Line side scenery- telegraph poles

I have just seen that IWSR are re-instating telegraph poles along the length of the line. Nice that they seem to be in a position to be able to not only install but maintain such infrastructure

http://www.iwsteamrailway.co.uk/news/bt-telephone-pole-initiative-55.aspx

Vince

 

An action to be congratulated. But this and the timetabled goods train sort of contradicts the tales of woe being put regarding other railways on the "Elephant in the Room" thread.

 

Hardly contradicts the tales of woe IMHO. This is one of the relatively few railways in which the costs (size of equipment, length of run) have been kept at a reasonable level so they are now in a position to address more aspects of the "museum railway" part of their function. They already do this rather better than most.

P..

 

I must agree with Paulhitch on this; the IOWSR is in a good position to enhance its environment in this way. It might also be an expensive diversion for some other heritage lines which have more vital infrastructure work to attend to.

There is no doubt that, like Proust's tea-dunked madeleine cake, the memory of seeing lines of wires undulating alongside the train, together with the sound of the clickerty-clack and the sight and smell of steam, transports us "right back there" well, at least it does for me. I recall all the telephone/telegraph poles on the old Honeybourne Line being felled and wishing it would not be so. However, they couldn't be bottomed to get them all as a quick look over the side of Toddington viaduct today will confirm!

 

I made and meant no criticism, the IoWSR is to be congratulated and envied if it has the resources to devote to the things I mentioned earlier. On that premiss it would appear a number of its larger mainland contemporaries might learn a lesson or two that small is beautiful and thus remove the Elephant from the Room.

This leads me to ask: -
Should the Bluebell curtail its vision for further future expansion?
Should the NYMR withdraw its expeditions over NR metals from Grosmont to Whitby?
Should the GCR shelve its plans to Bridge the Gap?

I appreciate that there is no "one size fits all" formula for success. However all of these schemes will stretch the organisations concerned to a greater or lesser extent and thus, for some, create a Mammoth in the Room.

 

Churnet Valley have a replica pole route through Consall station to add to the period atmosphere and IIRC the KWVR is extant throughout.

 

But the obvious question then is "should other longer lines cut back?". Is it purely length that makes a problem - are all the short lines rolling in cash and all the longer ones in trouble?

There are certainly a few truths which may be more universal than some other factors:

• A 16 mile long line probably struggles to charge twice the fare of am 8 mile long line. (But, as ever, "it depends on the destination" - the NYMR has always charged approximately 1/3 more for the Adult All Line between Pickering and Whitby than Pickering to Grosmont - 24 miles instead of 18)
• The longer the line, the more infrastructure there is to maintain - but that does not equate to costs being proportionate. Had the NYMR remained just from Grosmont to the line's Summit (6 miles), Bridge 30 would still have needed replacing as it lies on that section, as does the most expensive bridge renewal still outstanding and the site of the 1986 landslip.
• Longer lines are likely to need more equipment to operate the same frequency of service - not for them, one loco and 5 coaches chugging up and down all day - but that could also mean the stock in use doesn't spend half the day sat waiting its next train.

However, 3 of the 5 busiest standard gauge lines and the busiest narrow gauge are all over 15 miles long and the other 2 both provide access to seaside resorts (as do 2 of the 3 longer ones) and one (P & DSR) is very much part of a longer, time-wise "day out".
In effect, longer lines are actually a different beast in the market place to shorter ones - they have to aim to be a day out, not a couple of hours.
And that is the problem with basing viability judgments on length alone. "From" and "to" (and what options in between!) are much more basically important than length in deciding whether a market sufficient to sustain the operation exists. These can be specific (a suitable joining point to the coast is a common theme amongst busiest lines) or, as I would suggest is the IoWSR's position, a "steam train ride serving..." (in this case the "captive" market of the Isle of Wight).
I would though caution (again) that it is infrastructure issues that can threaten survival more than pure economics. A short but heavily engineered line is less likely to survive a major infrastructure problem than a longer, busier one. "Bragging rights" about passenger numbers may annoy some and provide no direct link to commercial success BUT do indicate (hopefully) larger numbers of satisfied passengers interested in and "rooting for" and willing to support the line and crucially size and importance of contribution to the local economy and hence influence and likelihood of external funding.
NYMR operations to Whitby (which have the advantage of paying for the use of the extra miles on a "pay as you go" basis!) and Bluebell to East Grinstead show that increasing journey length and need for assets deployed can be worthwhile when new markets and destinations are thereby accessed and exploited. That should, perhaps, be a key test for extensions, rather than "we will have longer run, so it must be okay" - but even then, a longer journey on the line means people will consider a longer journey to the line worthwhile, and supporters will much more happily back and fund an extension than running costs - and the clever organisation will make the improved facilities on the existing line part of the overall package needed to extend when appealing for funds.
Steven

