Is a physical rail connection important?

Just because preserved lines may have to be accessed by road doesn't mean that they aren't contributing to reducing traffic by providing a non-road means of accessing the countryside they run through or destinations they run to. A number of lines allow access without having to build roads to otherwise inaccessible areas, or areas with at best very poor roads, that would exclude most people from being able to enjoy the remote beauty, at least without destroying the very remoteness!

Steven

 

Back to the original question...... Is a physical connection important?

Yes and if you have one, can open greater and new opportunities to run your railway business.

Is it the be all and end all?
No. Look how plenty of railways, in fact all at some point, have been able to grow their business.

 

Agreed.

It always annoys me that when West Ham play at home, the roads of the eastern suburbs of London jam up for ages. Despite the fact that they now play at a stadium which was built for the public transport friendly Olympics. Within easy walking distance of Stratford stations and bus stations.

 

I believe the issue was not to do with low loaders - rather broken springs and tyre wear rates due the worn state of some of the Bluebells track.

Having said that, as a general rule winching on and off low loaders does place strain on things that wouldn't usually be subjected to strain if the loco was on a railway - the steepness of the ramp and the transitions to and from the flat being particular areas of concern - especially long wheelbase locos. Its why the A1 trust are very reluctant to let Tornado be taken to a non NR connected line and the NRM have made similar noises regarding Flying Scotsman

 

Most of the ramps that I've seen are pretty crude. If a railway / haulier invested in something longer, more rigid and with a proper concave vertical curve at the bottom there would be less strain.

 

With the completion of the GWSR extension to Broadway in the next year or so the spotlight will move to the potential main-line connection at Honeybourne, where the NR station was rebuilt a few years ago to allow the GWSR its own platform and access under the NR lines. There seems to be a view amongst some at the GWSR that Broadway is enough and that there is no value in the further extension. In view of some of the comments posted above would readers recommend that the GWSR continue to Honeybourne to connect to the NR or stop at Broadway ?

 

I don't understand why you singled out the GCR as it does have a Network Rail connection. The problem the GCR has is that it is not connected with itself.

 

Also where do you stand on something like the Welsh Highland? It certainly has a physical connection, in the form of a flat crossing...

 

I was rather amused by the slightly 'Dear Deirdre' title................

Looking at it from a personal perspective, I live in Frome, the two major preserved lines in striking distance - he WSR & The Swanage are both about 50 miles away and perfectly driveable. In any event when the Swanage gets to Wareham, and even of the WSR were to get a 'cross platform' connection due to the nature of rail services hereabouts it is highly unlikely that I would ever travel to either by train.

However in recent years I have made visits to The Bluebell, Paignton & Dartmouth & South Devon Railways by train - including two trips to the P&D when staying at Exmouth. The Bluebell isn't really driveable from here unless you are going mob handed with another driver, the P&D starts from the middle of Paignton (The Land That Taste Forgot) so not having to drive through the town and then find parking is a big plus - to say nothing of the run along the seafront at Dawlish

So I would say a NR passenger collection is a plus and may make the difference between me visiting & not

 

Heard this about the tyre wear at any rate, from what I suspect was a "horses mouth" source. Like so much about railway preservation, physical connections would seem to come in the "not bad to have" rather than the "must have" category!

PH

 

Absolutely . If you can get your connection subsidised fair enough, if you have to pay NR for it yourself then your are putting playing at trains before the long term health of your railway. I do not know of any preserved railway long or short in this country that does not need masses of investment in renewing rail, formation, let alone carriages, loco fireboxes etc. all priorities before paying NR for a mainline connection.

Brian

 

When I joined the GWSR in 1977, its main aim was to prevent closure of the line between Stratford upon Avon and Cheltenham. By 1981, it had changed its aim to preserve as much of the line as possible having been unable to prevent closure and subsequent selling off of the "Honeybourne Line." The purchase of 18 miles of trackbed to a point just south of the 1st overbridge north of Broadway Stn alone was considered by some to be very risky at the time and yours truly had great doubts about the GWSR ever reaching Cheltenham CRC, let alone Broadway. It is a joy to be proved wrong on occasions! My view, FWIW is that a connection to Honeybourne (5 miles from Broadway) is perfectly possible, the trackbed having been, to some extent, left clear and unobstructed. (I am not certain but I believe the trackbed to be in local authority ownership between Broadway and Honeybourne with Sustrans being the main user - others will doubtless confirm or amend this) There is provision for an extension due to post-1976 changes having taken account of future line extension: the overbridge of the A44 Broadway Bypass and the renewed Double Track overbridge on the Oxford Worcester Line as well as provision at Honeybourne Stn itself. If the GWSR were to remain true to its original aim, it would be a natural progression to extend to Honeybourne. The line from Honeybourne north to Long Marston is still in use and north of that to Stratford is doubtless a lost cause. By extending to Honeybourne, in due course, the GWSR would future proof the line by giving it greater flexibility for visiting traffic and for other reasons mentioned in this thread. The line from Broadway to Honeybourne is less picturesque than the southern section but still very pleasant and Honeybourne itself has grown in size over the years, so much so that the original BR station was reopened in 1981 and completely rebuilt a few years ago with double track reinstalled. Finally, there aren't any cuttings that have been filled in with garbage!

