FR/WHR and WHHR relations

I would think that getting to Porthmadog is essential but not necessarily with every train terminating at Harbour Station.

 

I wonder how many people who currently holiday in the Porthmadog area have made the effort to get to Beddgelert or Rhyd-Ddu to ride on RhE, and how many more would do so if they could start their train journey at Porthmadog ? Personally, coming from south of Port, I am not over-keen on having to drive northwards alongside the RhE to catch a train going south.

I have long thought that a station alongside the car park at Porthmadog (by Wilkinsons) would make a lot of sense - within walking distance of Harbour, but removing the need for trains to cross Britannia Bridge and cause congestion at Harbour Station. The CTRL could still be used for the occasional service train and for stock movements to and from Boston Lodge while RhE passengers would be able to park close by the station and enjoy all but a few yards of the rebuilt line.

Richard

 

Operationally it may make sense, although even that may be debatable as you would need servicing facilities for the oco etc, but probably not commercially, as apart from the cost of building another station you are going to have to man additional booking offices, shops or cafes or loose a lot of potential revenue. Mind you once trains do start running regularly to Port I hope they have plans t educe the congestion in the shop/cafe etc as it is already a fair old scrum at times in the shop, cafe as it is.

The original time table published last year showed virtually every train terminating or connecting to Port. It was between Caernarvon and Rhydd ddu their were less trains. Whether that was based on forcast numbers or the fact that the he WHR had only two operational garretts really suited to the longer run I have no idea.

Whatever we all think there are two groups whose opinion should be strongly considered and they are the volunteers who have put in a lot of work rebuilding the line and supporters who put their hand in their pockets to help for it. I doubt if many of them did so without expecting the railway to run to Port and Regularly

 

I believe i read on another forum that even if that was commercially or operationally desirable (which it isnt), there simply isnt enough room for a sufficiently long platform and loop.

CHris

 

Putting all politics aside (if that is possible) the most logical solution given the very limited options available, would be to terminate at least half of the trains at the Farm and I would hope that this is the direction of future negotiations. However, critics will come up with a multitude of reasons why this cannot be done but in reality it makes perfect sense.

No doubt negotiations will be complicated and lengthy but the fruits could be the solution to both the current practical and political issues.

 

Why do trains need to terminate at Tremadog Road? There's no need to modify Harbour station till there are 3 carriage sets on both lines, while diverting trade away from the shop and Spooners and confusing customers with two different termini would be crazy.

Chris

 

Not necessarily. It would mean less confusion for customers, two different railways, two different stations.
Trains do not “need” to terminate at the Farm but from a logistical point of view it would be much more convenient, less hassle and less expensive.
As for loss of trade at Spooners, well obviously negotiations would have to determine percentages and lets no forget the current untapped potential revenues at Beddgelert. I am confident that trade would balance out without any significant loss of revenue at Spooners.

I am not trying to say that negotiations will be easy or that ALL WHR trains should terminate at the Farm, but if we put the politics to one side for a second and look at the situation logically, it does make sense.

 

Doesn't the planning permission ban trading at Beddgelert?

 

You seem to be advocating WHR trains leave from two different stations in Porthmadog when under the current plans they can all leave from Harbour station; i dont see why thats desirable. Harbour station will need to be upgraded when there is a sixth carriage set but thats not going to happen for a few years yet.

Dont forget, terminating WHR trains at Tremadog Road would need the loop and platform to be lengthened (at least doubled?) at great expense and inconvenience to both railways. It would also require the signalling of Pont Croesor-Harbour Station if trains were to run to both terminuses. Thats got to be a considerable 6 figure sum on top of the one still to be raised, for no extra revenue and with the likely effect of ordinary passengers turning up, and ending up, at the wrong end of Port to their train or where they parked.

Chris

 

No - there has never been a restriction placed on 'trading' at Beddgelert Station...

There was a ban on 'catering' at Beddgelert. However, a succesful appeal has resulted in this restriction being overturned, so that a limited range of refreshments will be provided at the Station...

...this was a major factor in delaying the final design of the Beddgelert Station building - as, without a decision on what could be included, the final layout could not be decided.

 

It was always envisaged that WHR trains could if need be terminate at the Farm, this was written into the original agreement along with the Farm’s right to operate their trains. The idea or concept is not new or radical thinking, it has been around for a long time.

