraid that I just don't buy the theory that the WHHR would have made the same rapid, spectacular progress as the FR/WHR. Whilst the public statements of the FR/WHR may not have been seen as 'sympathetic' to the wishes of the WHHR, they nonetheless (in my personal view) give the appearance of an organised, corporate entity that understands it's own business needs and 'gets things done'.

 

This may seem horribly unfair, but I firmly believe that most people, whether locals (non-enthusiasts) or enthusiasts simply aren't interested in this argument. I think that most people will judge by results. The FR/WHR have rebuilt the entire route in little over 10 years and brought some amazing motive power to the line. It is an incredible outcome. I visit the line to enjoy Garretts, superb scenery and a decent coffee in comfortable coaches. I most certainly would take a dim view, were I to witness any kind of moaning about this on-going quarrel (whether from either side).

 

I think the title of this thread is spot on, actually, whilst not taking anything away from those who want to feel aggreived by the FR/WHR, it does seem to reflect the fact that the rest of us quietly groan 'oh no, here they go again'...

 

In my experience, an organisation with a calm, measured approach to an issue like this, and especially if they are convinced of the justice of their claim, should be able to engage in a business-like manner with the larger organisation and convince them that what they are offering will be of benefit to the larger business. If what the WHHR is offering were actually to be detrimental to the FR/WHR operation, why should the latter put their business at risk by entertaining it?

 

 

Pre-emptive strike - Please don't feed the trolls!

Adrian, given my longevity on this forum, I trust that the proximity of your comments to mine on this thread is purely co-incidental?

[Oldddudders]

Well, I respect the right of those that argue in favour of the WHHR to do so, but in my experience on the 'big' railway (nearly 30 years and counting), the correlation between 'immature' and 'lacking in competence' is fairly secure. I see it regularly in terms of the longevity/experience of the various (smaller) railway organisations that I deal with on a work basis.

While, compared to the Captain, I am very out-of-date in terms of those who run the industry, I do see a dramatic difference in the management style of the two "adversaries" in this most unfortunate confrontation. The WHHR, who could be seen by their connection with Russell to have "got on site" first by quite some years - 1964? - seems to me to be an organisation composed of decent, hard-working, genuine enthusiasts. Sadly for them the FR people are hard-nosed businessmen, the sort of folk who bankers and others representing European Union interests prefer to deal with. As a result, the FR got the nod and the cash, and I do not think that the WHHR would have made the same success, even if the field had been clear - as it was in 1964 when the Russell people began their then-lonely quest.

 

We are, as they say, where we are, and everyone concerned needs to look forward and forget the injustices or otherwise of the past.

[Ozexpatriate]

As a complete foreigner to all things Welsh, I won't take sides here, though the achievements of the F&WHR are remarkable and as a potential tourist, some kind of direct connection between all three railways is clearly desirable.

 

For me to understand this fuss, I found it instructive to look at Google maps and Bing maps as an interesting contrast and understand the alignments in question. The aerial photos on Google are older and predate any construction by the F&WHR, while the newer Bing maps show a completed line. The above links point to what I assume to be Pen-y-Mount.

 

Hopefully they'll all come to a reasoned compromise.

[jamie92208]

As a complete foreigner to all things Welsh, I won't take sides here, though the achievements of the F&WHR are remarkable and as a potential tourist, some kind of direct connection between all three railways is clearly desirable.

 

For me to understand this fuss, I found it instructive to look at Google maps and Bing maps as an interesting contrast and understand the alignments in question. The aerial photos on Google are older and predate any construction by the F&WHR, while the newer Bing maps show a completed line. The above links point to what I assume to be Pen-y-Mount.

 

Hopefully they'll all come to a reasoned compromise.

 

As another outsider with no particualr axw to grind, I also found problems understanding the various alignments. The site run by Barrie Hughes www.isengard.co.uk

is excellent and has some very good hostorical ino about the various earlier railways that occupied the areas in question, as well as good maps. I will however giv e you a health warning. Once I discovered the site I soent nearly all the next 2 weeks reading all the old blogs about the various stages of reconstruction of the WHR as well as the history.

 

Jamie

[The Stationmaster]

 

We are, as they say, where we are, and everyone concerned needs to look forward and forget the injustices or otherwise of the past.

 

 

And that, Ian, is if course the most important thing of all. We now have a smashing, almost complete, railway rebuilt through the heart of Snowdonia operating as a sustainable (I hope) tourist attraction with some very attractive steam engines and, in parts, challenging route. We've got it, it's there, enjoy it.