 

Following on from your excellent analysis Steven, the GWSR's northward extension to the Cotswold's jampot of Broadway makes sense when compared to the present terminus at Toddington (although it's a pity it's npt nearer the town centre). The case for Honeybourne is different, but the main line connection with the prospect of visiting tours, locos etc could also be cost effective. Ditto for the CVR extensions/running rights to Leek and Stoke. However I'm still not wholly convinced by the GCR missing link - apart from the main line connection it seems to be length for length's sake.

 

Concerning the Bluebell, I guess we'll go west when conditions are suitable, and not before. As far as the northern extension is concerned, we added two miles more infrastructure but gained 36% extra passengers. Hopefully that will sustain into the future, but I think most of us feel it has been well and truly justified. It probably has changed the character of the line towards needing longer trains and also being much more of a "double-ended" attraction, both of which come with their own challenges. But it is better to have the challenge of how do you cope with running the extra trains needed, than having to cope with the challenge of where the next passenger is coming from.

Regarding the IoWSR: what they do, they do exceptionally well (disclaimer: I'm an IoWSR member). But I don't think that necessarily means they are an exact template that can be copied, lock, stock and telegraph pole by other lines. Firstly, they have a captive market on the Island - that still means they have to market themselves extensively, but they are in a touristy bit of the world with people looking for things to do. They are also extremely good at giving a real taste of how the railway was pre-preservation, complete with authentic rolling stock and locomotives - probably to a greater extent than any other heritage railway. But they have been active for more than forty years, so it is natural that they have built up infrastructure, rolling stock and experience in that time.

The real lesson I think that we could all learn from the IoWSR is not really about optimum length. Rather, I get a sense that they have a clear vision of what they are trying to achieve, and then they go out and achieve it. So my feeling (as admittedly simply an armchair member - I'm not actively involved) is that the various departments seem well joined up and all pulling in the same direction - that shows with, for example, the way loco and carriage liveries generally match; how at each station everything is basically "of a piece" etc. That's certainly a lesson some lines could learn, where it seems there are many projects that are all individually worthwhile, but sometimes it is hard to see how they all join up to a coherent whole.

Tom

 

It's one thing having a lineside run, but you also need the lienside to be relatively free of trees.

That said, "rebuilding the telegraph poles" is something that can be the subject of an appeal and have its own project.

 

With regard the GWSR, the extension to Broadway seems pretty obvious to me. If they get all the way to Honeybourne, I can imagine them still running a core Cheltenham - Broadway service, with the extra line to Honeybourne just used at Galas, for charters (especially race day specials to Cheltenham) and as a route to get p/way materials on to the railway more cheaply than by road. There is no obvious requirement to run trains over it just because it is there if doing so adds a lot of running cost and - crucially makes the trip longer than desirable by most passengers, and going past the obvious destination that passengers starting at Cheltenham want to reach.

In that way, Broadway - Honeybourne it could be analogous to Bishops Lydiard - Norton Fitzwarren / Taunton on the WSR. In other words, the connection is there; it is available for charters and infrastructure purposes bringing in ballast; it provides an additional attraction for gricers at galas; but the core operation doesn't use it. I can imagine a similar situation on the GWSR; or, maybe, having the core "steam" operation from Cheltenham to Broadway and running a connecting DMU to Honeybourne to connect with the mainline trains for what I suspect will be a relatively small proportion of visitors who will want to come by rail.

Tom

 

An awful lot of emphasis seems to be made of having a Big Railway connection. I'll admit that it is an advantage, but is it really worth the huge amount of effort that some both deem necessary and use as an excuse for an extension? 'It will enable incoming charters' is a favourite but I doubt that any railway would manage to get more than one a month on average. Hardly a big money-spinner. Bringing in main line locos by rail might save a bit but, again, the saving hardly justifies the expenses incurred in extending. The Bluebell have, admittedly, made good use of their connection to both ship out spoil and bring in ballast but, apart from the WSR, they are probably the only line to make reasonably frequent use of it. I'm excluding the NYMR Whitby service as that's a totally different thing.
If you have a main line connection, that's fine, but don't use it to justify any sort of extension, GWSR Honeybourne & GCR gap build being prime examples of this.

