What preserved railway extension would you most like to see?

[duffield]

I think Bodiam - Roberstbridge on the K&ESR, is being done, there is the issue of a main road being crossed however.

Re Spa Valley, they are supposed to be installing a run round loop there, but I don't know if that has happened yet. All being well, I may be going down there in a few weeks, so will have a look. I think Getting back to Tunbridge Wells may be difficult. I suspect there is a supermarket in the way!

I've certainly read that enough space was left when the supermarket was built to allow a single track.

 

[HaggisBotherer]

I've certainly read that enough space was left when the supermarket was built to allow a single track.

Ten seconds looking at the satellite view on Google maps disproves this.

The new-build platfom next to TWW loco shed is not on the same alignment of the original up line (it points directly at, not past, the station building) and any line squeezing past Sainsburys would have to do a remarkable tight S curve to align with Grove Tunnel.

See for yourself from the Street View image from the old railway bridge on Montacute Road:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.1...uOupvI5wBOFFknu8RyJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

That's without the loss of a lot of car parking spaces, the Sainsburys delivery yard and bus stops! In short... a mainline connection at the TW end is completely impractical.

 

[muddythefish]

mere £30 million), would be: the Nene Valley Railway extended from its present western limit, the five or six miles or so onward to the station, in its proper and as-was site, at Oundle. For a good many years after the 1964 closure of the Peterborough -- Northampton through route, the line remained in use at the Peterborough end, as far as Oundle; s".

Oundle station was still derelict in the 1990s and the trackbed intact. The NVR could and should have extended there but unfortunately the station is now a luxury dwelling and the old station yard an estate of private houses. Despite having a head start as one of the first preserved lines, the NVR has never been ambitious and never thought big. Peterborough - Oundle would have been a nice run.

 

[trebor79]

Years ago the Tanfield Railway had vague plans to extend west toward Byermoor. That would have made for a really interesting junction arrangement.

 

[BigCj34]

Haverthwaite to Ulverston! Although the preservation group could not save that part as the government wanted to use the trackbed to build the A590. Also the bridge over the Leven Estuary is gone.

 

[Calthrop]

As to extending to Oundle, I would extend to Northampton!

Don't think small -- how about that, then onward to Blisworth, Towcester, and Stratford-on-Avon ?

 

[Calthrop]

Haverthwaite to Ulverston! Although the preservation group could not save that part as the government wanted to use the trackbed to build the A590. Also the bridge over the Leven Estuary is gone.

Another thing which strikes me about the -- as you say, "couldn't and can't be" extension Haverthwaite -- Ulverston: the branch joins the ex-Furness Railway main line at (always station-less) Plumpton Junction, a couple of miles east of Ulverston. In a preservation context, would give rise to running-powers issues, which have generally proved in this country -- in a national network, vis-a-vis heritage line, context -- to be insoluble. And I personally would loathe a situation of heritage-line trains terminating effectively "nowhere" -- at the site of the junction, with no kind of connection with trains on the "real system": admit that this is a particular individual peeve of mine.

 

[d9009alycidon]

Couple of other Scottish ones that are aspirations of the existing lines - Strathspey railway into Grantown of Spey (needs approximately £5 million) and The Scottish Industrial Railway Centre to buy the existing mothballed freight line and run from Patna to their old site at Dalmellington

 

[bramling]

Another thing which strikes me about the -- as you say, "couldn't and can't be" extension Haverthwaite -- Ulverston: the branch joins the ex-Furness Railway main line at (always station-less) Plumpton Junction, a couple of miles east of Ulverston. In a preservation context, would give rise to running-powers issues, which have generally proved in this country -- in a national network, vis-a-vis heritage line, context -- to be insoluble. And I personally would loathe a situation of heritage-line trains terminating effectively "nowhere" -- at the site of the junction, with no kind of connection with trains on the "real system": admit that this is a particular individual peeve of mine.

In a pure fantasyland, I’d run the L&H down the Bardsea branch and terminate somewhere like the old station at Conishead Priory. Multiple logistical issues would make this almost impossible, not least crossing the main line at Plumpton Junction.

The issues with the A590 south of Haverthwaite don’t look logistically impossible to overcome, the section of trackbed actually used by the A590 is minimal, and seems to have been used purely opportunistically to provide a short section of dual carriageway, which could quite happily be managed without were the alignment to be returned to railway use. However the cost and disruption would no doubt be enormous, simply to end up not reaching Ulverston.

 

[33117]

Always thought it a pity that the plym valley couldn't get any further as from youtube footage i've watched it seems like a fairly attractive route. Sadly however I believe there's a lot of protected wildlife around 1 of the bridges that prevents them from getting further.

