Railways and Preservation - Swanage An Environmental Disaster?

[faulcon1]

I can remember years ago in Steam Railway magazine of a person having a whinge about the GCR. I remember their complaint stating that the GCR started off with small engines but now we have these monster mainline locos roaring past the bottom of our garden with all their smoke and noise. This was long before the internet and people in the next issue of the mag were of the opinion, if you don't like it then move.

The cycling lobby is now very vocal having jumped on the environmental bandwagon because it's the thing to do and with social media they can yell their opinion out louder than ever. Many people lived to ripe old ages who were born and brought up in the steam era and it wasn't just polluting steam engines either. Petrol was leaded, diesel for road transport was full of nasties and there were steel works. Many towns had a gas works providing town gas and the air was filthy. All this "pollution shortens people's lives" is garbage, otherwise all those born in that polluting era would have died and early death but many didn't. The one size fits all mantra is well and truly alive. Ever noticed when the mainstream media wants to go on about polluting coal fired power stations, what do they focus their lens on. They point the camera lens at the cooling towers and they emit plain water vapour. The long thin chimney with a wisp of smoke coming out of it is ignored because there's a huge volume of water vapour being emitted from the cooling towers and that's much more impressive.

If a tall chimney is emitting smoke or anything else they wait for a late fine afternoon shot with the sun behind the smoke to make it look much more dramatic than it actually is. Some of the shots taken are over twenty years old but are trotted out as being taken yesterday.

[jonhall]

1 hour ago, faulcon1 said:

I can remember years ago in Steam Railway magazine of a person having a whinge about the GCR. I remember their complaint stating that the GCR started off with small engines but now we have these monster mainline locos roaring past the bottom of our garden with all their smoke and noise. This was long before the internet and people in the next issue of the mag were of the opinion, if you don't like it then move.

The cycling lobby is now very vocal having jumped on the environmental bandwagon because it's the thing to do and with social media they can yell their opinion out louder than ever. Many people lived to ripe old ages who were born and brought up in the steam era and it wasn't just polluting steam engines either. Petrol was leaded, diesel for road transport was full of nasties and there were steel works. Many towns had a gas works providing town gas and the air was filthy. All this "pollution shortens people's lives" is garbage, otherwise all those born in that polluting era would have died and early death but many didn't.

 

[Reorte]

Need to be careful with historic life expectancy - a great deal of the increase was from improved childhood mortality rates, rather than the upper end increasing, at least when you go back far enough. Smoking must've been a big contributor throughout most of that graph too.

 

I do very much agree with the previous poster but one on it all being seen as far too black and white these days. Give me a choice and in many cases I'd rather have a bit of pollution than the alternatives quite honestly, and if that happens to knock a year or two off my life so be it. But that doesn't mean I want to go back to the smogs either.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Reorte

[Compound2632]

24 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Need to be careful with historic life expectancy - a great deal of the increase was from improved childhood mortality rates, rather than the upper end increasing, at least when you go back far enough. 

 

While that is true, one should bear in mind:

1. The major decrease in childhood mortality rates occurred in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
2. Life expectancy for those surviving childhood has increased significantly in the last 70 years. When the state pension age was set, the assumption was that most beneficiaries would only be drawing their pension for a few years. We've seen generally that company pension schemes have become meaner over the last quarter-century; that isn't exclusively down to corporate greed.
3. The peak of industrial pollution in Britain was in the mid-twentieth century.

31 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Smoking must've been a big contributor throughout most of that graph too.

 

Smoking only became a very widespread practice from the Great War onwards. That means that lung cancer attributable to smoking can only have become a significant cause of mortality once the survivors of the Great War reached old age, i.e. from the mid-twentieth century.

 

It's notable that the most rapid increase in life expectancy on the graph is the first half of the twentieth century, despite the impact of two world wars.

[tomparryharry]

I strongly believe that in about 10-20 years,  there will be a severe pruning back of heritage railways. Operations that serve no practical purpose will be the first to be affected. Strategic purpose lines will remain, but the smaller 2-3 mile operations will have a hard time of it, especially if the departure & destination are linked within the same stretch of road. 

 

Things like 'The Great Little Trains Of Wales' combine will remain, as it all comes under the Welsh Assembly.  Heritage operations that fail to make their business cases will have a hard time of it, without  significant public or governmental patronage. 

 

If the personnel core of a business is only available after breakfast, then it's a long slope down.... Before lockdown, who was the last fireman to book on at 02:00....?

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

Operations that serve no practical purpose will be the first to be affected. Strategic purpose lines will remain, but the smaller 2-3 mile operations will have a hard time of it, especially if the departure & destination are linked within the same stretch of road. 

 

What is the practical purpose of a heritage railway? 

 

To provide a leisure activity - to be a tourist attraction; a good day out, or part of a good day out. It seems to me the shorter lines, when well-run and well-presented, are as successful in fulfilling that practical purpose as many of the longer lines. A long journey can be less attractive than a short one, especially for families with children (of any age, speaking from experience) and a short line within an easy driving distance can be more attractive than a long one that is further away. 

[tomparryharry]

The practical purpose of a heritage railway is in a large part, education.  if you fail to put over  that  educational information, well....

 

Some 'educators' run a railway purely for personal reasons, whatever that reason may be.  As the age demographic moves forward, so the raison de entre becomes less. 

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

The practical purpose of a heritage railway is in a large part, education.  if you fail to put over  that  educational information, well....

 

... you are not fulfilling your stated public benefit as a charity registered with the Charity Commission.

 

But that's not how it's seen by the punters. Leisure activities are chiefly viewed as entertainment, even if that entertainment has an educational aspect to it. Lord Reith understood that; one can't be more straight-laced about it than him?

 

[Derekstuart]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What is the practical purpose of a heritage railway? 

 

To provide a leisure activity - to be a tourist attraction; a good day out, or part of a good day out. It seems to me the shorter lines, when well-run and well-presented, are as successful in fulfilling that practical purpose as many of the longer lines. A long journey can be less attractive than a short one, especially for families with children (of any age, speaking from experience) and a short line within an easy driving distance can be more attractive than a long one that is further away. 

 

This is very true. My local siding masquerading as a heritage railway is really busy on summer weekends, even though more time is spent running around each end of the siding than actually moving. But they've hit on an entertainment and leisure combination (there's a pub next door and a river walk which, prior to our forced imprisonment, was a good day out in itself.)

 

53 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

The practical purpose of a heritage railway is in a large part, education.  if you fail to put over  that  educational information, well....

 

Some 'educators' run a railway purely for personal reasons, whatever that reason may be.  As the age demographic moves forward, so the raison de entre becomes less. 

Is it about education though? I don't think I learn anything about it when I last travelled on the NYMR (except that an A4, Sir Nigel Gresley no less, runs at only 40MPH on branch line trains in the middle of nowhere). I went because it reminds me of my youth.
 

I suspect most people, including families, go there for that reason. Even those not old enough to remember it, still like to think of 'the good old days' and nothing symbolises Britain's past better than a steam railway. Except perhaps a Military/ war museum.

[Ben B]

Oddly enough I personally suspect it's probably the shorter heritage lines like the Middleton with a local population (if they can keep the vandalism at bay), or the short museum lines like the Derwent Valley where the railway adds an attraction to an existing site, that might survive best- if they can get the volunteers, and if the education services etc that attract fare-paying group visits survive.  My personal experience working in the heritage/museum sector tends to be that education services staff are the first to be culled to save money, and then management wonder why all those revenue-generating coach parties and midweek school visits have mysteriously stopped, with consequent drop in revenue.  The more medium-sized hertiage lines I suspect might be able to carry on, with some rationalisation to make better use of staff and resources.  But like others on here, I reckon the days of the long preserved line with 4 Pacific-hauled trains diagrammed per day might be becoming an endangered beast... and that's before getting to the point of talking about where the hell you get volunteers from in the age of the zero-hour contract with no regular shift pattern (can't have those staff demanding workers rights or pensions now, can we...), the need for multiple jobs to meet rising living costs, or delayed retirement.

 

As for heritage lines with a mainline connection, I doubt that makes a difference really.  They're never going to be true commuter lines with the cost of fares and infrastructure; taking the Swanage line as an example, to re-fulfil it's purpose of connecting the town to the mainline, to be cost effective it would probably need to be just a rationalised back to being just a single-line to an unstaffed bus shelter in the middle of a car park about a mile out of town.  If any steam or heritage diesel services survive, it might be along the lines of that operation in Britanny, the Vapeur du Trieux at Paimpol, where a couple of times a day in the summer, a single tank loco and a fixed rake of coaches (operating out of a small yard part-way along the route) runs a return trip to the terminus, fitting in around the mainline raiilcar shuttle.  I suspect if any legacy of the preservation movement comes to fruition in these terms, it will be the trackbeds being absorbed back into the national network in the future, with people commenting on how the preserved railway kept the route safe from redevelopment for the preceding 60 years. 

