True Preservation

I think that tends to be lineside photographers at diesel galas...

Regarding is it possible to create a truly authentic scene; in a museum, maybe, as has been suggested on that tramway street, but a working railway I'd suggest it is nigh on impossible, I know I've moaned about people complaining about trash in the yard, but more often than not it all has a purpose.

 

I'm sure it all has a purpose, but does it need to fill every yard? I know track is expensive, but as a goal, wouldn't it be nice to have just one little station restored as a country station rather than as a parking/storing place for miscellaneous stock?

 

Some railways simply cannot afford to let all that potential storage space go - perhaps the larger the line, the more likely it is at least one of the stations will be more historically accurate? Also I think with all these new extensions going to new stations, the days of reinstating the track in yards has gone due to the price of track - then again how many current extensions will there be a resonably historically accurate station - Corwen is having scaffolding at the moment - CVR/MCR at leek is certainly not the original leek platform...?

 

I think reasonably authentic recreations are possible, especially if it is just for photographic purposes as you can get away with a lot more than if you aim to make it 'authentic' to walk around. Inevitably it will be the little details that a pedant can point out, and these can often be disguised or excluded from a photo where it would be much more difficult to hide them from someone standing right alongside, but ultimately does it really matter enough to go to the time and effort to try disguising minor details?


Preserved railways aren't a film set, they also don't have unlimited space for storage away from the public gaze (and when stuff is stored out of sight you can get enthusiasts moaning they can't see any of it!).

 

but most of the income doesn't come from enthusiasts, it comes from Joe Public and all they see is another siding full of scrap

 

Yet again I will say this - I have never heard anyone from the general public complaining about scrap in sidings, the only places I have seen it have been here, where enthusiasts have been guessing at what the uneducated masses might not like. In fact I've even sometimes seen and heard people looking at the "scrap" and getting quite interested about it sometimes.

Here's some of the latest feedback on the GWR lifted from the boardroom blog:

 

well do you think they like looking at the lines of "scrap" or would prefer, say, looking at flower beds? It really is sticking your head in the sand to say that no one minds because no one complains. I suspect they just ignore those areas and concentrate on the attractive sections. Did you ever see a non-enthusiast photographing the "scrap"?

 

Yes (I think it might have been that Japanese couple!) I'll admit that scrap certainly shouldn't be a feature of a heritage railway and it would be nice to do something about it, I only mention complaints or lack of as it shows that most people are not really bothered. When a railway only has limited resources (as all do) its focus naturally will be on things that do come up in complaints, dirty loos, carriages etc. Perhaps once all these problems are addressed and there is nothing else to complain about other than scrap then people might do so, and then the railway might do something about it.

 

Have you done extensive market research to find out if this is a concern to Joe Public or are you presuming to know what they like and dislike without asking them and based on your own likes and dislikes?

 

Have to agree with you Spamcan - whilst I can't say I've done extensive market research, I'm on the train quite often going to and from the workshop and as a volunteer I do listen to what people say about the railway (I try not to but in and correct them if they are wrong as I have seen people complain about that - I imagine it can be quite annoying) and as I have said, I have never heard anyone mention the "scrap" other than very occasionally as a point of interest e.g. "Ooh look at that, I wonder what that is...?"

 

I think in any case it is a bit of a mistake to assume that everyone can be neatly classified as "enthusiast" or "non-enthusiast" - it is much greyer than that, and much more of a continuum. Even amongst enthusiasts, someone who is, say, very knowledgeable about locomotives may know relatively little about carriages, or someone with knowledge about the railways of southern England may know not much about Welsh narrow gauge etc.

Moreover, even amongst people who might admit to not being much of a railway enthusiast may still have great knowledge about or interest in other facets of what we do: for example, historic building conservation, and may be very interested in such. So I think it is dangerous to try and neatly parcel everyone into nice defined boxes and automatically assume that because someone is in box A, they therefore won't want to see something in box B...

Tom

 

maybe so, but what you are trying to do is justify the Status Quo. Maybe it's you should be doing the Market Research? I happen to like the "scrap" , but there surely is a place for a yard without it.

 

There probably is on a railway with enough space - it can put all the necessaries in some yards, then save one yard to make properly authentic, but as I have said, not all railways have the luxury of being able to put one yard "aside" for purely heritage purposes.

 

Add to this the circumstances of a visit. When visiting by myself or with enthusiast mates, I'll be wanting something different to when I visit with my non enthusiast partner. There must be many, many people in the same boat.

 

Having been managing a railway for the last 25 years, I constantly wonder what our visitors want, and do not want, to see. Individuals will often tell you, but the problem is that they are individuals- ask 100 of them and you will probably get 100 different answers! On the whole, though, I am sure that they like to see something that appears well looked-after and well run and something like the "real" railway that they remember/have seen pictures of. That means that we must give constant thought to the appearance of the place and that, in turn, means that unsightly stock and scrap should be kept as far out of sight of the public as possible. Some railways do manage it- we do at Mangapps, in spite of having one of the largest collections of goods rolling stock in the country (ahem, sorry about the plug!) You can seldom recreate exactly the appearance of the 1960s or before in the 21st century, if only because, even if you go to immense trouble to recreate, say, a 1930s station, you will probably be running 1960s/70s stock through it. Still, you can get tolerably close if you try hard enough.

 

to get back on topic again,

the Isle of Man Steam Railway gets my vote,

and the Dean Forest Railway has great charm and character.

the narrow gauge lines have one distinct advantage over standard gauge in that they are running at the same speed. therefore from a passenger's perspective they are far more authentic than the standard gauge preserved lines.

going back to the Talyllyn it is no longer anything like the railway it was at any stage pre-1951. passing loops, horrible little wooden blockposts, the hideous 'new' water tank at Dolgoch, and Wharf, Abergynolwyn, and Nant Gwernol have all changed out of all recognition. important features of the original line such as the Abergynolwyn winding house were actually demolished to allow the extension to be built.

on the other hand the Ffestiniog is (apart from the deviation and Blaenau Ffestiniog) even more representative of the railway in pre-presevation days than it was a few years ago. examples include the building of new locos and carriages that didnt survive, the excellent restoration of the old loco shed and various other heritage projects plus coal burning locos again!

cheers,
julian

 

I am not trying to justify the status quo but merely pointing out that it can be folly for anyone to assume they know what the customer wants without having found out in the first place.

 

It is worth pointing out that viewing 'true preservation' as 'keeping everything exactly as it was' is a narrow view. Many railways try to present a recreation of an area (say a Southern branch line in the 1950s) rather than the history of the exact piece of line they have been able to save. You can't ignore that (apart from those designed as self contained entities) we only have parts of a wider network now. Even lines preserved with an original, complete motive power depot on site (Swanage, Spa Valley, are there any more?) need more space for overhauls etc that were done 'offsite' at the nearest works, an option we have long since lost. And carriage or permanent way storage is another thing....

Overall I think the IWSR has the right balance here by adopting a policy of locating these activities away from the main station area where possible, but we are fortunate in owning some land around the station itself and not being in a built up area. Many lines are not so lucky.