 

And at Porthmadog we have another sort of attraction, which retells in living form some of the history of a railway which operated for a while in the area way back in the last century. We've got that too, it's there, we can enjoy it too.

 

And that is what really interests me and no doubt like most other tourists to the area - we go to visit what is there, not what someone thinks ought to be there. I have no wish to spend a day out listening to slanging matches and claims and counter-claims (often apparently not supported by facts let alone contracts or written agreements - so basically no more than tittle-tattle) and I'm sure that the vast majority of those who pay to visit these attractions don't want to either.

[AMJ]

The WHHR & FR relationship seems to me to be a bit like a modern day couple that live together as at times they cooperate and at other times they are living apart.

 

Back in the 1980's WHR(64) as it was then lent Russell for the big FR gala and at various times the FR has lent locos such as Lilla to the WHHR. Exchanges for galas will be easy now that they are rail connected.

 

The WHHR had an agreement to reconstruct a certain length of line which unfortunately due to various factors they didn't get to the desired location which is why FR seems to be taraing up the agreement. I think that the fact that WHHR uses an air brake system & FR/WHR vacuum that they also think that there would be a thunderbird problem - not if you fit a Lyd2 with both.

 

Yet I was also lead to belive that the larger impressive museum at Gelert's Farm was a joint FR/WHHR project - the FR herse van is in there.

 

I just hope that they "all live happily together" (based on my analogy above) as I really enjoy the WHHR line and folks. Problem seems to be at management level as many voulenteers work on both.

[cunningduck]

And the Festiniog respond...

[AMJ]

I have often thought that until the CTRL is sorted the ideal solution for the extension to PM of the WHR is to use the WHHR station on a temporary basis. There is the open top bus or a short walk between there and the Harbour station.

[rhydddu009]

Given the issues raised earlier and the fact that for legal reasons the CTRL must be in use before October this year I think that's not realistic I'm afraid...

 

what legal reasons are those then? The real reason is that the FR will be severed at Minffordd for a while this winter whilst the bypass is built and thus the company wants to use the WHR from harbour to run the profitable coach party trains for the not insubstantial traffic at this time of year. Normally they go to trywn y garnedd, this year Beddgelert?

[jamie92208]

what legal reasons are those then? The real reason is that the FR will be severed at Minffordd for a while this winter whilst the bypass is built and thus the company wants to use the WHR from harbour to run the profitable coach party trains for the not insubstantial traffic at this time of year. Normally they go to trywn y garnedd, this year Beddgelert?

 

I don't know about the coach parties but I believe that it;s to do with the new Railway Inspection regime that is due to come into force in nthe autumn which will be much more expensive than the current system. Several railways, including the Ecclesbourne Valley are trying their hardest to get new lines/trackage approved under the old system and I have heard that the CTRL on the WHL falls into this category.

 

Jamie

[The Stationmaster]

I don't know about the coach parties but I believe that it;s to do with the new Railway Inspection regime that is due to come into force in nthe autumn which will be much more expensive than the current system. Several railways, including the Ecclesbourne Valley are trying their hardest to get new lines/trackage approved under the old system and I have heard that the CTRL on the WHL falls into this category.

 

Jamie

 

Ah - this is ROGS (ROGS: The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006). The 'previous regime' was that such things had to be inspected by HMRI but under ROGS a railway undertaking can do it all itself - subject to producing all the right paperwork plus oversight and assessment etc by 'an independent competent person'.

 

This change struck fear into the heart of the Heritage Railway Association so they got a stay of execution - until this October - of the compulsory application of ROGS to their doings.

 

There is actually nothing to prevent the CTRL being dealt with under ROGS but many railways have taken the view that they had started schemes under the HMRI inspection & sign-off regime so it would be best to carry on like that. And the hint that ROGS will be much more expensive than the current system is a nonsense largely originating, I understand, from certain parties within the HRA or close to it who have made use of HMRI almost as a free consultancy service. (and no, I'm not out to start yet another debate. The fact is that the professional expertise, and most of the paperwork, required to comply with ROGS ought to exist anyway and it is perefctly easy - albeit with a slight question mark over professional liability insurance - to find, even within the preservation world in some cases, the necessary 'independent competent people' for almost any task you care to name. For example as far as the CTRL is concerned I could immediately name such an independent person for its most critical aspect, the level crossings - the only question is whether it would be HMRI or the FR&WHR buying his expertise.

[jamie92208]

Thanks for that about ROGS I will need to read up about it for getting the horse tram that I am involbed in reswtoring, approved for public passenger carrying. Life is a learning curve though some bits are steeper than others.

