Heritage Railway Long Term Goals

If we're talking unambitious, then "survival" has to be a long term goal of many lines. Most live close to the edge, and improving financial stability and reserve funds ought to be a priority. The NYMR has recently started its "Foundation" to raise funds for desirable but otherwise unaffordable projects, but what is really need is to raise a big pot of money that isn't spent but is set aside "for a rainy day". Trouble is, there's not much chance of doing that when the railway owes the bank a lot of money, and its also harder to raise money if there's no specific aim in mind, but financial stability is the key to long term success.

 

Do you mean by unambitious - not an extension? There is no scope at Kidderminster as that was as far as the SVR went. We are connected to NR so theoretically the rest of NR metals. The Bewdley, Stourport Harbury link would not achieve much other than a south facing junction and as far as I am aware the trackbed is not passable. Bewdley to the west and Tenbury - never say never but!

North of Bridgnorth often gets discussed but there is nothing of interest to aim for short of Ironbridge. There would also be a major issue reinstating a low bridge over the main road outside Bridgnorth station. Cant see that going down well with Highways. You cant raise the bridge either as you would miss the tunnel entrance

The SVR is 16 miles long, has 7 signal boxes, and often requires 4 trains in service. Bridgnorth needs refurbishment and sympathetic enhancements.I think we are doing the right thing

 

When their board realised that project Xanadu was a recipe for bankruptcy the belt was severely tightened. A direct result is container city has simply been updated and more portacabins (to keep the buffet company) have appeared to replace the concrete sheds (that were at least vernacular railway buildings).

Regrettably I think Bridgnorth is too far developed to be restoreable to something resembling a gwr station from very many angles. Does the station management have a firm view on which era it is trying to recreate? At my last visit there seems to be a mish-mash of seating styles including GWR, BR(W) and something yet to be identified but seem heavily influenced by a garden centre and/or a DIY outlet.

I agree survival is paramount despite the glamour of an extension project but until contradictory statements cease to emanate from their board and a clear LTP is published it is difficult if not impossible to determine what the policy is in that regard. Sadly any policy that simply mentions "sustainability" over and over again without any real aspiration for the future (however long-term) is not going to entice any more visitors to . . . . . well visit.

 

good last point there, sometimes you need a big project to attract new visitors. As an example, when I first got my volunteer's permit I went on the GWSR many times, but now I know the whole place inside out it gets a little boring on a normal operating day, but once our Broadway extension opens, I'll be riding to there over and over again until I get bored, then onto Honeybourne! obviously that won't happen as quickly to most people as they'll be buying tickets so won't feel the need to go on as much as I did, but you get the point, people who have "done" a railway may only come back if there's more.

 

I am afraid that posts 23 and 24 from Messrs. Louis Pole and "Flying Scotsman" are enough to make me tear what is left of my hair out! We can't just go on opening extensions every time we get bored. Poor old us that has to get periodic stimulation to keep ennui at bay. Almost like a drug addiction. Actually I think extension projects tend to be a symptom of a rather too general railway preservation malaise which cannot finish things properly before starting something else.

As for Bridgnorth station, it is years since I was last there and it struck me then that the general facilities (catering, sanitation,etc.) were not what was expected from a major tourist attraction. How surprising then that they appear to be substantially unimproved and, as a consequence, how unsurprising to read GeekfinderGeneral's comments in another thread to the effect that traffic has been on the slide. Frankly I care less about whether the style is G.W.R., L.N.W.R., L.B.S.C.R. or Vienna secessionist but get it done and get it finished. Actually I do care about the style but it is more important that it is of high quality and consistent. Done well, a railway refreshment facility can earn more from passing trade, unconnected with the railway. Difficult in the Bridgnorth situation but at least there would be fewer people thinking "God, I'm not going in there".

P.H.

 

I am afraid it appears that GF-G has been banished to the naughty step once again for his knowledgeable and always thought provoking contribution to his subject area. As a personal point of view, I prefer redaction if the complaints are about 'names', rather than losing the thrust and continuation of the thread. We risk losing a valuable contributor who's only fault is to speak as he see's.

I agree with all the PH says above concerning Bridgnorth, although the last sentence may be a little wide of the mark -Railwayman's is always popular. The newly appointed Heritage Committee, now responsible for planning the Bridgnorth re-development can be relied upon to deliver what is expected by both the membership and visitors.

