Can preserved railways build extensions to their lines in the current climate?

[The Evil Bus Driver]

Would they lay it as low-quality, though? When the G&W built a new "siding" into the tunnel at Cheltenham, they still laid it to passenger-carrying quality so that if they ever extended that way, they wouldn't have to re-lay it.

 

Possibly. I'm thinking they would only lay as much as would be necessary, after all, 100 yards of cheap ballast would leave you with hardly and change from £7500 or more. The Bluebell also use geo-textile membrane sheeting and layers of terram under quite a thick layer of ballast before the track goes down.

[RJS1977]

It always costs more to do something cheaply and have to go back and do it properly than to do it properly in the first place....

[BB17005]

I think it's already been mentioned, but most lines would be better to consolidate what they have and spend their resources on things like covered accommodation for their stock as the Bluebell and some others have done. Otherwise in the future the coaches will rot faster than they can be maintained and you won't be able to go anywhere.

Absolutely , anyone who's passed Yeovil Junction recently will have seen the rake of ex-Virgin MK4 ?s rotting in the sidings.

It seems pointless to me.

 

From @wizzertweet yesterday

 

I assume this now means the triangle can be used without WSR stock going on to NR metals any more.

 

The other problem with WSR running to Taunton is the signalling. AFAIK the signalling only allows trains coming off the WSR to access platform 5 or 6 at Taunton, on the down side of the station. This means trains have to cross over to the down line at Norton Fitzwarren and run wrong line to the station.

That was certainly th case with the shuttle for the Mixed event in June

[Adam]

Absolutely , anyone who's passed Yeovil Junction recently will have seen the rake of ex-Virgin MK4 ?s rotting in the sidings.

It seems pointless to me.

 

They're air-con mark 2s and not, I think, actually anything to do with the railway centre beyond, so rumour has it, earning money from storing them. I suspect that they're fit only for spares or scrap in any case and certainly of no use to the centre's activities whatsoever. In general terms I'd agree however, consolidation is by far to most sensible thing for most railways, particularly with regard to covered storage for stock and visitor facilities.

 

Adam

 

EDIT - now gone and, apparently for further use!?

 

http://www.yeovilrailway.freeservers.com/180912.html

[TheSignalEngineer]

........... I'd agree however, consolidation is by far to most sensible thing for most railways, particularly with regard to covered storage for stock ........................

 

Last week the WSR locos I saw looked magnificent but close up the coaches seemed dull and faded by comparison.

[Richard E]

Last week the WSR locos I saw looked magnificent but close up the coaches seemed dull and faded by comparison.

Surely this is down to the perception of restoring a loco is glamourous, coaches (and other rolling stock) are not therefore getting staff to maintain and restore rolling stock is more difficult - discuss?

[Andy C]

There are plans to take the ELR through from Heywood to Castleton, much publicised in our local rag a few months ago, the artists impression showing another platform face on the other side of the Rochdale bound Not work Rail platform - but I suspect this would have to be subject to a rebuild of Blue Pits bridge at the Manchester end of the station, as theres no way 3 tracks are going underneath that. I suspect the lack of public funds may put paid to this idea.

 

Perfectly feasable for them to go as far as the old Castleton Welded rail depot though, as after all they already use the line for access and egress from the mainline.

[Katier]

I'm pretty sure the SVR cannot go further north from Bridgnorth for a rather more compelling reason - the bridge over the road is long gone, I think there's a tunnel blocked up, and most importantly much of the trackbed was sold off by BR and is now under housing!!! Otherwise the attraction of reaching Ironbridge in particular would surely have been considered? Once the SVR reached Kidderminster, it literally has nowhere else to go....

With the Dean Forest Railway, there are outline plans to go further north from Parkend, deeper into the forest to Cannop and Speech House Road, but meanwhile they are re-opening a station on the existing line at Whitecroft.

 

I believe that the SVR route north has been surveyed as doable. The bridge over the road has been surveyed ( all be it some time ago ) as replaceable while maintaining clearance for road vehicles, the tunnel is intact and good condition and, at the time the survery was done, the route out of the tunnel would doable (all be it not on the original alignment). That said not sure what residents would think of a railway (literally) in their back garden!!!

 

I'm certainly slightly surprised that the SVR don't seem to be persuing the extension. The rest of the route is completely viable and, as you point out, would provide an excellent link which would no-doubt be popular. Given Bridgnorth is a dual platform station ( all be it with a short, 4 coach, second platform), there is no reason they couldn't run two services.. one Kiddy to Bridg and the other Bridg to ironbridge. Pretty sure they could sneak a bit more length into the shorter platform, if they so wished.

[PhilH]

Surely this is down to the perception of restoring a loco is glamourous, coaches (and other rolling stock) are not therefore getting staff to maintain and restore rolling stock is more difficult - discuss?

 

Not really - locos normally get cleaned by their crews before every turn.

 

Coaches don't.

[Blandford1969]

I believe that the SVR route north has been surveyed as doable. The bridge over the road has been surveyed ( all be it some time ago ) as replaceable while maintaining clearance for road vehicles, the tunnel is intact and good condition and, at the time the survery was done, the route out of the tunnel would doable (all be it not on the original alignment). That said not sure what residents would think of a railway (literally) in their back garden!!!

 

I'm certainly slightly surprised that the SVR don't seem to be persuing the extension. The rest of the route is completely viable and, as you point out, would provide an excellent link which would no-doubt be popular. Given Bridgnorth is a dual platform station ( all be it with a short, 4 coach, second platform), there is no reason they couldn't run two services.. one Kiddy to Bridg and the other Bridg to ironbridge. Pretty sure they could sneak a bit more length into the shorter platform, if they so wished.

 

There are a number of matters that have to be bourne in mind. Fistly we are just about to launch a share issue for 3 million pounds just to look after and improve the infrastructure we have got. As a quick shopping list Kidder Carriage Works (new roof 250K), Bridgnorth shed new roof (50K), Bridgnorth bypass bridge 25 years old now and needs work and repainting (30K), more work on Sandbourne Viaduct and Wribbenhall viaducts at Bewdley (cant remember the figure) ongoing replacement of track at 58K per half mile of second hand rail, redevelopment of Bridgnorth with improved visitor facilities new buffet, new footbridge, extended platform (1.5 million or thereabouts) canopy down the platform at Kidderminster (at least £500,000)

 

In terms of the route north, sure many of us would love to drive north out of Bridgnorth or get the view as you emerge from the tunnel into the station, however the railway is certainly at the moment focused on improvements in the railway as stands. It wants to make sure the railway is there for the longer term.

 

If another body wanted to look at building a line north and take all the risk and wanted to talk to the SVR about running into Bridgnorth station I am sure the SVR(H) would look at it. Its nice to dream, however unless someone has got a very large pot i cant see it happening for all the reasons already mentioned of cost, people and time.

[glenng]

North Norfolk Orbital

 

Hi don’t know if this has been posted before but NNR MNR and all Norfolk councils are on board this

 

http://www.norfolk-orbital-railway.co.uk/

[The Stationmaster]

I believe that the SVR route north has been surveyed as doable. The bridge over the road has been surveyed ( all be it some time ago ) as replaceable while maintaining clearance for road vehicles, the tunnel is intact and good condition and, at the time the survery was done, the route out of the tunnel would doable (all be it not on the original alignment). That said not sure what residents would think of a railway (literally) in their back garden!!!

 

I'm certainly slightly surprised that the SVR don't seem to be persuing the extension. The rest of the route is completely viable and, as you point out, would provide an excellent link which would no-doubt be popular. Given Bridgnorth is a dual platform station ( all be it with a short, 4 coach, second platform), there is no reason they couldn't run two services.. one Kiddy to Bridg and the other Bridg to ironbridge. Pretty sure they could sneak a bit more length into the shorter platform, if they so wished.

 

Having read Blandford's reply to this I think it amply illustrates the difference between what some folk see as 'future potential' and what others see as yet another part of an ongoing investment and maintenance cost. The SVR is a long railway so it has potentially high maintenance and renewal costs - making it longer would only be viable if the bit that was added could cover its costs, and I doubt it ever would because we are back to what the customers will tolerate in terms of length of day spent on the train or in the shop(s) or in the tea room.

 

I know someone else in the preservation world has had their eye on working southwards from the other end but regrettably the costs of their recent prosecution by ORR not only left them with insufficient funds to mount the appeal they would probably have won but also took money they had earmarked for further developing their existing site. I now doubt we will see any signs of a link-up for a very long time.

[Christopher125]

I was thinking more of reinstating a parallel line (as per Eridge), not running on NR metals.

 

Alas unlike Eridge the track has been removed and the formation encroached upon by trackside equipment and the slewing of the mainlines. The cost would be vast.

 

Chris

[caradoc]

Alas unlike Eridge the track has been removed and the formation encroached upon by trackside equipment and the slewing of the mainlines. The cost would be vast.

 

Chris

 

I too was thinking of re-instating a parallel, independent line, to allow the WSR to run into Taunton. Perhaps the WSR needed a friend in high places in BR when Taunton was resignalled, to safeguard the Up Relief trackbed for their use.

[The Stationmaster]

I too was thinking of re-instating a parallel, independent line, to allow the WSR to run into Taunton. Perhaps the WSR needed a friend in high places in BR when Taunton was resignalled, to safeguard the Up Relief trackbed for their use.

They weren't too badly off in that respect but if there had been any thoughts of keeping the formation clear for them they would have had to pay for it to be reserved - and they clearly didn't. I think - but am not at all sure although someone who is on here might know - that they were happy to obtain a proper link with BR for through running and that was in reality the height of their practical ambitions at the time

 

It might well be easier in fact to get into Taunton now than it was then (subject to a platform being made available) but now they would have to jump through some very pricey hoops to get network access and I very much doubt if they would ever recover what it would cost them. Back again I'm afraid to the practical issue of making a sufficient additional return to cover the extra cost - just how many folk would pay for a ticket that delivered that?

