Current and Proposed New-Builds

Similarly, the Ffestiniog regularly uses non-corridor stock to strengthen its corridor sets, with an end-to-end time of 1h 15m and round trip time of 2h 40m. I feel it statistically unlikely that narrow-gauge passengers have stronger bladders.

 

There is a toilet on the WHR trains but they do ask you to hang on..............

Having said that I have been part of a rush to the (Compost) toilet at Dolgoch............

 

There were/are tours abroad where the lead vehicle is given over to sound and video people. In some cases with power points so you can use mains equipment. One one trip with a 141R the doors on the fourgon were slid open for people to get the full experience. Just a single chain across the opening to stop them falling out.

 

For those who don't need a pee, the provision (or otherwise) of suitable facilities is a complete non-issue, however.....

IMO, the core consideration is whether passengers are, at need, expected to have to cross their legs. Whilst many may well endure one journey under such conditions, the real question is how likely they are to want to repeat the experience?

Here's a thought..... An enforced station stop visit, causing one to have to get off and thereby miss a train, is a very different proposition when there are only two services a day.

Dare I suggest that while the full(ish) heritage experience is OK if you know ahead of time (and resist that second pint before entraining) and you're never more than 30-45mins from bladder comfort. Once up to an hour or more, you're pushing the envelope.

Let's say it's on your first visit that you missus and daughter have taken the ankle biters for a go on the miniature railway and after a couple of pints of "Grumpy Pete's Old Curmudgeon" with the son-in-law and a quick shuftie around the loco, you've sat the kids down, worked out how to close the carriage door and take your seat in a beautiful period compartment. 20 mins in ...... (do I need to paint the picture?)..... some surprises are OK, but others are rather less so.

Returning visitors will, of course, be familiar with the quirks and foibles of any line, but the ones who've left with a "never again" attitude are the target market here. Just as someone will enthuse to friends, neighbours and social media about an excellent experience, so to will those whose expectations haven't been met.

Which group presents the problem? .... assuming we don't want to watch passenger numbers shrinking year on year.

Does that mean corridor carriages are the only way ahead? Bob knows, I hope not, but I'd suggest that unless talking of very short journeys with a (relatively) frequent service, having at least one carriage with accessible facilities per train is sensible. If that means the odd grounded body only gets a sympathetically done makeover if that includes a bog, so be it.

 

All this js really saying Howard is "don't let W.I.B.N. drive you into excessive route mileages".

Paul H

 

As someone who's rather fond of a pint or two a recent journey from Norwich to Cambridge with non working toilets on a 170 wasn't very nice I can tell you!

 

Not just Paul. A line is as long as it is. Let's not forget that the Ffesterbahn's mileage during opening only to Dduallt (1958-68), Tan-y-Grisiau (1978-82), let alone Gelliwiog (the push-pull operation ahead of completing Moelwyn Tunnel) could well have been described as 'excessive mileage'. Where there exist longer term aspirations to attain a valuable destination, such as [\set irony mode ON] Blaenau Ffestiniog [\set irony mode OFF], clearly staged projects aren't merely sensible, they're inevitable.

Resources aren't infinite, I know, but generation on generation now has confounded concerns that the interest will somehow stop being there. Is there a danger of over-reaching? In my books, of course. We've witnessed our share of failed projects over the years, some due to unrealistic aspirations but several for utterly unforseeable, or in a couple of cases .... inexplicable, circumstances which had zip to do with the railway/collection in question. Equally, no small number of occurances have transpired of which we old codgers could scarcely have dreamed 20-30 years ago (I always think of 71000's initial resurrection as a real 'change of gear' .... and we've plenty of members here unborn when that happened).

The ad-hoc recruitment and fundraising policies of the past are increasingly being supplemented (though never replaced) by targeting a project at potentials, or a blanket campaign at a specific demographic. Although hideously dull for many (and who can blame them?), that sort of marketing professionalism is, for better or worse, essential in our ever more competative world.