 

I was just simply stating what I thought was the thought process was on both the boards of railways and the public as to attracting more visitors, I certainly don't support all extensions on grounds of sustainability, the CVR one I do question a little, but I'm not close enough to know enough about it to put a cohesive argument together. As I've made clear before, I probably wouldn't support our eventual extension to Honeybourne if it weren't for a mainline connection. And If you were to stretch my half a dozen "days out" this year on the GWR to maybe one a year, that makes 6 years where more things change than in 6 months, so would carry on going after that. It was a compressed example so to speak, but I agree, not all extensions are good, only some

 

I have to plead guilty. It was my own personal reaction to Bridgnorth facilities which was "God I'm not going in there". Where lavatories are concerned people rarely have the option at times of great need though!

No need to add to my oft expressed "huh!" views about 90+% of extension projects.

PH

 

Extensions are the sexy side of heritage railways, together with new steam locos but there has to be a limit, and as most heritage railways were not originally built as self contained entities they mostly lack the facilities to maintain what they have. On the NYMR, to take the example I am most familiar with, Grosmont depot has grown over the years but is still inadequate for the task it fulfills, and with the addition of the Grosmont-Whitby section it is really at the wrong end of the line as most business originates there, hence that is here the locos ought to start and finish their day. Pickering C & W is inadequate, and the railway has no carriage storage shed. ideally it needs one at each end of the line as there will always be a need to store coaches at either end. To provide these the railway needs more land as it currently has little spare. There are thus many projects in need of money that would better serve the railway than an extension to Malton that would simply strain already stretched resources further. We have to be realistic, the top priority ought to be to secure and improve what we already have.

 

Paul - I can understand the comment "not going in there" if reffering to the exterior of buffet, the interior is not too bad, but you then mention toilets. I cant vouch for the ladies but the gents are whilst perhaps a bit tired are generally clean and more than adequate. I have been in posh hotels and had much worse experience. Like most facilities using them off the first train is a different experience to the last.Toilets are however part of the equation for Bridgnorth but you seemingly cant stop people droping stuf on the floor even in the best facilities.

 

The CVR itself is simply looking at extending to have a destination/start point. At present we go from 'Middle of Nowhere' to 'Absolutely Nowhere', even if Froghall is a very scenic location steeped in industrial history. The 30 miles is what probably raises the alarm, but remember it will a 30 mile network, not a 30 mile line! Plus it's upto 30 miles as not all the extensions are finalised.

The Northern Extension into Leek will take us into the nearest big market town, providing a big start point for any travellers as a new station is being built as part of the Council's redevelopment of a brownfield area including a new Canal marina.
http://www.howplanning.com/media/file/consultations/LeekExhibitionBoardsFinal_lowres.pdf

The Eastern Extension to Waterhouses will take us into the middle of the Peak District and the start of the Manifold Trail, which is a big honeypot area for tourists during the summer and on warmer days. Being able to tap into this market will be of huge benefit, especially as our Cauldon services are currently our most popular despite only going to the former exchange sidings at present (suppose it helps having a 5mile climb of 1in45/59 gradients though...).

The Southernly extension (if there is one) will see us extended to either Oakamoor if planning approval is granted for a new holiday camp, or further on to Alton Towers if the Council feel a railway line is required to help combat the traffic congestion. Whilst both options rely on other parties, if either is agreed to we will be able to provide a service to start/end points for people making a journey. Coincidently there is also ideas for the development of Froghall to make this more of a destination place as well, with a combined Canal/Railway museum explaining the history of the area being one option.

The days of providing simply a journey have gone, as people's wants have changed. You need extras to provide a full day out for people, though agreed not everyone will take this option up. But if they go away knowing they haven't done it all, there is more chance of them returning.

The Western extension to Stoke is more MCR than CVR itself, but the CVR will still benefit as it'll provide a mainline connection, something which you say is the only reason for your support of any Honeybourne extension. I can see this line being used more for a commercial service from Leek onto the Mainline, and by the proposed Freight Traffic MCR are looking to re-instate to/from Cauldon Lowe. CVR trains along this line will be saved more for special events. With roughly 7 miles for CVR services (Leek - Froghall), and 9 miles to Waterhouses, providing enough services on these lines will keep CVR busy!

 

Unfortunatly its the old chestnut, what comes first, better customer facilities or upkeep of the perminent way and better workshop space and facilities so you can do more inhouse ? some railway facilities are dreadful, some very good, but whats worse for the public, decent toilets and cafe, but coaches that are dirty, with threadbare seats and faided paintwork, or the other way round? same coin, different faces, my view is that neither are acceptable how much does it cost to spuce up the public areas, to ensure your coaches are clean, its better in my eye to spend money on this than some big scheme that just massages someones ego, small amounts spent on such as referbishing the toilets and buffet will bring a benifit, as will having a proper cleaning regieme for coaches and would again be cost effective

 

Perhaps inevitably, particularly in view of the time of year, my reaction to this one (CVR empire) is definitely "Huh! in excelsis".

