The Stationmaster

That is looking very tasty. As a matter of interest Chris will the number plate be 'moulded in' on the GW variant, or will it be separate, or do we have to source our own?

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.

You're quite right about the need to bang heads etc together but alas 'railway preservation' often seems to have been (and apparently continues to be) a hotbed of competing ideas, ideals, cliques, and small minded groups. Several of the 'major' railways have seen some fairly large bust-ups over the years - occasionally ending in court cases or other ways of airing their soiled linen in public. The FR has - from my past experience - long been regarded by some folk in a very different way from other railways because of its style and managerial approach. As a result people have walked away or kept away from it and gone elsewhere to what they regard as something with a 'more relaxed' attitude. Equally the more business oriented folk in the leisure railway business have looked askance, and sometimes with disdain, at what they perceive as shambolic and amateurish efforts elsewhere or among some of their own volunteers. The main reason for all of this is that we are all different and we seek many different things from involvement in preservation. I have for instance heard on several occasions on various railways the old chestnut 'I get told what to do at work, this is my hobby and I come here to enjoy myself and so & so is not going to tell me.......' Similarly some people - such as Michael Draper when he was GM of the SVR - who take a hard headed business approach to the railway they are running are sometimes referred to as 'accountants', or a similar sort of perceived insult, by those who don't appreciate that their 'hobby', which they often think they should control, is actually a fairly large business which not only has to make a profit to survive but has to manage numerous areas of potential financial and safety risk in accordance with reams of laws and regulations (and is liable to closure and/or prosecution if it doesn't). This of course is why many lines now separate their management aspect from 'supporters' or 'volunteer' etc groups - it's been found a good way to make it work. Equally some lines find it easier to manage the business if it is largely staffed by paid employees, sometimes with carefully organised volunteer help, the mix often being a matter of 'horses for courses'. The trick in managing any sort of volunteer effort in these circumstances is not necessarily easily learned but is likely to be essential sooner or later. And the need for professional management skills, including 'buying-in' professionl advice, is also increasingly critical (but I would say that wouldn't I ). But a real problem can come when organisations with different philosophies come up against each other and that, it appears to me, is probably one of the reasons for some of the difficulties between the FR and WHHR. But to get out of it they are going to have grow up and talk because only if they do that will they bring to their customers their combined 'best offer' (to use a marketing phrase). As for all the points and counter points of their disgreement - heard it all before; try something more conciliatory and positive now please chaps.

At this stage it doesn't really matter whether it is value for money or not because the line is there although clearly considerable work remains to be done to get it to full operational standard for passenger trains - wherever they terminate in Portmadog. Equally whether or not the Welsh assembly decides to audit the value it has received for its money - which obviously must go way beyond building a railway through the back streets of Porthmadog - is a matter for that Assembly, its voters, and the National Audit Office. I can see the economic sense of the FR having a rail link between the two parts of its network (and the FR is both a major tourist attraction and a substantial employer so the local economy gets more out of it than just a railway line and another reason for a traffic tail back entering the town). But all of that is a matter for the local people, their representatives etc, and Govt at its various levels. Equally there is clearly some logic in having a link into the n.g. network from a station situated near the Network Rail station although I wonder how many visitors arrive in the area by rail nowadays. But such a link can only be arranged if the two organisations - or, seemingly, vocal elements involved 'somewhere' within or close to the two railways - stop bandying about claims, counter-claims and stuff & nonsense. So perhaps we should just get on with enjoying, when the opportunity arise, what we have got - a new railway through a spectacular part of a fascinating country running decent size trains which can carry enough people to hopefully make the operating finances stand up?

Many thanks for that

Information isn't so readily available since Ben Fisher's death and the end of his excellent website but I think there is far more to it than the matter of Cae Pawb. First there was (and possibly still is?) the matter of cash availability to carry out the works needed to get the Porthmadog end of the route (excluding Cae Pawb crossing) up to standard. I understand that at one stage arrangements for the main level crossing were still not finally agreed (although - as so often - there seem to be two separate stories about that ), that works at the station had been pushed back because of cash shortage, and that whatever else was happening the signalling needed to be installed. Added to that there are now the bypass works underway. I know there is some sort of separate system development for working the single line sections underway although I don't know to what extent its progress might or might not delay overall works (possibly saving money so work could go ahead sooner? But I'm not at liberty to say what it is as I might possibly have a minor 'external' role in its clearance for use). Cae Pawb has, so I understand it, been (re)designed around the 'mainline' ERTMS installation and would, I presume, therefore be expensive to work any other way. Already some stock moves have returned to road haulage because of the expense of using Cae Pawb (presumably a possession?). But overall from the last truly comprehensive reports of what is happening works wise I have got the strong impression that Cae Pawb is but one (relatively minor) hurdle that has to be jumped.