Yes there will be the need for some investment at the Farm, a platform extension, adequate watering facilities etc but nothing that can’t be achieved in a short space of time if all parties choose to work together to develop a new and watertight agreement

 

Time isnt the issue though - its the considerable expense, effect on revenue, and the lack of any need nor obvious benefits to the F&WHR.

As the WHHR have long said, the long distance and more expensive WHR/FR trains cater to a different market than the Gelerts Farm museum and its future shuttle services - if they cant all operate out of one station, their termini are surely best kept as seperate as possible.

Chris

 

And the fact you'd sacrifice the WHHR services, which would I'm sure dissapoint many families & WHRLtd Members.

 

Time is always an issue - and I would argue that it is not a considerable expense with next to no effect on revenue.
The CTL is truly remarkable and invaluable for stock movements and occasional through trains, but on the other hand, it's slow, complicated and labour intensive both in operation and when dealing with trains on arrival at Harbour. I don't expect to convince you of the virtues of simplicity, however, I am convinced that common sense will prevail before too long.

The same market, slightly different products but that doesn't mean that the Farm cannot accommodate the WHR's product should they desire.
Future shuttle services? If that's a fancy term for heritage trains well than yes, I'm sure they can be slotted in.

 

It does seem impossible to discuss the WHR without finding oneself in the 'battle'.

Personally, I am just glad that this remarkable project has gone ahead. After a personal wait of over fifty five years, I was able to travel through the pass by rail.

While the WHHR was cited as a reason for the cost over-run, many more really expensive issues were also mentioned. With such a huge project, I think that they have done very well indeed. Compared to many high profile building projects, the over-run is negligable.

 

A progress letter from Savage has appeared on the isegard site, even from my side of the fence it seems to explain the facts clearly.
http://www.isengard.co.uk/#News

Keep on trucking,

Russ

 

Indeed, having now read it im really not sure what the fuss is about. It lists all the reasons for the funding hole; the WHHR's inability to rebuild the whole PyM-PC section being just one of them. btw, i believe it is correct to say the railway has not received any 'extra' money, that given by the WAG is i believe to compensate for inflation.

(Peter - if you arent going to address the financial implications of your suggestion then im not sure what else i can say. Time will tell!)

Chris

 

As I have already pointed out the investment on the part of the FR/WHR will be minimal, investment for minor alterations at the Farm will be the Farm’s remit. It’s a case of investment in an income stream but of course this investment will need to be secured.
We are very aware of the significant investment needed to complete the WHR through to Harbour and the likelihood is that it will not occur for some time. Even when these works are complete, the Farm can continue to accommodate a percentage of trains while at the same time continue with their other activities and operating heritage trains. It will be a case of working together in way that has never been seen before and surely it has to be a very welcome progression?

I don’t deny that revenue at a terminus is a crucial factor, and obviously the FR will not want to loose out to another company, but then again the Farm will require a percentage of income for their facilities. It’s a case of swings and roundabouts with terms thrashed out through painstaking and unenviable negotiations that are unlikely to be concluded over night.

As you quite rightly point out, time will tell!

 

One of the factor's in the cash-flow issues causing the current delay in opening through to Harbour Station was the failure of the WHHR to deliver their side of the bargain and lay a section of track at their cost.

Why should the WHR contemplate diverting 50% of the trains - and thus 50% of the terminal income to the WHHR? Seems a very one-sided suggestion to me - perhaps that's why he won't address the financial issues.

 

Peter, correct me if im wrong but i suspect you're looking at this from the perspective of the WHHR. In which case i can see the logic - massively increase takings to the shop, cafe and the heritage shuttles while potentially securing the long term future of the Gelert's Farm operation. Which, relatively speaking, makes the works to cater for WHR trains look like small beer...

But looking at the bigger picture it still makes much more sense for the FR and WHR to concentrate trains on Harbour Station both in the short and long term. Any risk of the CTRL being unavailable now seems over - the trackwork, NR interface and crossing orders have all been sorted, the only major issue being the funding for the LC electronics, not a long term issue i'd have thought and certainly not one to result in a change of termini.

Granted, if a meteorite were to hit central Porthmadog a rethink might be needed but otherwise...

Chris