 

Though let's be honest, if current public transport trends continue, the need we had even 18 months ago for an expanded and re-opened rail network is probably dead and buried.  People just won't travel, and when environmental concerns price ordinary citizens out of the ability to travel independently by their own cars on the road, most people probably just won't travel outside of their towns unless it's a special occasion or family emergency.  I don't think we'll need anything like the size rail network we have now, and even if we hold onto the tracks, there won't be the need for the intensive timetable.

 

Sorry if that's all a bit negative, but I'm in that frame of mind.  I live beside the KWVR, and the only thing I've seen moving on the track beyond a pair of engineering trains these last two months are deer and trespassers using it as a regular footpath...

[tomparryharry]

Well, it is 'supposed' to be 'education' but sometimes regretfully, it doesn't happen.  I can think  of footplate staff who would imperiously brush- push  past visitors:- "Out of my way, Minions!" sort of thing. 

 

Another establishment had a long-low note emanating from the locomotive. "What's that noise, mister?" Asked a child. The Childs answer was ignored...  " The fireman has a hole in his  fire, and the air is being drawn through, like a trombone. I'm sure he will put some coal on, and block the hole..."  A really, rally dirty look from the fireman, as he picked up the shovel...

 

Heritage staff who don't know the differences  between train, engine & locomotive... Aargh!

[Rivercider]

What is the purpose of a heritage railway?  

I think most were set up to 'preserve' the railway concerned, sometimes with an idea to also provide a train service. As time has passed fewer of us remember what it is the railway is trying to preserve as we are too young to know how it was. 

I believe a good heritage railway has to provide a number of things, firstly to be a good family attraction for a day or half day visit in its own right. I think it is preferable if the line actually links to a tourist destination, ideally if this includes running trains appropriate to the line concerned. 

Taking the Swanage Railway specifically we visited the line as we were staying for a few days in the town. We actually chose to stay in Swanage specifically to include a ride on the line, as well as exploring the town, and walking part of the coast path. I thought the railway was great - it works both ways, either to park and ride to Swanage, or for a car free day trip to Corfe. A comfy clean train with a buffet, or station cafe, serving coffee and cake keeps Mrs Rivercider happy on days like these. I would certainly like to make a return visit, and spend more time learning about the history of the line, and its role in the development of the town.

For heritage railways generally the best ones work on a number of levels, also catering more for the enthusiast or historian. The South Devon Railway is one I have visited many times over the years, as well as riding the line I always make time to just wander around, take photos and soak up the atmosphere, and visit the museum.

For the majority of heritage railway visits we either combine it with a stay close by, or arrive on the day by train if we can.

If a heritage line can encourage school visits that is great, and create skilled employment particularly with traditional skills then that is another bonus.

 

cheers

  

[dibber25]

On 29/12/2020 at 21:05, Robin Brasher said:

You will be pleased to read that the January Purbeck Gazette has come out and there are three replies to Robin Beuscher's letter. Nico, the editor did not publish mine.  They cover many of the points raised here.  Rebecca Mace says that Mr Beuscher will be paying for another cycle track that no-one uses. J. P. Searl points out that Nitrogen is 78% of the air we breath. David Collins gave a detailed response stating that the Swanage Railway contributes about £15 million to the local economy and most of the 200,000 passengers the railway usually carries are not train spotting nerds.  The readers have come up with three different ways of spelling Robin Beuscher's name.  Please see www.purbeckgazette.com click on the front cover of January 2021 and scroll down to Reader's Letters on page 4. The paper copy is out but it may take a couple of days for the online version to appear.

The original 'letter' was one of those classic stir-up pieces designed to get people talking. Suddenly there will be a lot of people talking about the Purbeck Gazette who had never heard of it before. Most probably written by the Editor or one of his staff in order to sell papers. I once had a boss who used to say, at our planning meetings, 'Go on, pick a fight with someone. That's what sells." 

[Zomboid]

3 hours ago, Rivercider said:

What is the purpose of a heritage railway? 

At the time that they're created, they're basically for the enjoyment of those working on them.

These days they can serve purposes beyond that, but they are still purely about leisure. Those who travel on them and those who volunteer on them do so solely for reasons of enjoyment.

 

Some peele enjoy the rose tinted view of the railways of the past, others enjoy the scenery, some like the challenge of keeping a 1960s diesel engine operational.

 

Any other benefits are more coincidental than anything else.

[009 micro modeller]

47 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

At the time that they're created, they're basically for the enjoyment of those working on them.

These days they can serve purposes beyond that, but they are still purely about leisure. Those who travel on them and those who volunteer on them do so solely for reasons of enjoyment.

 

Some were also set up to continue providing public transport. Leaving aside those that were ostensibly meant to provide a commuter service and those that have more recently explored this again as a way to reintroduce community rail and reduce dependence on cars, there are plenty of railways that do partly act as public transport, but within a tourist context. An example would be riding along on the Keighley & Worth Valley to then visit the Brontë Parsonage Museum in Haworth - the railway is a way of getting to something else (public transport) but is also very definitely a tourist attraction in its own right. This is probably why a lot of successful lines are located close to other heritage and tourist sites.

 

A few were originally set up very specifically to preserve or recreate a specific kind of railway operation (e.g. industrial, Midland branch line, main line (on the GCR) etc.) which possibly implies an educational function in the sense of demonstrating and explaining to people how said railway operations actually worked historically. (The NRM, being part of the Science Museum Group, is also interested in STEM education more widely but that’s not exactly a ‘heritage railway’ in the same sense.)

 

It’s also interesting how some have changed over time. As far as I can tell the original concept for the Lakeside & Haverthwaite line was to preserve the line through to Carnforth to connect with Steamtown and thus preserve a branch line, junction and steam shed in combination; they lost part of the line to road widening and couldn’t do this. Today the line is in some ways very touristy, with combined tickets for the lake boats and/or the motor museum with the railway.

[Northmoor]

7 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

I strongly believe that in about 10-20 years,  there will be a severe pruning back of heritage railways. Operations that serve no practical purpose will be the first to be affected. Strategic purpose lines will remain, but the smaller 2-3 mile operations will have a hard time of it, especially if the departure & destination are linked within the same stretch of road. 

 

Things like 'The Great Little Trains Of Wales' combine will remain, as it all comes under the Welsh Assembly.  Heritage operations that fail to make their business cases will have a hard time of it, without  significant public or governmental patronage. 

 

If the personnel core of a business is only available after breakfast, then it's a long slope down.... Before lockdown, who was the last fireman to book on at 02:00....?

The Great Little Trains of Wales are nothing to do with the Welsh Assembly.  The name was a marketing exercise introduced in about 1980 so long predates the Assembly.  Even if they were, I'm not sure the Senedd would be able to sell ongoing government support of railways with such a high proportion of their volunteer staff living outside Wales.

 

Other than the pruning taking place, I'm not sure I agree with your predictions of why. 

You say railways running between two points on the same road will struggle; are you suggesting people will only use preserved railways as a means of transport?  That would be a total change in the core business of these schemes and would require almost no-one to want to travel on a train for pleasure.  This was predicted 20-30 years ago when it was felt those with a nostalgic attraction to steam trains were a declining number, but people born after 1968 are still visiting steam railways in droves.

 

My suspicion is that the railway that survives will be the one that thrives now and for the same reasons.  It needs to go from somewhere, to somewhere, through somewhere worth seeing; being in a popular area for leisure or tourism will always be an advantage (a large local population is less important).  If the railway has preserved something unique in terms of its infrastructure or regional theme, it may help but not always (look at the Bowes Railway, historically incredibly important but in a difficult area to operate).

 

Contrary to what many enthusiasts believe, length of line and size/number of ex-BR locomotives has very little influence on passenger numbers.  Railways like the NYMR and SVR use big locomotives because they have a lot of passengers due to their location, not the other way round. 

 

So I wonder if a bit like the car industry, it will generally be the small, specialist railways and the long, high volume lines which will be best placed to survive, but like anything, they need a good management team to control costs, which can spiral out of control very quickly on preserved railways.  The biggest risk to railway preservation is that they will probably run out of volunteers long before they run out of passengers.

 

 

[Zomboid]

45 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

through somewhere worth seeing; being in a popular area for leisure or tourism will always be an advantage (a large local population is less important). 

I think it might be a little more nuanced than that. Something like the NYMR and the other long ones can succeed in a touristy area, but I doubt an 18 mile long line would do that well in Bedfordshire (nothing against the place, but it's not a tourism hotspot). However a small outfit could well thrive there by providing the reasonably large local population with something for families to do for an afternoon.