P.H.

 

Why? Leek Extension is 1 mile, and is a joint venture alongside the canal.
http://www.howplanning.com/media/file/consultations/LeekExhibitionBoardsFinal_lowres.pdf
Railway part of it will come under "Reconnect Leek" banner, and is being done in collaboration with MCR and Hulme Upright Architects. More of these plans will come out in 2014, though the first proposals have already been on display.
http://www.leek-news.co.uk/Residents-plans-return-railway/story-20133324-detail/story.html

The rest of the plans fall in line with the Council's planned redevelopment of the area to increase tourism.
http://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/sm/council-services/area-action-plans/churnet-valley-masterplan

MCR themselves have received support from the Government, in the form of a succesful RGF Bid, and they have recruited Adrian Shooter to assist with the Project
http://www.mcrailways.co.uk/news

This isn't going to happen overnight, it's part of the Long Term Goals. The SVR, Bluebell, NYMR etc didn't happen overnight yet look at them now. Who'd have thought a new platform would be built at Whitby for NYMR trains back in 1967 when the Society was first formed?

 

long term aims? well doesnt it differ from railway to railway, no two will be the same, nor should they, for instance, if you go for a day out at the bluebell you will be looking for something different to that of say a day out at Kesr, Bluebell i would expect to see southern region/ southern railway inferstructure because thats the overlying time span, where as on the Kesr i would prefer it if they stuck to the light railway model, ie small engines and 4 wheel or vintage stock, keep the mk1s for a dining train, otherwise what do you get, the same as any other railway in the south east, prehaps the Kesr would do well to concentrate on the vintage stock, restore more 4 wheelers and convert the Mk1 's to all first semi pulman and had 2 dining rakes and pushed these as they make money , that would my long term plan, to give the public an unique experience

 

Why Huh! about the CVR proposals? Well, I used to know the area and the geography will not have changed. Most of the population centres are very much uphill from the railway so loaded shopping bags have to be carried uphill. When I say Cheddleton village, for example, is uphill from the station, boy is it uphill! This is railway preservation promoted by people, politicians and gricers alike, who have not used a local railway in earnest in their lives and are in love with the romanticism of it all. Never mind the practicality feel the romance. Someone else will pay.

As for the possibility of mineral traffic, this has considerably more sense about it but progress is glacial. "Waiting for Godot" piled up upon "jam tomorrow but never jam today". The speed with which the Somerset quarry owners adapted their railway to accept main line stone trains shows that Cauldon could be re-connected to the network at the wink of an eye if the quarrying interests were really interested.

P.H.

 

But the Leek-Froghall services wont be aimed at local shoppers, and neither will Waterhouses. CVR purpose is to provide a day out for visitors to the area both young and old onboard a heritage train on a tourist basis. These destinations will do that as explained above, as it's not just the journey but what else is on offer as well. The commercial commuter and freight traffic mentioned is more MCR, who have been created to help with our own planned extensions as we were never going to achieve them in a realistic timeframe at a reasonable cost solely by ourselves. MCR though need a benefit for themselves, which is where the Stoke Line comes in with the freight & commuter services. Reason the Quarry hasn't opened up overnight is MCR are yet to make final agreement for the entire line from Leek Brook to Stoke. Once an agreement is in place though, as you say things may happen very quickly!

 

Everyone should remember that whilst this forum is (as Tom described it) rather like a pub discussion, the critical difference is that it is a publication...so different rules apply.

 

The problem I have with the CVR is that the railway is currently very under-resourced with motive power and rolling stock for the network proposed. It will have to come from somewhere. Now, there is some (very limited) movement of locos from site to site, but wholesale movement of coaching stock is very rare, and how many lines have surplus coaches that they can afford to lose? Any expansion of the CVR (and other new generation lines, come to that) will tend to be at the expense and dilution of existing lines. Is that a positive scenario?

 

Depends. A number of the MPD lads recently clubbed together & bought 2x TKH from Spa Valley. They were never going to be restored for use at Spa, so their movement to CVR is positive for us as we get 2 steam locos, positive for Spa as they get their siding space and positive for the locos as they get restored. Situations like this exist up/down preserved railways of the UK and so things could be developed along similar lines.

How many railways have recently had clearouts of unwanted rolling stock? NYMR and GWSR stick out, and I'm sure others will follow. The biggest issue for CVR will be cost of purchase and restoration of any such vehicles, but that's a different question altogether. We need to get our extensions complete first!