True Preservation

IMO the most offensive departures from originality there are the farm-like fence in front of the signalbox and the tarmaced roadway . If the 'elf and safety people insisted a fence was really needed perhaps spearpoint or timber palings might have been better. The roadway was far more original/authentic with gravel and potholes (instead of speed humps).

 

Would that also include concrete filled milk churns?

 

But you are looking at it from the viewpoint of an enthusiast and if I may say so, one who is very critical of many things heritage. The vast majority of visitors will be the general public who will almost to a man be seeing things through different eyes than your good self. Whilst old luggage may be anathema to you, I'd wager it is of much less importance to the general public. Loos, catering, cleanliness of stock and perceived value for money will be of much more importance to them. If we really want to represent railways "as they were," then it's time to drastically reduce the time table, shut the cafes and bookshops and forget to clean the locos.

 

At one time I'd have agreed about Highley (depending exactly what at any given time was being stored in the sidings), but these days even if you position yourself to not see the eye-sore that once was Stanley Colliery, the station itself has been ruined by an infectious disease of OTT fencing that 10 years ago wasn't deemed necessary and didn't exist.

Some temporary plastic fencing used to be erected outside the signal box if there was a gala (and thus huge numbers of people expected), but the rest of the year there was nothing. ....then the plastic fencing started to get left in place permanently - but at least there wasn't fencing all over the other end around the station drive. Now it's sprung up everywhere, like pesky weeds in a fine lawn. The whole effect has altered Highley from a pleasant stopping off point to sit and watch the world go by, to just another station with little to visually commend it. Once everything has been taken into consideration (you can't just 'not see' the colliery site), the station has been ruined by development that is far from sympathetic to the surroundings IMHO.



I suspect if viewed in isolation some of the most authentic looking 'preserved' stations on any railway are likely to be the halts. On the Talyllyn these are little more than a style or gate in the fence with a sign board alongside, and I dare say most passengers wouldn't even realise they could join/alight at them - but that's how they've always been. Perhaps Northwood Halt on the SVR? ...or dare I even suggest Erdington as well - an example of a small station that's been closed, sidings used by the regional PW department for storage etc. The post and wire fence along the platform edge is a bit out of place, and these days the flower beds being looked after might not sit too well with its 'closed' status - depends how recently they've been looked at as to how overgrown they've become! Berwyn Station on the Llangollen might not be too removed from the past - a small cluster of milk churns (depending on their condition!) and perhaps an excess of park benches, but otherwise...

Because they're unmanned with few facilities, halts often don't suffer from the problem of abandoned weather worn luggage left uncollected by its owners, corroding milk churns which you wouldn't want to consider eating the contents of, or sidings full of either abandoned rusting rolling stock, or an assortment of vehicles not wholly appropriate for the location. Halts don't have modern toilet facilities, cafes, gift shops, a mass of modern signs, can be in remote locations with no tarmac car parks etc. etc.

 

Interesting points. I guess it's only the enthusiast would like to see it as it really was, and the General Public needs to be protected from itself nowadays. Shame.

For a Photo Charter maybe, it would be nice to see a complete country station with goods yard et al that looks as if it is in use still, something I never really saw in reality. A pannier shunting lazily, coal being unloaded, wagons in the shed and , yes, some cattle in the pens. Never going to happen!

 

As was highlighted in the thread where similar themes were discussed a few months ago, it rather depends what you're expecting from a 'preserved' railway. If you consider it as a railway based theme park that presents a smattering of nostalgia (some authentic, some imagined) brought together into one place that probably doesn't represent any one specific time or location in history - then you're not going to go too far wrong, and hopefully the visitor attraction will attract enough custom and make enough money to allow the enthusiasts to run it all as their hobby.

...if one views a 'preserved' railway as a historically accurate recreation, or 'preservation' of the past, then one is doomed to failure.


The subject of this thread appears to have been to discuss the most authentically preserved railway/station/location. In that respect modern tourist facilities and set piece reconstructions are an anathema, even if considered and accepted as essential for a tourist attraction to draw in the visitors.

 

For photo charters or film/TV work it's much easier to get things looking right. 'Stage dressing' is easier to arrange - the lichen growing on a suitcase that lives permanently outdoors isn't visable on a photo taken from a distance, neither is the moss growing on the platform around the base of a milk churn that never moves. Modern warning signs can be removed, and if the organiser is willing to pay enough (ie. big budget movies), then fences can be taken down, modern light fittings removed, appropriate 'dirt' and weathering applied if necessary, even whole lengths of track relaid if necessary!

When you're there in person you see things in close up and the fine details matter, you do see the whole environment around you in a way that a camera can be selective and exclude things from out of the frame.

 

To run a railway that was an accurate recreation of the past would be almost impossible in this day and age of ever increasing 'elf n' safetee' so we'll have to do with what we've got.

 

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily totally disagree with you, much is also down to interpretation. Most health & safety legislation doesn't actually say "...thou shalt do this, "...thou shall not do that", it tends to require that risks and hazards are identified, managed or controlled. The law then leaves it to individual individuals/companies to do this work and justify their actions if necessary.

The "problems" arise when health & safety consultants or officers then apply their own interpretations on top of the basic legislation, there by effectively creating their own rules and H&S requirements. Perhaps understandably there is a tendency to go overboard so subsequently it is easy to demonstrate that all possible efforts had been made to avoid the risk/hazard, even if the analysis showed the chances of it ever happening are remote.

To try and take a railway based example - on the mainline you'll see everyone walking around wearing high-vis and often hard hats, even in some instances when working on platforms alongside the public (who presumably are safe in the same situation without needing high-vis and hart hats!). If an employee was caught without wearing what is deemed appropriate safety clothing then they would breaking 'H&S rules' and risking their job.

Go to a preserved railway and some have rules requiring high-vis is worn everywhere by everyone. Some have rules that mean high-vis is only worn by some people in some locations eg. signalman exchanging tokens track side don't need high-vis, people working in workshops don't need high-vis etc. I assume the risk assessment could be that the signalman is already aware that a train is approaching and the direction it is coming from, hence why he's out there in the first place. The train crew are also expecting to see the signalman standing right alongside the track to perform the exchange as well, and as such high-vis clothing has little added benefit to offer.

It would probably be found that all circumstances above comply with "health & safety law", although some interpretations appear to contradict others. What is seen and quoted as "H&S requirements" by one company might be interpreted differently elsewhere.

 

I'd be very surprised if any railway could get away with it's PW and associated staff going trackside without modern PSE. I agree with the bit about the signalman though.

 

I wasn't suggesting some railways dispense with high-vis altogether, but whilst a preserved line might assess that some locations don't require it, on the mainline those same situations would probably be viewed as a gross breach of safety regulations if someone was caught without. The same H&S law, but two different interpretations of it. I dare say if staff were going trackside on a day when there aren't any vehicle movements at all, then a risk assessment could determine high-vis is unnecessary.

It's just obviously easier to have one blanket rule that says something is always mandatory rather than assessing risks on a dynamic basis. The same thing applies elsewhere. It always amuses me to spot people in the middle of field wearing a hard hat when there's clearly no risk at all of either anything falling on them, or them banging their head on anything. Clearly their employer has a company policy that always requires head protection be worn irrespective of whether it is actually of any benefit or not. The usual situation is you see a couple of blokes in a field with survey staffs marking out for building and development work. The company rules will say full PPE when on site, ignoring what and where the site is and whether or not there are any realistic risks associated with it. Once machinery arrives and development work actually begins there might be some benefit, but whilst it's still an empty field with just grass, there's no risk.

 

Maybe so but pw/s&t etc. do need to go about their business on ruining days. There many other rules and regulations that have changed since the days of steam and these have to be followed whether we like it or not. I wonder how a railway would fare if all disabled friendly access and devices were removed because "that's the way it was in the days of yore." No matter how hard a railway tries, it can only approximate a mid 19th to mid 20th century railway atmosphere in the 21st century.

 

I don't disagree with what you're generally saying, and in the previous thread my argument was that whilst modern preserved railways aren't really authentic, it's also unreasonable to expect them to be authentic. Anybody who claims a preserved railway, the way it operates, or the artefacts found upon it are an accurate portrayal of how it was in the past is kidding themselves.

It doesn't matter that they're not authentic, seeing as historic authenticity isn't the product they're selling, but it is worth accepting and acknowledging the fact.

 

I agree but there are those who berate them for not being "authentic."

 

I may be bias here but i can suggest Bowes is fairly accurate recreation of a colliery railway, Tanfield shows light railways and Beamish provides a fairly accurate recreation of a country station, as well as a typical colliery environment. Since it is a museum it does not suffer the ravages of health and safety.

 

Then prepare to be very surprised! I visited a very well known, major HR yesterday, just as someone had run-through a locked turnout on a run-round loop. Several PW/S&T men and the "bobby" attended, but only the S&T supervisor wore hi-vis, and it was of an old design which which would be unacceptable on the main-line.
I have no problem with that. They were running steam and a knot of brightly hi-vis clad workers would have looked very out of place. Workers on HRs are not obliged to wear hi-vis, even when on or near the track. It is up to the railway's management to assess the risk, and on railways with a speed limit of 25 m.p.h. or less the level of risk is very low.

Hi-vis clothing was introduced on the main-line after the end of steam, to address the problem of accidents resulting from faster and quieter trains.
Where that danger exists on HRs, then it has to be addressed, but I suggest that in most cases hi-vis is unnecessary.

 

Unfortunately many volunteers appear to regard a hi-viz vest as a badge of office and persist in wearing them in inappropriate situations, such as on the platform or on the footplate.

 

so, an authentic recreation isn't possible is the consensus then? So how come Crich tramway museum can manage an entire street scene that looks pretty authentic to me (from photos).
I think it's laziness that allows a yard full of unrestored unrelated stock to clog up an otherwise picture perfect yard in some places.
It's not only railways, I always look at the jumble of stock on roads 5 and 6 at Didcot, facing the most public view point of the site (the avoiding line and the no8 demonstration line)