Broadly put, I'll always argue against a positon which I would consider unneccessarily circumscribes options for a future beyond our powers to forsee. At some point, all of us oldsters will have to stand back and admit plenty of today's generation are already doing a damned fine job of finding creative solutions for the problems they face. Count the future scale and scope of heritage operations among the things which will pass beyond our control.

 

Exactly!
Although most of the work is being done on CAD (for now), I’m proud of the group of fellows that are behind the Claud Hamilton project, and they’re around my age. I’m happy that they’re trying to inspire younger generations into getting into the heritage railway circuit, and even go after building new locos.

 

On both the Ffestiniog and the WHR the main service train sets are primarily made up of corridor stock with at least one toilet in the set. However as I said, particularly on the FR non-corridor stock is used for strengthening sets where necessary. Including stock of 1870s-vintage on occasion!

 

It's the ability (or lack thereof) to raise sufficient net income to finance renewals when needed which will determine long term survival. W.I.B.N. plus the National Lottery have funded new projects but renewals are rather different. It is asking a lot of "normals" to fork out some of the fares demanded (I have heard of £31 full adult return fares) and no-one knows if they will continue to do so.

PH

 

I would be happier if the project involved something with driving wheels rather less than 7ft. diameter for tourist line service at 25m.p.h.

PH

 

I agree with your sentiment. However, any new build needs to be a "Glamour loco" to attract interest & funding etc. With regards to main line running which may recoup some of the capital outlay, there are only so many paths available, only 2 weeks each year and only so many people with the income to afford a ticket to ride on each main line excursion.
Any and every new build will be competing with the current main line registered locos to get out there.

 

The most expensive heritage line I have been on also happens to have the largest number of passengers of any line in the country - go figure.

Ultimately, there is more to people’s buying decisions than just price alone - their perception of value is also important. Not least because some attractions offer a full day out, and others might detain you for an hour or two. Nothing wrong with either, but the cheaper attraction may not be such good value if you are on holiday and have to find two or more similar attractions (with separate entrance fees) per day.

Ultimately, there is no “one size fits all” answer to what constitutes value.

Tom

 

I did say specifically that no-one knows if they will continue to do so.

PH

 

A "Claud Hamilton" is just not big enough for main line excursions though.

PH

 

Clearly, the more bums on seats, the more cost effective any operation will be. Does every mainline charter needs be 12 plus a Class 47? I'll grant you that heavy loads over Shap or Beattock aren't ideal for any four coupled loco (though GNRI S Class 'Slieve Gullion' had no problems flattening the climb out of Cork), but couldn't a Claude (for example) handle a reasonable load on it's old home turf?

Yer average RPSI mainline jaunt has 7 on. Smaller market, sure, but I'm reliably informed what brings the non-terminally-steam-addicted back time and again are bacon rolls without compare. The moral of this tale being that providing you know your market and tailor your product accordingly, there's more than the just prospective long-distance express market out there.

In the specific case of the Claude, 'big railway' operations to Cromer surely beckon? I'd call that 'gainful employment'.

 

Increasingly so.

Paul H

 

Said £31 also pans out to just under 77p a mile from what I can tell. Which for a steam hauled train through pretty countryside still sounds like a bargain.

I think perhaps one thing to consider is the need for small, powerful tank locomotives or engines akin to Standard 2's (but as noted, small driving wheels in the 3ft range) that could handle the weekday traffic during the summer time on heritage lines that are a lot cheaper to run and maintain.

82045 is perhaps one example of the "right direction", but my gut tells me the average punter isn't really going to care whether an engine was built in 2018 or 1918 or is even "line appropriate" (5619 spent a year at the Midland Railway Centre, after all) as long as it goes "chuff" when it pulls them away from the station with the sprogs aboard it all pans out for the pennies at the end of the day to fund other projects.

 

The rate per mile is not excessive but the total sum, certainly for more than one person, is "enough". Very few other visitor attractions will charge this sort of sum and tourist railways need to get it into their heads that they are in competition.

PH

 

Yes. With theme parks that charge from £33 a head. So the £31 quoted by jamesquared is in the same area.