 

If it's sensibly priced then I'd gladly drive 30-45 minutes for a train ride taking about that long, somewhere to have a drink and some swings for my daughter to play on. So long as there's something for us to point at and say "can you see the chemical works" then the scenery doesn't have to be all that great...

[009 micro modeller]

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

However a small outfit could well thrive there by providing the reasonably large local population with something for families to do for an afternoon.

 

Like Leighton Buzzard already does (and like the infamous Dunstable industrial estate so-called ‘Asbestos Line’ proposal probably wouldn’t have done, but let’s leave that one for now ).

 

The Leighton Buzzard line also preserves an unusual industrial NG line in its original site, and thus has a heritage/education/historical aspect as well. Actually preserving something of historic value can be helpful for survival as it enables lines to access grant funding.

 

Elsewhere around that area, I’ve always thought the Cheddington to Aylesbury line would be interesting, although nowadays the trackbed into the branch bay at Cheddington has been reused for the station approach road and car park and I think there are similar issues at the Aylesbury end. But it is generally described as the first branch line in Britain and the trackbed on the central section seems to be reasonably well preserved.

[caradoc]

18 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

As far as I can tell the original concept for the Lakeside & Haverthwaite line was to preserve the line through to Carnforth to connect with Steamtown and thus preserve a branch line, junction and steam shed in combination; they lost part of the line to road widening and couldn’t do this. Today the line is in some ways very touristy, with combined tickets for the lake boats and/or the motor museum with the railway.

 

Pedant alert: The junction station for Lakeside was Ulverston, which is about 18 miles from Carnforth ! And even without the road scheme, the physical junction was a mile or so from the station, so preserving a main line connection would probably have been, sadly,  impossible.  

 

[009 micro modeller]

1 minute ago, caradoc said:

 

Pedant alert: The junction station for Lakeside was Ulverston, which is about 18 miles from Carnforth ! And even without the road scheme, the physical junction was a mile or so from the station, so preserving a main line connection would probably have been, sadly,  impossible.  

 

 

Thanks for that, I hadn’t realised. So what was the plan exactly? I know Steamtown was originally (supposedly) meant to be part of it.

[tomparryharry]

16 hours ago, Northmoor said:

The Great Little Trains of Wales are nothing to do with the Welsh Assembly.  The name was a marketing exercise introduced in about 1980 so long predates the Assembly.  Even if they were, I'm not sure the Senedd would be able to sell ongoing government support of railways with such a high proportion of their volunteer staff living outside Wales.

 

Other than the pruning taking place, I'm not sure I agree with your predictions of why. 

You say railways running between two points on the same road will struggle; are you suggesting people will only use preserved railways as a means of transport?  That would be a total change in the core business of these schemes and would require almost no-one to want to travel on a train for pleasure.  This was predicted 20-30 years ago when it was felt those with a nostalgic attraction to steam trains were a declining number, but people born after 1968 are still visiting steam railways in droves.

 

My suspicion is that the railway that survives will be the one that thrives now and for the same reasons.  It needs to go from somewhere, to somewhere, through somewhere worth seeing; being in a popular area for leisure or tourism will always be an advantage (a large local population is less important).  If the railway has preserved something unique in terms of its infrastructure or regional theme, it may help but not always (look at the Bowes Railway, historically incredibly important but in a difficult area to operate).

 

Contrary to what many enthusiasts believe, length of line and size/number of ex-BR locomotives has very little influence on passenger numbers.  Railways like the NYMR and SVR use big locomotives because they have a lot of passengers due to their location, not the other way round. 

 

So I wonder if a bit like the car industry, it will generally be the small, specialist railways and the long, high volume lines which will be best placed to survive, but like anything, they need a good management team to control costs, which can spiral out of control very quickly on preserved railways.  The biggest risk to railway preservation is that they will probably run out of volunteers long before they run out of passengers.

 

 

 Your post makes perfect sense, and I understand what you've put forward.  The GLTOW are not directly connected to the WA,  but more of a distant involvement.  Regardless of location, the smaller businesses  might indeed suffer as a result of loss of income. As the age demographic moves forward, those businesses with more to offer stand to succeed. However, those with just the basics might find it more difficult.  People get emotionally involved with a railway line, and bend over backwards to support it, either financially, physical or morally.  sad to say that the last 18 months have been a disaster for preserved railways in general. and those railway supporters themselves are starting to thin out. 

 

Fuel supply (coal ) is the next problem. Coal is on a rising cost, as the world has passed the 'Peak oil' period (look it up ). Then, there will be the emissions issue.  The public at large will realise that using 4-5 tons of coal a day, to haul perhaps 100  passengers per train, is just a 'bit too extravagant'  and legislation will move by popular (public ) demand. 

 

Manpower is my last observation.  Volunteers will thin out.  The current travel restrictions  are severely restricting , which the general public at large are well aware of. 

 

Sorry to be so bl**dy pessimistic, but there we are.  I do hope that Llangollen work through the (hopefully temporary ) problem. 

 

Cheers,

Ian.  

[caradoc]

12 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Thanks for that, I hadn’t realised. So what was the plan exactly? I know Steamtown was originally (supposedly) meant to be part of it.

 

I'm not sure how they intended to run into Ulverston (if indeed that was ever seriously considered), but would assume Carnforth would have supplied the locos for the line. 

 

[RJS1977]

17 hours ago, Northmoor said:

The Great Little Trains of Wales are nothing to do with the Welsh Assembly.  The name was a marketing exercise introduced in about 1980 so long predates the Assembly.  Even if they were, I'm not sure the Senedd would be able to sell ongoing government support of railways with such a high proportion of their volunteer staff living outside Wales.

 

 

The volunteer staff are only part of the story though.

 

The F/WHR are (or at least were until they laid off 30 staff last year) the biggest employer in Porthmadog. Those staff of course spend a significant part of their wages in the local economy. Then there are all the visitors who come to the area on holiday specifically to visit the railways and pay for accommodation, food, maybe visit other attractions while they're in the area, petrol for the journey home, etc. (A report by the UK parliament a few years ago showed that for every £1 visitors to a heritage railway spend at the railway, £12 is spent in the local economy). Even those volunteers who stay over in FWHR accommodation still go to the shops, the pub etc.

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

The volunteer staff are only part of the story though.

 

The F/WHR are (or at least were until they laid off 30 staff last year) the biggest employer in Porthmadog. Those staff of course spend a significant part of their wages in the local economy. Then there are all the visitors who come to the area on holiday specifically to visit the railways and pay for accommodation, food, maybe visit other attractions while they're in the area, petrol for the journey home, etc. (A report by the UK parliament a few years ago showed that for every £1 visitors to a heritage railway spend at the railway, £12 is spent in the local economy). Even those volunteers who stay over in FWHR accommodation still go to the shops, the pub etc.

 

The economic benefit calculation has played a large part in the case for the extension of the Lynton & Barnstaple.

[Northmoor]

27 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

The volunteer staff are only part of the story though.

 

The F/WHR are (or at least were until they laid off 30 staff last year) the biggest employer in Porthmadog. Those staff of course spend a significant part of their wages in the local economy. Then there are all the visitors who come to the area on holiday specifically to visit the railways and pay for accommodation, food, maybe visit other attractions while they're in the area, petrol for the journey home, etc. (A report by the UK parliament a few years ago showed that for every £1 visitors to a heritage railway spend at the railway, £12 is spent in the local economy). Even those volunteers who stay over in FWHR accommodation still go to the shops, the pub etc.

I've seen those business cases before and while I don't doubt a lot of towns like Porthmadog, Bridgnorth and Pickering would suffer greatly if their railway wasn't there, the statistics are being interpreted and expressed very selectively.  I have seen some statistics used in tourism studies that would fail the writer their GCSE Maths, based on the misinterpretation of the data. 

For instance, the statement in bold is implies that if the £12 would not be spent if the railway weren't there.  However this implies that the only reason people paid a visit to the area is because of the railway; they could just have easily visited some other attraction, spent £1 there and £12 in the wider economy.  If they visit both attractions, is £6 each attributed to the the railway and the other attraction?  Is the £12 definitely extra expenditure, or just attributed to the business being justified?

Also stating the FR/WHR is the biggest local employer implies a major impact from unemployment; it could (and in fact, does) mean that there are no large employers in Porthmadog, and laying off the entire staff would only increase local unemployment by maybe 1%.  Not that I'd want to be one of the 1%.

 

Believe me, I love our preserved railways and don't want any of them to close, but we can easily overstate our impact on the wider economy, implying the world as we know it would end without them.  We are then no better than those saying that smoke from steam engines is the primary cause of global warming.