double track at other heritage railways

Double track on the Glos Warks Railway at Laverton.
The P-Way Gang have just completed the loop at Laverton although ballasting, tamping and some S&T work remain to be completed.
Nonetheless it gives the impression of what this superb line would be like if ever returned to its original design - however unlikely!

Flickr: GWR Permanent Way's Photostream

 

The prospect of double track between Bishops Lydeard and Norton Fitzwarren on the WSR crops up the recent report by the folks wanting a cycle path from Bishops Lydeard to Taunton Cycle Path Press Release Oct12 vF

If the second track once again appears on this section (the GWR doubled it in the 1930s) then I suspect the former Up line will provide the direct link to Network Rail, Norton Platform and/or the outer Norton Triangle, whilst the former Down line would link Bishops Lydeard with the inner Norton Triangle (and maybe the currently unused face of Norton Platform). The arrangement would, with appropriate permissions and signalling upgrades, enable trains to use both lines, allowing a shuttle from Bishops Lydeard to Norton or Taunton to run whilst locos could run to Norton for turning. A future "double track" would of course be two single lines running together for over two miles but giving greatly enhanced operating potential.

Just my own thoughts on possible developments on the WSR.

Steve

 

I thought this poll question was flawed which is why I answered 'Don't know'. If it had added 'if it was originally double' then the task would have been simplified.

The point of preserved railways is to preserve (not enhance, at least in terms of track provision). It really is getting out of hand with A4s and the like meandering down lines that never saw anything above a small tank engine.

The WSR was, like many GWR branches, double for the last bit before meeting the main line, so that's OK.

I really do wish we had a review of what preservation is supposed to be for.

 

Agreed 100%, I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with the 'preservation' industry not actually preserving things, examples are numerous such as has been said, express locos on branchlines, allowing vegetation growth along the lineside, introduction of continuous welded rail, new/inappropriate buildings to name a few. Yes there are limitations, and commercial as well as regulatory interests come into play, but I do feel we are losing focus. Would welcome a new thread to discuss the many issues.

 

I think for a start the word 'preservation' is deeply flawed in our movement's use of it. Do we 'preserve' steam locos as is or do we operate them? At best we can be said to be preserving the transient, ephemeral and subjective 'ambience'. But one man's ambience is another's disney.

I don't think for one moment that any heritage railway would start planning double track where there was none before. Not necessarily because of the motives you suggest, Howard, but because of the fantastic costs involved in purchasing land, T&WOs and building embankments/cutting cuttings.

 

Ive bitten the bullet - http://railways.national-preservation.com/heritage-railways-centres-uk/38216-what-preservation.html - lets see if anything develops. Could be interesting and I suspect we will have a polarised debate with two opposing camps.

 

I suspect the GWSR would love to double track but we still have another 2.5 miles to do before we get to Broadway. Then do we double or go for Honeybourne. My guess Honeybourne would win if it came o a vote and were possible which it could be.

 

Preservation is a term I feel is used very loosely these days on many of our more major lines. Over the past two decades a lot of lines have turned from a volunteer led operation into a very commercialised business where in many cases profit is being put before preservation. Space for a café? Plant one there. Space for a carriage shed? Shove it there! Is it more important to preserve a carriage and a loco, or to preserve the ambience of a station? Likewise, should we be retaining a railway as original condition, or as purchased condition? Its a very difficult thing and I'm not sure there is a right answer to any of it. Don't build a carriage shed, your carriages slowly rot into the ground. Build a modern carbuncle, then you're abandoning the principle for the railways existance, to preserve the past. But if you go for a heritage option, how much more will it cost?

Anyway...I think what I'm trying to say is 'how far do we take preservation?'. Most people only pay attention to the more obvious aspects, carriages, locomotives, stations and signals. Does it matter to them if a carriage shed is modern or historical looking? Not very much. But is it just as important to keep that aspect in keeping with the entire railway? Yes, I think so. Is that going down the Disney path? Yes, it is! Disney have a fantastic reputation of an immersive world in their theme parks, anything a guest can see, whether it be in the park, or behind a gate which is normally closed, is considered part of the experience, and so is done to the same standard. It costs more money, yes, but it means that if some berk leaves the gate open, your immersion into the world of Disneyland isn't spoiled by seeing a rubbish skip, or a Toyota Prius. So, I'm all for the Disney route!

 

This has become a pointless poll as it keeps getting added to, while the actual debate about it was transferred to another thread long ago. I just wonder whether people who come on the site are just plonking on a vote without thinking too much about it? :mmph: hwell:

 

Could a mod close the poll? It is a bit daft having the whole thread bumped just because someone voted.

Chris

 

unknown signal box

Anyone know the origins? Of the signal box and coach visible from the A14 near the shell garage southbound at fenstanton . It can be seen thro' the trees now that there are is no foliage

 

Swanage railway have considered to double the line between Swanage and Herston Halt. This was considered an option to increase capacity on the line. It's a very expensive option, as either land from the playing field has to be bought, or for them to buy people's gardens. Also the Victoria avenue bridge would need to be expanded to accommodate two tracks. http://www.srstaff.co.uk/swanningaround/swanningmay0715.pdf


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk