Is there such a thing as too many heritage railways?

I don't really see a need for this. Converting an existing mk1 for disabled access, space for pushchairs, baby changing if desired is surely much easier than building something from new? Pushchair space just involves removing toilets, job done. Baby changing, pop a cubicle with table etc in said space, or disabled access cut some side out and pop another door in, and take out a couple of tables nearest the vestibule, easy!

 

I don't really see that. The primary concern of most visitors is that they want a heritage experience, to a much greater degree than they are clamouring for the kind of on-train facilities you are suggesting. Which is not to say that, for example, baby-changing facilities aren't important; just that they are better provided at each station rather than on a train. Access for wheelchairs is already a common feature on many lines, and at one line or another, there are examples of wheelchair accessible carriages ranging from Victorian 4 wheelers, through Edwardian compartment stock, to Mark 1s. Fairly soon there will be at least one wheelchair-accessible wooden-bodied Pullman. I'd be pretty sure in all cases that the cost of retrofitting such facilities in existing carriages is considerably cheaper than building a new carriage from scratch, and stays closer to the heritage expectations of visitors, and the preservation-ideals of societies.

Tom

 

I am by no means against "new build" carriages as such but I would pray for them not to be Mk.1s. Replacements for Mk.1s certainly. More of the things, heck, no.

Paul H

 

I've seen several examples of 'accessible' vehicles on preserved railways, they generally are not good. Usually the solution is just to clear an area and give ramped access to it, that's about it. I've worked in supporting disabled people for many years so I know what the difference is between good, designed facilities and a bodged solution. Absolutely it's cheaper to chop about an existing vehicle - but I don't think that's always going to cut it as far as the tourist market for the next 50-100 yrs is going. There will always be a place for vehicles preserved and running as they would've been in the steam-era, but I think there may also be a place for something thought through and designed to meet the needs of those who perhaps aren't even getting on the trains at present because they know that the facilities won't allow them to travel in comfort. Isolated examples of this being done are fantastic and I'm sure it does happen, but I think it might be worth at least costing what stock suitable for the next 100 yrs is going to come out at, seeing as we are building locos that may last that long.

 

Easy! Says he who probably couldn't find his way from the Paintshop to the Barn without a route map.

Baby changing! Are you volunteering to empty the bins? Or does the residue go 'down the chute' to the displeasure of P-Way and the Maintenance Team?

In many ways, I agree. Mk 1's are readily adaptable and relatively easy to work on. However, it typically takes 12 months+ to carry out a full restoration/adaptation.

 

I knew I'd get pulled up for that! I spent a whole, ooh it must have been at least half hour out there on saturday before retreating back into the warmth.

I agree with you re baby changing, I don't really see a need for them on the train and was merely responding to the post quoted.

 

I'd agree but things are moving forward. At the GWSR an SO (4790) had the toilets removed, double doors fitted, the internal access widened, and space for two wheelchairs + seating for two carers provided. This was on the basis that two removable tables could then be positioned for such events as 'Fish and Chip' rides.

In practice, it has been found that the space available, on a 'non-event' running day, allows for up to three wheelchair users to face towards the window. Their carers having access to nearby comfortable seating.

We are now in the process of adapting a 2nd. This one a TSO. Much the same will be done except that, with this vehicle, our 'customers' will have the opposite view to that provided by the SO 4790.

As to which will be the 3rd vehicle to be adapted suchwise, is yet to be decided.

 

Don't worry Alex. As I always say, "I don't discriminate. I'll take the pi55 out of anyone."

 

We all thought he would go to a first division club for £100K. Instead Derby got a bargain and Avenue supporters voted with their feet.

 

Why would customers of a heritage railway expect modern facilities? Surely they want a heritage ambience, along with "facilities" that are clean and in working order.

The idea of new build is not completely daft, although I imagine a lot of redundant parts could be reused, e.g. bogies from modern freight vehicles. The main drawback of MkIs, from observation, is body-rot (aka tin-worm). They are also prone to deterioration of the interior woodwork and condensation on the windows. If someone could design a carriage that looks like a pre-war vehicle, but which has a non-corrosive body that never needs painting, and uses life-like artificial wood for the interior surfaces, then there might be a business case based on reduced maintenance. Obviously wouldn't please the purists (like me), but I could see the sense in it.

 

I think you have identified the issues most accurately. IMHO the best use of Mk.1s would be as donors of running gear for something more interesting such as has been done for both bogie and four wheeled stock at a number of places.

One of the more perceptive commentators on Tripadvisor bemoaned the situation where, as she saw it,.more effort went into cleaning the outside of the locomotive than the inside of the carriages.

Paul H

 

Baby changing facilities are necessary, whether on train or on shore. Someone *will* have to empty the bins at some point.

I realise it's not easy to fit baby changing facilities onto a coach. It's also difficult to build a baby changing facility with a heritage ambience in a confined space, because there's no way you can make a fold-up plastic changing table look heritage. Railways have to provide something, though, because visitors will expect it.

 

From a parent whose children are now out of nappies, I was never that bothered about baby changing on train. Sods law says that the available space will be limited, my elbows will hit something, and there will be nowhere for the bag, while the motion of the train will just make life harder. If there's an emergency I can use a table or the floor, otherwise I'd prefer to wait till I get to a station.

What does matter - a lot - is when the child gets a bit older, and is learning bladder control. I need a large enough loo (the Mk1 CK is ideal) to accompany the child, and it needs to be close by - not 3 carriages away.

 

I make it 8 (3, 1100, 1525, 1526, 1649, 1695, 1852, 1962) but my own notes are a little out of date so apologies if I've missed one! Plus 4 Gresleys (1222, 9116, 9122, 9124; other numbers are available but harder to remember!) although 9116 is intended to be restored as something else and 1222 doesn't seem to have a plan (that I'm aware of, anyway).

I suppose it's a lot but if you take out the two kitchens and 9116 you're left with 7 buffets plus two vehicles which are unlikely to run for a very long time (3, 1222 - just my opinion, no specific knowledge of plans). I imagine a post-bridge gala could easily use most of those allowing for perhaps one or two in works at a given time.

I didn't mention the two DMU buffet centre cars either although can't see the class 120 vehicle running again in a hurry.

 

All very good reasons f0r having good facilities at stations and for tourist railways not having journeys that are too bl**dy long.

PH

 

I can't see how that will be cheaper than restoring mk1s to their original glory, at which point doesn't it become rather WIBN?

 

Written from experience of said children on NYMR and WSR. And 'too bl**dy long' could easily be Smallbrook - Havenstreet when said child NEEDS to go, so journey length is irrelevant (not been to IOW in too many years, but was glad of loos between Bodmin and Boscarne a few years ago).

 

It's 11 minutes from Smallbrook to Havenstreet. In a private car on a motorway such an interval between "facilities" would be fortunate. As for a rural motorbus well....

PH

 

Who said anything about "cheaper"? "Better" is what I had in mind. As I said before, newer underframes are a good way of getting interesting bodies back in service (e.g. the Ventnor West set, which you ought to come and see). They would also be a means of re-creating vehicles now completely extinct.

I was somewhat taken aback to read about Mk.1s having "original glory". Well IMHO they never had any and, sadly, I can remember them when they were new.

Paul H

 

I think most customers would expect baby changing facilities, disabled loos, etc., at the main stations. But it's also a "treat" to find vintage facilities such as those at Keighley and Loughborough, so long as they are clean and functional.

Most lines are not long enough to need specialist facilities on the train. And parents should think twice before taking infants on a 4-hour return trip on the Welsh Highland Railway.