Replica builds for heritage lines.

Yes, but the real railway responded to increased loadings by putting on longer trains. Examples - steam railmotors, led to increased passenger usage so had to be replaced by push pulls with 2 coaches. The GWR diesel railcars, again passenger usage grew and some of the services they operated had to be worked by loco hauled trains. I think Virgin Cross Country had a similar thing when the Voyagers were introduced.

Run whatever loco is available which is suitable for the loading, if this means larger locos than would have been used on the line in pre-preservation days, then that is what is needed.

Why is this an issue?

 

i read that as managed decline ?

 

It's heritage - we'll not only recreate the railways of the 1950s, but implement the management policies as well. We need a new Beeching report to cut the Heritage Railway sector down to a sustainable size.

Tom

 

I knew it would not suit gricers. If the solution put forward in post 619 (which would bring about yet a further reduction in "heritage") is not feasible, it may have to happen.

PH

 

Why would it "have" to happen? As we've discussed at length there are many railways with trains already longer than their platforms. Should they start limiting their passenger loadings now?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

One of the few times you've left me speechless Paul.

 

If sheer weight of numbers becomes an issue....

- the market will meet demand. Increased bums on seats means increased revenue. Increased revenue leads to better facilities (you may yet see more undercover storage than you ever thought possible), more revenue for (quicker) loco overhauls, C&W work, infrastructure and so on.

- more players in the market. New heritage lines, more mainline steam and TOCs? More New-build groups and money for unloved locos to meet any motive power short falls. (You may yet be awash with Standard 2's, 3's and 4's! Oh, joy. )

I can't see curtailing passenger numbers ever being entertained as a widely held solution. Although, it could open up the possibility of a financially viable, purely authentic heritage niche market for someone.

 

I love it. Clearly overloading needs to be avoided - not that the big railway bothers - but to turn away custom because you've decided to run shorter trains to match your shortest platform is the daftest idea yet.
I can just imagine the conversation.
Tour company : "We can guarantee you 500 passengers on your first train of the day to x throughout the summer season."
Heritage Railway : "Sorry, no can do. We've decided to run shorter trains so our shortest intermediate station(s) can accommodate them without overlap."

 

How would it work though, Family turn up at railway station, FAMILY TICKET PLEASE, sorry we cant carry you until tomorrow, can you come back then, we have filled our allocation , ok can we have a site ticket then, SORRY, we don't do non traveling tickets, Family decide to go to peppa pig world instead
Income reduces, Railway, which owns all the stock, loco's coaches, wagons, has to sell its flag ship loco to meet bills, expenditure continues to exceed income, line reduces running days, lays off all paid staff, second engine and some coaches sold, Volunteers become disillusioned railway decide to abandon using steam because of cost, runs diesel hauled,Passenger numbers plummet still , bank calls in insolvency experts, Anyone else see the obvious conclusion?

 

So you genuinely do think that the SVR should largely just run 1-coach trains, as that is the length of the shortest platform?

Or, indeed, the Talyllyn or the Ffestiniog? I have to admit I can't recall if all WLLR trains fit fully on the platform at Sylfaen.

 

This is the daftest thing I've yet to hear on here! Just extend the platforms if its such a major issue

 

Cross posting from another thread but it did make me laugh....on more than one level.

 

Yup - Waggon-und-Maschinenbau railbuses and Cravens DMUs everywhere!

 

And unstaffed stations with bus shelters

 

Given the amount of use that 34081 gets on the NVR, it would seem to cater for all eventualities - and doesn't the law of conservation of energy apply here? If the loco is hauling a small load, won't it use less coal and water anyway so cost varies accordingly? I also recall being on a very long NVR train recently that overlapped the edge of the platform at Wansford - I didn't shout "Oi! H&S, I'll be getting onto the DfT about this!" - I just walked along to the next door against a platform. You can't keep legislating and catering for idiots, because Nature will breed a bigger, better idiot.

 

And GASP hand over mouth too prevent vomit, Curly white rubber ham sandwiches and Grotneys Red barrel

 

Well, it would give you an authentic "end of the branch line days" feel that might appeal to some... actually, joking apart - has anyone ever considered this as a serious proposition for an intermediate station? An authentic, about-to-close, branch line station sandwiched between the nice ones, to show what the railways faced in the 1950s? Whilst it's nice to make the very best of what you have on a line (I think my favourite station on the NVR is Overton, not least because I remember the station building in its former life!) it would help "tell the story" of railways to have one (if possible) to show what faced the railways back then. Not an attractive proposition in terms of eye candy, but a learning opportunity.

 

Agreed and turning to the original purpose of this thread, I hope lots of big engines are replicated - not least to thoroughly hack off one particular member of this forum.
To pinch the Bluebell's motto, Floreat Vapor.

 

Like the Patriot, Clan, P2, GWR 4700, County, lets keep em coming!! My choice would be an LNWR Claughton, that would be annoying as it is: 1, big, 2, 6'9'' wheels, 3, four cylinders....