Rother Valley Railway

I have absolutely no idea save that everyone I know on the railway seems happy with the arrangement.

 

I agree completely, but I reckon the RVR now feel they’ve gone as far as they can without submitting a TWAO application. That doesn’t prevent offers & negotiations continuing during the TWAO process.

 

Sorry but this argument makes next to no sense. In what way is a heritage railway - one with two or more stations anyway - not providing a means of transport? Why make a distinction just because the equipment is old, the fares per mile a bit higher and some of the punters are merely along for the ride? Because exactly the same comments can be made about certain parts of the national network too - and in the case of the RVR once linked to the KESR, it does in fact provide an off-railway destination at Bodiam, so could even be considered a means to an end rather than the end in itself.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not totally comfortable with the idea that someone could seek CPO powers for a railway through my own back garden (fortunately unlikely as the nearest redundant trackbed is 2 streets away, I reckon my garden is safe), and would wish to see such powers only granted after due process and used sparingly, but the point I was trying to make is that in purely legislative terms it is impossible to distinguish between one type of railway and another. Hence, CPO powers must remain a possibility, and hence, heritage railways must remain free to seek them.

I also don’t blame any landowner for wanting to hang onto their land, and can totally understand that they may be reluctant to negotiate while there appears to be any prospect of the scheme not going ahead. At the end of the day that is their right. It will be interesting to see, if CPO powers are granted, whether they actually need to use them. Time will tell, and speculation here is largely pointless, but I suppose that’s what we do.

NB: just for the record I have no connection with the RVR/KESR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In this particular case, there is another factor which needs to be considered - the level crossing over the A21. It seems the RVR have got everything in place and may get that approved. The longer construction of this is left, the less and less likely that approval gets.

From a distance, it seems the RVR have been extremely patient already, e.g. only building the toilets at Robertsbridge and not the other station buildings.

 

Hopefully the above point of view is more naive than totalitarian. Naive in thinking public service use is more than a tiny proportion of the entertainment use which pays the bills. Totalitarian in demanding the land gets made over, failing which it will be sequestrated in order to get your own way.

Compulsory Purchase is appropriate for things such as HS2 or Crossrail which are certainly public service orientated. However, pleasure railways are more akin to theme parks than anything else. No-one would expect a compulsory purchase order to facilitate an extension to Peppa Pig World and the same should be true for pleasure railways.

PH

(For"totalitarian", please substitute "authoritarian"")

PH

 

That post suggests you have no idea what ‘totalitarianism’ is.

No, authoritarian is still the wrong word. An authoritarian state is interested only in political power. You are alluding to a state with weak rule of law/property rights.

 

Town councils may be granted CP powers to develop town centres as long as there is there is a "compelling case in the public interest". There are obviously checks to ensure there is that "public interest" but in the scheme of things what's the difference in using the powers to say develop a town centre shopping mall than a railway or indeed a canal.

Let's not forget in most cases these powers are rarely used, having them 'available' just oils the wheels of a negotiation.

 

"Public interest" is the vital bit and very much a matter of opinion.

PH

 

You clearly didn’t read my earlier post, or ignored it. To save me repeating myself, maybe you could scroll back a couple of pages.

And as for “getting my own way”, you clearly didn’t read the rest of the post you quoted from, either.

Ah well. Never mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So the bit where there's them government reports basically telling people in government that: Steam railway = cash cow = mo taxes and parking charges but somehow isn't public interest? "Pleasure Railway" or not, these railways support jobs and businesses away from the railway as people look for places to sleep, or park, or eat and drink.

If they think it will create jobs, then generally it can be considered as "in the public interest" same as if it takes cars off of the road or encourages people to visit places like Robertsbridge most might zoom past to get to the A21.

 

So are you saying the RVR will not have thought about looking into what the "Public interest" will be and producing professional impact studies and the like and that of course will include the economic benefits easily shown elsewhere in the preservation movement, are you that naïve or are you simply trolling - either way your not helping.

 

The distinction is that the principal purpose of a heritage or tourist railway is not to provide a transport service. The purpose of a heritage railway is to preserve or recreate a railway and its equipment. In order to survive financially it may also need to appeal to tourists but that isn’t what it exists for. Although transport is provided it is not the main reason visitors come - they come either to see the heritage for heritage’s sake or to enjoy the ride as a ride not as a journey.

I guess the issue here in order to justify a CPO is whether providing a heritage or tourist facility is as much in “the public interest” as providing a transport service would be. In our modern world I think perhaps it may be. We’ll see.

 

This sounds a bit like the old "mainline connection will encourage people to come by train" argument. In some cases it does but as often it doesn't. Can be W.I.B.N. inspired.

PH

 

That is fair enough.

PH

 

One problem with tourist type railways is that the vaunted extra jobs and income is for only part of the year, in most cases, and many of the jobs part time. The railway itself will most likely be mainly free volunteer labour. Unless there is a reasonable sized population nearby the extra custom that local businesses, it is suggested, will gain will not be that buoyant - there are many small places in the south west that have lost their well established businesses and banks and are full of seasonal gift shops.

 

I think that goes for many coastal towns. The argument is essentially ‘trickle down economics’ - tourist spends money on railway, who pay seasonal workers, seasonal workers spend money in local economy (rents, food etc) which provide further jobs and so on, so it is less about the volume of money but the circulation of money. Whether there has been any serious research done on the economic benefits of railways to local economies I don’t know but I find it hard to believe that it won’t have been looked at.

There is a wider problem of part-time, McJobs on zero hours etc

Btw isn’t there a similar argument down in St Ives about how much benefit the art galleries bring and about planing for an extension? So it isn’t just railways that this applies to.

 

For me personally, one of the best times to visit Tenterden is during the Christmas season. I don't know if you've ever been there at that time of year, but the town has a magical atmosphere, and looks stunning with the trees all lit up. The idea of Mince Pie Specials bringing much additional trade into the town whilst encouraging people to leave their cars at home, suggests something which everyone can benefit from.

 

Not necessarily; ISTR that the Bluebell has had a long-term permanent increase after they got to East Grinstead.

Anyway, I reckon it's just as unfounded to predict 'there will generally not be an increase' as it is to say 'there generally will be an increase'. I suspect it all depends on the specific details of each case, and it's probably hard to predict how the various factors will interact.

Noel

 

While true, this is also changing as leisure pursuits and tastes begin to change. Lots of places are now looking to extend what we'd define as the "tourist season" with lots of new events bolted on to extend where we'd traditionally call time for the year.

Look how big Santa Trains and Halloween have become in the last five or so years, both of which extend the visitor season, or at the very least created new "blocks" that tourists and locals wish to use. This still generates some demand for other local businesses.

 

I think the Bluebell is a good comparison. This is not just a main-line connection, it's a connection to a station with direct trains to London taking just over an hour. Due to its comprehensive public transport, slow traffic speeds, expensive parking etc. there are many more people in London who don't have a car or don't use it much, so it's not unreasonable to expect that the RVR would get a significantly higher proportion of its traffic arrive via National Rail than you would expect for other railways (e.g. GWSR to Broadway).

I find it difficult to believe that there is even an argument about whether there is any public benefit in this scheme. Some extra visitors and their money would surely come. The question should to my mind be purely whether the public benefit is sufficient to justify the CPO.