 

That sounds like a good idea, I do hope something like this happens, CRC to Broadway will be a good run, but I don't think regularly running to Honeybourne will add that much.

 

Wrong, Bo'ness and Kinneil Railway has made good use of it's mainline connection for the past 20+ years:

Incoming and out-going SRPS Railtours stock which is based at Bo'ness,
Royal Scotsman servicing annually, March of each year
We base a number of mainline steam locomotives overnight, or for extended stays, while they are between mainline jobs ( e.g No's 45407 and 44871 for the previous couple of Octobers, engines used during The Great Britain railtours, even Castle No. 5043 has been a visitor!
WCRC often base rolling stock of much variety, from carriages to Class 37's, 47's and 57's at Bo'ness for extended periods.
Currently Colas base their allotted Grangemouth engine at Bo'ness between the Linkswood and Prestwick tank jobs.
Visiting engines for galas, a good example is for the Winter Diesel Gala in a few days time...Two 56's and a Deltic all visiting, via the connection.

The mainline connections can be justified for use far outwith 'heritage' movements. Great relationships can be built up with Network Rail, and/or TOC's, and the use of a connection can then be seen through the allocated of mainline vehicles to overnight/extended stays on the railway.

It's not for every railway, every case is unique. With the Bluebell, it allowed it to access in to a larger market, and the changing of heritage to mainline trains made visiting the line easier for a lot of people. With W&SR, it's more of a similar case to the B&KR. With G&WSR, I suspect it will follow the Bluebell outline, allowing it to interchange with mainline trains easier and tap in to a more willing market.

 

Sounds as if it is one of the very few IMHO which can be justified, particularly as the distances involved are not enormous. (I await the longer term results on the Bluebell with interest; there will be a number like me who have gone twice since the re-opening but are unlikely to return again in the short term.

P.H.

 

I think your first sentence should have read: "Wrong - at least from the point of view of the Bo'ness & Kinniel" . The sort of usage you have described will not be appropriate to most heritage railways, so the B&KR is probably the exception that proves the rule.

The problem to me seems to be that sending a small fortune extending a line to the point where a connection can be made, a rather larger fortune then needs to be spent to make that connection - consider the case of the Swanage, where it is simply a question of upgrading an existing connection, which is costing in the millions. Getting to Honeybourne will only be the start of the problems for the GWSR if they want a connection that actually works! It's only now that we're starting to see these issues surface as most of the older generation lines have their connections and have managed to retain them.

 

If we accept your logic that pressing onto Broadway makes sense; how would you react to any proposal to see the SVR linked to the World Heritage Site jampot nay honeypot of Ironbridge?

 

Never say never - readers will be disappointed to learn however, that there are no remaining telegraph poles beside the abandoned trackbed !

The SVRs official position is that it has 'no intention to extend but is keeping a watching brief' - according to its website.

It may be of some interest to note that one of the major obstacles on the route, namely the series of landslips at Jackfield, are presently being stabilized by T&W Unitary Authority at a cost running into millions of pounds.

 

Good to hear it but I don't think my posting regarding a Big Railway connection not being a fundamentally important goal is wrong in principle. However, even with the B&KR connection, some of your examples aren't exactly frequent; Royal Scotsman once a year, 44871 & 45407 for the last two Octobers, isn't exactly a lot although in total they do add up. Is the Colas operation daily, or even weekly?

 

The Colas operation involves roughly a move in and out of the railway on both a Monday and Wednesday. However, what is often the case with aviation fuel, some weeks it may not run, some weeks require a second or third run for the Prestwick Tanks, or even the Sinfin to Grangemouth Tanks job.

Not every Colas movement has been recorded in the Line Diary available to members, however, from what information I have had available, 118 movements have been taken over what we call 'The Link Line'. If I were to go through Scot-Rail.co.uk and investigate every movement, the number is likely to be a good 30 or so more at least.

The variety has ranged from Colas Moves, steam visits by No. 60009/45407/44871, our own ECS moves ( and hiring out to Steam Dreams ), and WCRC diesels/stock/Royal Scotsman.