 

Jamie

[Guest Phil]

I still can't help feeling that trying to cross another railway on a flat crossing whilst trying to link in with test bed new signalling which is desperately late, is a "bridge too far".

 

There must surely be a way to cross Network Rail infrastructure either by bridge or tunnel ?

 

After all the FR have now been instrumental in building more new railway than the Portmadoc-Dduallt section they started out with surely ?

 

If it can be done at Bury using 1:25 gradients, then I'm sure the FR could build something similar which the NG16s can cope with.

 

 

As always, wishing both parties well in this "handbags at dawn" business

[James]

If this had been one single organization from the start of rebuilding the WHR - and the FR & WHHR had simply joined together, with a "one future, one aim" and buried the hatchet from times past, then a new company with all the volunteers together could have been made up, and the extensive collection of locomotives and rolling stock would be incredible - Russell alongside the Garratts and the Fairlies, and a Baldwin in the mix too.

 

The one future, one aim concept is interesting - from what I understand the reason why the FR wanted the WHR trackbed was because they wanted to stop any development on the old WHR as they didn't think two railways out of Portmadoc could survive.

 

I think a major issue in all of this is that the FR doesn't actually need the WHHR whereas it seems that the WHHR desperately needs to FR to go beyond their small site. The do have Russell but the new WHR doesn't need the older stock in order to survive. I suspect the overwhelming majority of passengers on the new WHR aren't bothered or even aware bthat it's not the original stock which is operating the services.

[S.A.C Martin]

The one future, one aim concept is interesting - from what I understand the reason why the FR wanted the WHR trackbed was because they wanted to stop any development on the old WHR as they didn't think two railways out of Portmadoc could survive.

 

I think a major issue in all of this is that the FR doesn't actually need the WHHR whereas it seems that the WHHR desperately needs to FR to go beyond their small site. The do have Russell but the new WHR doesn't need the older stock in order to survive. I suspect the overwhelming majority of passengers on the new WHR aren't bothered or even aware bthat it's not the original stock which is operating the services.

 

I don't think thats a wholly unfair summation of the situation by any means, but I feel that the opportunity for the whole of that region to be more than the sum of its parts has been wasted. There seems to be some hope, however, if you believe the railway press in any event, for a good outcome in all of this. We can only hope.

[baldopeter]

I still can't help feeling that trying to cross another railway on a flat crossing whilst trying to link in with test bed new signalling which is desperately late, is a "bridge too far".

 

There must surely be a way to cross Network Rail infrastructure either by bridge or tunnel ?

 

After all the FR have now been instrumental in building more new railway than the Portmadoc-Dduallt section they started out with surely ?

 

If it can be done at Bury using 1:25 gradients, then I'm sure the FR could build something similar which the NG16s can cope with.

 

 

As always, wishing both parties well in this "handbags at dawn" business

[baldopeter]

A tunnel would be difficult in sand that is only just above sea level, a bridge would be possible if the railway owned enough land on each side, which is does not. The 'embankment' towards Snowdon Street already has vertical sides made with gabions.

 

I suspect a flat crossing would be the only possible solution, I suspect the others were considered, but discounted early on. We just have to make it work !

 

Regards

 

Peter

[pete_mcfarlane]

I suspect a flat crossing would be the only possible solution, I suspect the others were considered, but discounted early on. We just have to make it work !

And just because it the commissioning of the crossing has been delayed does not mean there is anything wrong with it as a solution. As an onlooker it looks like some people have taken these delays as meaning that it's never going to happen.

 

 

I doubt if a bridge is financially viable. If Network Rail aren't able to replace the Newark flat crossing (on the East Coast Main Line) with a bridge, then I doubt if taking a lightly used branchline over an equally lightly used narrow gauge line is going to be a priority for them.

[baldopeter]

And just because it the commissioning of the crossing has been delayed does not mean there is anything wrong with it as a solution. As an onlooker it looks like some people have taken these delays as meaning that it's never going to happen.

 

 

I doubt if a bridge is financially viable. If Network Rail aren't able to replace the Newark flat crossing (on the East Coast Main Line) with a bridge, then I doubt if taking a lightly used branchline over an equally lightly used narrow gauge line is going to be a priority for them.

[baldopeter]

The crossing has been tested and commissioned, but only under ERTMS. The WHR is waiting for ERTMS to be commissioned, and the rest of PC to Port route inspection by HMRI. This is being done when it is to ensure it is completed under the derogation of the old regulations, i.e. by the end of September.

 

BTW, just because this section is then approved does not mean a *fully timetabled* service will run next year, there is still a lot of discussion going on about how to handle traffic in Harbour station with only one platform.

 

Regards

 

Peter