The big issue is cost of course with its associated ROI. The investment will be huge, I would say around £1.5 million per mile as a conservative estimate, and would be outwith the means of the GWSR itself. In addition, the GWSR will need to continue to invest in infrastructure and one item on the list which, IMHO, is required is a carriage storage shed at Winchcombe. In itself this is not particularly expensive but it will need planning, funding and building. In the meantime, mother Nature will continue to strip paint, wear away structures, encroach with vegetation etc.
I think a Honeybourne extension is not a WIBN scheme; I think it's a vital link, if only for "future proofing" the line) but I haven't done a cost benefit analysis and I don't have all the facts and figures available. That said, a Honeybourne extension will not happen until Broadway has "settled in" (sensible in any case as Broadway customer data is not yet available) and so I would expect a possible planning of any Honeybourne extension not to commence until at least 2020. When it does, it will need financial backing from a third party in my view- we can't keep asking supporters for money. (Well we can I suppose and, what the heck, you can't take it with you!)

 

I've got several problems with Honeybourne personally. First, the cost. When I first joined a few years ago, it was estimated at £10million. Last time I asked it had gone up to £12million. How much will it be by the time we get round it it!? Whilst it is unobstructed, the whole formation is generally in dreadful condition, with lots of bridges falling apart and embankments slipping all over the place from what I understand.

Secondly, the distance. It's an extra 5 miles from Broadway to Honeybourne. I fear we would struggle to operate that kind of distance without changing our railway for the worse. Getting enough staff would be difficult, and also enough carriages for trains.

Also, as some folk have mentioned before (@Jamessquared IIRC) extending to Honeybourne might have some unintended consequences in terms of passenger journeys. We might sell an awful lot of Honeybourne to Winchcombe tickets but no one wanting to go as far as CRC, as the journey's too long and there's no point.

I think 2020 is a bit early to be thinking about any extension plans anyway. Once we get to Broadway, for a start it needs to be finished! We won't have a carpark or buildings on platform two or a finished footbridge when we open. And once that's done there is this much promised Winchcombe redevelopment to think about, to make better use of the space we have. That won't be instant or cheap either.

If we do decide that really, we'd like a mainline connection at some point as it would be useful, I'd far rather look at Cheltenham as a possibility. It's much closer, and whilst it is more obstructed, £12million is a lot of money to do things with for less half the distance if we're comparing to a Honeybourne extension, either following the original trackbed or the "deviation" as suggested by some, which brings the extension length down to under a mile.

 

Sorry but to me Honeybourne is W.I.B.N. in excelsis.

PH

 

Two things here, firstly the vast majority of people visiting railways or other attractions will arrive by car for the simple reason it's much more convenient and cheaper than any alternative. Increasing traffic, yes but also putting money in the local economy as the traders in Bridgnorth found out to their cost after the floods a few years ago.
Moving stock will always be done by road as, again there is no alternative unless it's passed to run over NR. I don't really think it matters a jot whether a railway is connected to the network or not to the average visitor, the only advantage being the ability to accept main line railtour.

 

Even towed I don't think a loco or stock would be allowed on NR without being passed for running and I think you will find a road hauliers charge would be a lot less anyway.

 

Curious to know why you can't drive from Frome to the Bluebell!

 

For any business it is important to be easily accessible so having good public transport connections to the heritage railway in question is important. Remember, not everyone drives or want to drive a long distance!

Good examples for me are the WSR which has a bus service (not run by them) from the national rail station at Taunton which connects to Bishops Lydeard. Even better is to be next to or near to a national rail station such as the DSR, SDR, Bluebell, SVR etc... This is good especially when travelling a long distance and then not having to then change for another form of transport or having to walk a distance.

In terms of having a connection with Network Rail, it depends on where the connection is... Some lines such as the SDR and Bodmin have their connection the wrong way effectively, meaning any train going from NR to the heritage line has to basically reverse on the the heritage line (not ideal for charters). Other lines such as the DSR and Bluebell in which a train can go straight from NR to the heritage line without the need to reverse (basically a smooth transaction). Some lines which have a connection rarely use them so there not essential but definitely open up new markets such as charters which can be very good business provided they are regular and don't effect the normal running of the heritage railway.

 

We will agree to disagree then. Time and money will tell.