I'm not sure if you have quoted the 'real' figure or just used the £1 as an 'illustrative amount' but if it has indeed been the figure on the table so to speak it strikes me as remarkably low.

Now there's a useful fellah, someone from the Captain Kernow school of railway observation As far diesel livery is concerned I tend towards a variant of the Henry Ford approach - by having any colour you offer, as long as it's the right shade of green

Definitely looking 'the business', time to start polishing the plastic I think and recall details of the ones which were experimentally transferred to South Wales

I appreciate that John but my point is that since that Inspection the physical nature of the railway which was inspected in 2007 has been subject to change (and will, of necessity, be subject to further change before opening to through WHR passenger trains). Accordingly under the 'old regime' (i.e pre ROGS - but that is still the regime I understand the WHR works to be subject to) any changes are subject to Inspection before opening for passenger traffic. That Inspection might, or might not, be a formality (altho' I doubt it) but it still has to take place before passenger trains can run. For example as the section is a worksite suitable arrangements have to be put in place and approved in order to separate the worksite from the live passenger railway and that is the responsibility of the infrastructure owner (i.e the WHR). And it is now clearly a worksite with, according to the Isengard website, a new tamping programme underway on the Porthmadog side of Pont Croesor. Obviously such a division is not difficult - it has happened, and is happening, as WHR train operations have crept towards the coast - but the necessary arrangements still need to be made and approved (probably with an Inspection).

But if my understanding from watching the progress of the works on the late Ben Fisher's site is correct some alterations occurred on that section when the WHR tracklaying extended through to Cae Pawb (and those have presumably not been inspected yet?). Equally when the original inspection was carried out there was no connection to anything else at Traeth Mawr. Thus alterations have taken place which, I agan presume, have not been inspected. The fact that the route between Pont Croesor and Porthmadog is a worksite also poses some complications (not that they can't be solved - I have done exactly that, albeit under ROGS and not the old Inspection regime, on another line of slim gauge) but it still means added administrative work and complication. I have no axe to grind for either party in this (in some respects) rather childish dispute but it is clear to me that costs would be incurred in reintroducing passenger train operations to Traeth Mawr and that someone would have to meet those costs. In the meanwhile Coach has explained in his final paragraph above exactly what options are available to us potential customers of both concerns - they offer different things which attract us in different ways. Perhaps one day there will be something different on offer to us but it seems to me there will be a need to have a lot more clarity in the relationship between the two railways before that is likely to happen.

Didn't the non-corridor coaches also come as r-t-r at some time in the 1960s? Stashed away I have a reasonable pile of Formoway track (which I too much preferred to Streamline on appearance grounds but also because the range included a singe slip at quite an early date). Only problem with the points was that long plastic frog/crossing. Somewhere I think I've still got some welkut track (originally 3 rail but 'converted' to 2 rail when I duly bit that bullet.

I'm not interested in the politics of this but one thing did strike me from the various quotes from the WHHR in which they claim they are not allowed to run to Traeth Mawr even tho' the WHR isn't using it. As that section hasn't yet been passed for passenger train use it seems to me to be playing with (or on?) words to say that they 'aren't allowed to use it'. Obviously they aren't, but then legally they can't - not because the FR/WHR is stopping them but because the railway cannot yet be used for passenger trains. From what is reported on various websites it is clear that a lot of other work has gradually had to follow the track laying in order for the WHR to commission anything for passenger train use. And clearly their volunteer labour and paid staff & resources have been devoted (and apparently heavily committed) to gradually extending their operations, in stages, as far as Pont Croesor.

All a great shame but I think I can see what drives the FR's commercial fears - the WHHR sits near the NR station, has (I understand) a good museum content, and will offer something a bit different and rather more historically accurate in the way of a 'trip on the Welsh Highland' (albeit for a limited distance). I suspect all this means that the FR fears abstraction of business/revenue at the Porthmadog end of the line and - as others have said already - fears that its business plan will be undermined. Which does seem a bit of a silly approach if it is correct that the WHHR were offering to pay for running powers . Perhaps, hopefully, in time it will settle down to a much more adult and realistic business relationship between the two railways but alas that looks to be a distant prospect at present.

All you need to do is sit in an auction room occasionally and watch what happens with the bidding. I have seen r-t-r items go at auction for total costs (i.e. hammer price + commission + the VAT) for 10-20% more than the manufacturer's RRP. When it comes to buying all sorts of things it is amazing just how many gullible, or ill-informed, people there are out there ready to be parted from their money.

No - just a bit of steel sheet and the control desk, all rather flimsy in accident damage terms as a collision between an HST power car nose and a Brush Type 4 (Class 47) at Landore demonstrated - the 'plastic' HST nose was considerably stronger than the Brush's front end and inflicted mortal damage to it. The cab of a D10XX (Class 52) was more or less totally destroyed back to the corridor bulkhead when it hit a pannier tank head on. The message is simple - standard steel loco cabs of the 1960 era were not particularly collision resisitant, end of story.

A 'saut-de-mouton' (that's the official spelling) actually translates as 'sheep's leap' although as 231G explained it is the everyday French term for what we call leapfrog. In railway terms it simply, and officially, translates, into English as 'flyover' although the commonest SNCF usage (in my experience) seems to relate to flying junctions. The flyover at Ilford (among others) would indeed be called a saut-de-mouton in French while in Dutch it would amount to something approaching a sentence of 6 words

Strange you should say that. On one occasion I left (at the end of) a particularly bruising meeting with 'the wrong part' of DB muttering rather loudly that Arthur Harris was right.

A Eurostar set was sent to Koln for a DB organised exhibition. In order to help things along the selected traincrew had fairly wide(r than normal) language skills so as to be useful at the exhibition itself. The train arrived at Aachen under its own power with a Eurostar Driver driving with an SNCB Conductor Driver plus Eurostar and SNCB Inspectors also in the cab. After arrival a DB Traction Inspector joined them on the platform to explain what would be happening next and suss out what would be going on coupling wise. The DB Inspector only spoke German and the SNCB Inspector began to translate, albeit in a rather halting fashion, for the benefit of the Eurostar Drver and Inspector. At which point the Eurostar Inspector began talking to the DB Inspector in German while the Eurostar Driver translated what the German Inspector was saying into French for the benefit of the SNCB Driver. That is what international working is all about B)

In some places signal lamps were not lit or were only lit for part of the year (i.e the darker days) - such locations were usually listed in the Sectional Appendix as Beast has already noted.

The Belgian/German border at Aachen is quite interesting. When the line was electrified (c.1965 I think) a flyover crossover was built in the vicinity of the border itself so trains can changeover from left hand (Belgian) to right hand (German) running at line speed and without interfering with the oposite direction. Although the 'change of administration's operating rules' sign is more or less at the border (and the signalling also changes at the border) the line for the next few kilometres on into Aachen is electrified as SNCB voltage. A number of platforms in Aachen are equipped as what is know in French as 'un gare commutable' - in other words the voltage to the ohle can be changed from one system to another for a particular line or groups of lines. Thus atrain can be worked in by an SNCB loco running on SNCGB voltage (3,000vdc) and can leave hauled by a DB loco running 1.5kvac (I think that's the DB voltage without checking - might not be right at this time of night ). So that's one way of doing it. Another way can be found on the French/Belgian border north east of Lille (alas I can't recall the mname of the place offhand) - this isalso un gare commutable but the normal method seems to be to leave the through lines set to neutral. Trains simply run through at speed and lower the pan for one system just before they leave it then raise the pan for the other (in some cases it is the same pan used for both) once they have passed clear of the neutral section - quite good fun to watch a train passing at =70mph or faster doing that, could be quite spectacular at night I would think. This latter method is also used at places where voltage/electrification systems change on the LGV lines and on the Channel Tunnel route - the cab signalling systems being reconfigured by the turning of a switch at the same time.

Probably not - they were simply put onto freight and passenger work as they were delivered. Note of reassurance - generally reliable sources refer only to 'fast freight work'

D5700 on acceptance trials July 1958 - sorrreeeee

Drawings were prepared, so I was told at the time, for equipping a D10XX with eth but the scheme was so complicated and expensive it was dropped. Don't forget the first airbrake conversion took more than long enough due to hitting various problems so the eth conversion might have been a real headache. The D10XX were certainly pretty effective freight locos with, in effect, two 6 coupled bogies plus they had sanders which gave them some advantage of the Brush Type 4 when starting. The problem with them was 'the bounce' in the upper 50mph/60mph area - allegedly no damage done but certainly uncomfortable for the enginemen. D10Xx would also have been a handful I suspect to convert to Slow Speed Control so other locos would have been required for that - so it made more sense to standardise on the Brush I think - alas. As for the Class 56 - poor design and atrocious manufacturing standards in Roumania produced exactly what one could expect, junk! The design problem was the use of a large number of Brush Type 4 features - but regrettably those who worked on the design used the original specs and drawings and forgot that the locos had received numerous modifications to eliminate all sorts of problems. Hence the need to start more or less from scratch to again eliminate the problems....

A 'Castle' on 'The Pines' if you have an ounce of good taste Cap'n BTW for the person who asked above about their time at Barrow they usually worked single-headed (unless being rescued by a Black 5). I had several trips behind various of them at that time, including a run on the Lakeside branch where it did almost as well as a 2-6-4T.