Last Chance Hotel?

At present, Russell is not back in action and the Baldwin has about half the money raised to have it restored. One could visualise that in the future, a limited number of heritage trains could originate at the Harbour, maybe pick up passengers at PYM and continue on to Beddgelert. Realistically, if 'heritage' is being recreated, that would be as far as trains from Harbour went in later years.

It is possible that both Russell and '590' could pull four coaches as far as this. Not many passengers but I presume that such trains would have high cost ticketing.

Double headed trains would not actually be 'heritage' and further costs and complications would ensue.

I believe that this is a viable option and is what, as I understand it, was agreed originally between the two companies.

After the WHHR moved the goal posts and following the ensuing unpleasantness, it might be some time before sufficient confidence is restored to allow this to happen and hopefully, the new WHHR regime might start moving towards this aim.

I suspect that the greatest mistake made by the FR was to allow the WHHR to operate to Traeth Mawr for a couple of seasons which frankly gave a lot of people 'new ideas' and 'aspirations'. It must have been hard for the WHHR to remove the Traeth Mawr loop and revert back to their truncated railway.

 

I think its probably worth clearing up what the WHHR signed up to in the 1998 agreement, regarding the general idea of how 'Heritage Trains' would work :-

...as anyone who's read or heard about the WHHR's (refused) proposal will know, this is very different to what was put to the FRC board 2 years.

While ideas of combining trains and only running from Harbour station are fine, that isnt neccesarily whats required to find an agreement - obviously the lack of signalling will mean no trains from Tremadog Road for the forseeable future, but a Pont Croesor shuttle can still be run if (i suspect) it is run in co-operation with the FR as suggested back in 1998, as oppposed to the arms-length 'we'll just give you a track access fee'.

Hopefully with a new Chairman and perhaps a new approach these arguments can finally be consigned to history.

Chris

 

I beleive the sort of operation proposed above would be best suited to some kind of 'Enthusiast's Weekend" type event, as the majority of fare paying passengers will be members of the general public and they a) won't be interested in what the loco or carriages are, and b) will want to get from A-B in comfort and reasonably quickly, without unduly long station stops.

As to whether it's possible to intergrate such events into the WHR/FRC's normal services is for them to decide. One can only hope so.

 

Christopher125, can you also remind us all of what the WHHR agreed to do for these concessions?

 

Hmm, the 1998 agreement seems fair? Add into the mix a junction station for more 'regular' running for the WHHR and surely that pleases everyone?

 

I still think the WHHR should seriously consider suggestions made some months back on Nat Pres of building its own line towards Tremadog.

 

I do not think that Christopher125 has stated all of the agreement so it is not possible to judge 'fairness' at this point. I am still awaiting his reply.

 

I just wish that the FR and WHR ltd would be left alone to sort it out without all us 'experts' telling them how to do it

 

I quoted the relevant section of the 1998 agreement available here on the WHHR website; for more info just look at that link.

Regarding what the WHHR was to do, as the FR have effectively said they will overlook the apparent breaking of the agreement i'd argue it isnt really relevant anymore - who did what when really doesnt help.

Chris

 

Nicely put Chris

 

Who did what when. Going over all your postings that seems about all you go on about. Anyone can dig over the past to try and find a culprit. it's time to move on, people are starting to get sick and tired of so called experts turning over this dispute, i'd like to know how many of them helped finance the reconstuction of the WHR. give us a break and let's move on.

 

I disagree...I think Chris has probably been the least judgemental during this entire episode...wanting, as most of us, for bygones to be exactly that. Chris supports the idea of a clean slate, and likes the idea that the FR are prepared to overlook any breakings of the 1998 agreement to thrash out a new deal, surely thats a good thing??

 

...so i should ignore it when someone posts something incorrect? I dont start debates on past history, but they have and will continue to happen and with the situation being so complex there are a lot of common misconceptions - in my opinion discussing them and correcting them is better than ignoring them.

Chris

 

Absolutely spot-on, Chris. All those well meaning people who post here about "fair-minded compromise" etc, have a point, but unfortunately that point will have no sway whatsoever in this saga. Like it or not, the new WHR is 100% built and owned by the FR (regardless of any perceived "moral right" regarding the grants awarded). To remove the WHHR's objections to rebuilding, the FR made an agreement with WHHR which was full of holes, and both sides have duly found plenty of them since!
It simply boils down to WHHR having to come up with a proposal that FR will accept, bearing in mind that WHHR have very little "clout" in this and FR are not really obliged to do anything at all (particularly now their legal beagles can "prove" WHHR have breached the "agreement" if they want to).
In these circumstances the recent (refused) proposal from WHHR didn't stand a chance, even if the signalling hardware was in place (which it probably won't be for at least a couple of years). To keep repeating the same daft proposals publicly seems like a deliberate sabotage attempt of any agreement at all.
One can only hope that the WHHR board changes will eventually bring about a different approach, and we can then see if the FR really will be prepared to accommodate the WHHR, or whether WHHR have been making it easy for the FR to resist.

 

Many thanks for the replies but as I did say this was only a suggestion. Out of season was more mentioned as I can imagine it would be difficult to put a path in during the high season and it has the benefit being out of the main season to bring additional people and revenue in. I can appreciate the complexity of double heading but this was put forward if it terminated at Beddgelert with the gradient issue.

It will be some time anyway as there are many things to be ironed out before then. I agree the FR having built most of the line and owning it all should have a larger say but the opportunities that the WHHR have to offer shouldn't be dismissed.

Regards

Duncan

 

Exactly. This is one of the reasons why i would like to see a public enquiry, we can do away with so called experts on forums like this and get things sorted out properly with a real base. This enquiry would be carried out by proffesionals and not by people who think they are.

 

"Exactly. This is one of the reasons why i would like to see a public enquiry, we can do away with so called experts on forums like this and get things sorted out properly with a real base. This enquiry would be carried out by proffesionals and not by people who think they are. "

A public enquiry is as likely as hell freezing over. The outcome of the problems between the WHHR and RhE is of interest to most who hold the WHR dear. I have not seen in this thread anyone who claims to be an 'expert' although we have had posts from the FR publicity manager. I see no reason why we should not openly debate our views on forum and it is even possible that those who can make decisions may take note of some of the views held.

Public Enquiries are operated by professional mediators and the like and have no more expertise in operating public railways as anyone else on the street.

 

To be fair, I don't recall anyone claiming to be an 'expert'. Just a number of interested people debating a subject that is in the public domain. Oh yes, and disagreeing with you hence the final sentence. I would answer that by saying don't assume anything about people you don't know.