[Boris]

The Moors are attempting to build a new platform at Whitby to handle their services without having to tip the passengers off and propel out to Bog Hall all the time. I say new platform because with the layout and the scope of works it definitely isn't a restoration of the original P2, it also involves quite a bit of re-signalling and a new loop installing, for which Network Rail have quoted £1.5m although it is unclear where the money will come from (!).

[RJS1977]

Surely this is down to the perception of restoring a loco is glamourous, coaches (and other rolling stock) are not therefore getting staff to maintain and restore rolling stock is more difficult - discuss?

 

From what I've heard the WSR do have a very good carriage crew. The Cholsey and Wallingford carriage expert went down to one of their galas a couple of years ago and saw a train pull into Bishop's Lydeard with a broken window, and a fitter approach the train with a new pane. To my friend's amazement, he had the inner door panel off, the window dismantled, the pane replaced and everything back together again within the 20-minuite-turnaround time, without delaying the departure! (To put this into context, my friend was telling me this as he and I spent best part of a morning removing a window from an identical door!).

 

However carriages probably spend more time in service than locos (like model railways, most preserved lines seem to have an imbalance in the ratio of locos to coaches!), so there's less time available to maintain them. Until the turning triangle was built, the WSR carriages were also wearing unevenly due to wind/spray from the sea.

[TheSignalEngineer]

From what I've heard the WSR do have a very good carriage crew. ....................................

 

I'm not criticising the WSR carriage people, more trying to emphasise that there is a need to keep what stock the lines have got already in good order rather than expand and stretch the volunteer pool beyond breaking point. The innards of the WSR stock I travelled in and the riding was some of the best I have been on recently.

[edcayton]

The Moors are attempting to build a new platform at Whitby to handle their services without having to tip the passengers off and propel out to Bog Hall all the time. I say new platform because with the layout and the scope of works it definitely isn't a restoration of the original P2, it also involves quite a bit of re-signalling and a new loop installing, for which Network Rail have quoted £1.5m although it is unclear where the money will come from (!).

 

Paul Lunn (DZine of this parish) suggested something along these lines in one of his books-I think the one on micro-layouts.

 

Ed

[edcayton]

Many moons ago, when Mike was still a stationmaster(!) the DVR (as was) ran into Totnes BR (as was) station for a while.ISTR there was a re-signalling scheme being carried out and the preserved line would have had to pay a large chunk of money. Instead they built their own station but it ain't the same as sharing a platform with the big railway.

 

Ed

[PLD]

I don't think there is a simple single answer that applies to all lines.

 

Some such as KWVR and Tallyllyn have reached a natural conclusion (i.e. they have rebuilt/reopened the whole of the closed line), whereas others there is very obvious scope for extension in the form of better traffic potential through better visibility, better connections or reaching a source of additional custom such as a town or tourist destination rather than stopping in the middle of nowhere... (e.g Llangollen, KESR, Bluebell)

 

I do think the 3 hour return trip is probably about right for the average family outing, but for enthusiasts the longer run can also be attractive which is where the NYMR seems to do well with running to Battersby as well as Whitby on Gala days. So perhaps the ideal is to have multiple potential destinations allowing the customer to choose from different length trips to suit (eg Welsh Highland/Ffestiniog Combo, NYMR (to Gothland/Grosmont/Whitby) seem to be able to do this)

 

Beyond that as has been said already, it is a matter of resources to enable an extension both in terms of finance (not easy in the current economic climate) and rolling stock (plenty of unrestored heaps around but few spare locos ready to go).

[Tom Bayford]

I like the idea that you could on a preserved railway do two trips either in one direction or in another with the possiblity of doing the whole line it has emrit although how many railways could really operate such workings? ie. with locos, stock and track capacity and one of the main governing factors of speed. Some ralways will do well but could some of the smaller bigger railways operate such workings?

[Hesperus]

I'd say that the SVR is long enough already, They are in the useful position of connecting with NR at Kidderminster and then running through 15 miles of countryside to a pretty town that is in itself a great for a day out. A family fare for the whole line is nearly £50 now, that's a bit less than the £60 that a day out at the safari park next door costs. I know I would struggle to afford a day out on the trains if they extended (and consequently increased the fares).

[RJS1977]

One of the issues us that some railways with intermediate stations no longer offer intermediate fares, thus putting off passengers who don't want to/can't afford to do the whole trip!

[ess1uk]

One of the issues us that some railways with intermediate stations no longer offer intermediate fares, thus putting off passengers who don't want to/can't afford to do the whole trip!

Which just seems odd to me.You should be able to ride and maybe walk back from intermediate stations cheaply without having to buy a full line return fare.