 

[bramling]

Always thought it a pity that the plym valley couldn't get any further as from youtube footage i've watched it seems like a fairly attractive route. Sadly however I believe there's a lot of protected wildlife around 1 of the bridges that prevents them from getting further.

Not to mention the usual issue of a popular cycle path. Yes it would be a very nice route.

Again straying into complete fantasy, running up to Yelverton and then reinstating the Princetown branch would be superb.

 

[Roast Veg]

Ten seconds looking at the satellite view on Google maps disproves this.

The new-build platfom next to TWW loco shed is not on the same alignment of the original up line (it points directly at, not past, the station building) and any line squeezing past Sainsburys would have to do a remarkable tight S curve to align with Grove Tunnel.

See for yourself from the Street View image from the old railway bridge on Montacute Road:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.1...uOupvI5wBOFFknu8RyJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

That's without the loss of a lot of car parking spaces, the Sainsburys delivery yard and bus stops! In short... a mainline connection at the TW end is completely impractical.

Sainsbury's were originally not permitted to build over the trackbed in case of the line being rebuilt - they then managed to get their toilets built over it and that was that. Even if track could be laid to Tunbridge Wells Central, there's rarely platform space for more than a few minutes, even on weekends. The 281 bus is extremely frequent and reliable, and costs a pound, I don't think any other connection other than a 10 minute walk will ever see the light of day.

 

[Harbornite]

Bridgnorth to Shrewsbury...

 

[daodao]

Updated with post 136

 

[AndrewE]

Any extension that makes the line "somewhere" to "somewhere", or provides an interchange with a station on the national rail network. Some of these lines could then be used, at least during peak periods (Mon-Fri 0700-1000 and 1600-1900) for commuter-style proper rail services with dmus, analogous to the current Mersey Ferry operation.

It would be nice, but the problem is that supplying Public Transport (as opposed to a short day out) is very expensive even when done on a shoe-string. You need full-time staff for the additional 52-week operation, if you want to run at 0700 and 1900 then that's 2 of each type of operator, you need reliable rolling stock (with spares) and to top it all you will get next to no revenue from your "commuter assets" outside commuting time. Compare that with the economics of an Inter city railway that is heavily used all day (and we know how profitable they are - not!...)
Re the Mersey ferries, https://www.merseyferries.co.uk/about-us/Pages/20-year-vision-for-Mersey-Ferries.aspx says

The strategy is centred around bringing down the cost of the Mersey Ferries to the public purse, while building on their commercial potential, ensuring they are sustainable well into the future. It suggests a focus on growing the local leisure market and highlights some far reaching proposals.

Proposals include the procurement of at least one new vessel, better suited to the needs of the leisure and event market; resources focussed into one Wirral landing stage with the closure of the other, and a later start to the commuter service to allow the ferry to be docked overnight to significantly reduce operational costs.

While endorsement will be sought for the overall strategy in January, Members will not be taking any decisions on any of the proposals outlined at that stage. These will be presented to Members at future meetings with detailed evidence to support each approach, so informed decisions can be taken.

While their public subsidy for operational costs has been reduced by around £1m over the past four years through such measures as taking The Royal Daffodil out of service and increasing leisure sailings, the Mersey Ferries still have to be subsidised by around £1.5m a year for day-to-day costs.

In addition, an average of around just under £2.5m a year of public money has been spent on capital programmes over the past six years including investment in maintaining the current Vessels and a new Pier Head Landing Stage.

These costs are despite them being the most popular paid for attraction on Merseyside.[/quote]

 

[daodao]

The most useful extensions would be those that enable a line to go from "somewhere to somewhere" or connect properly to the National Rail network, so that they could be used for real journeys. Some of these preserved lines could be used for dmu commuter-style operations during Mon-Fri morning and evening peak periods, i.e. 0700-1000 and 1600-1900, and for leisure trips Mon-Fri 1000-1600 and at weekends/bank holidays. The Mersey ferry operates in this way. There are a number of lines that might be potentially suitable for such services, and with appropriate rolling stock, the service could be extended to the appropriate major town/city. One local suggestion would be Rawtenstall-Bury-Heywood-Manchester Victoria.

There are other examples elsewhere, e.g.
Minehead-Bishops Lydeard-Taunton
Swanage-Wareham-Bournemouth
Ongar-Epping
Wirksworth-Duffield-Derby
Stanhope-Bishop Auckland-Darlington

The commuter rolling stock and staff could also be employed at other times at less busy periods - this would conserve use of older heritage steam locomotives and carriages.

 

[AndrewE]

Some of these preserved lines could be used for dmu commuter-style operations during Mon-Fri morning and evening peak periods, i.e. 0700-1000 and 1600-1900, and for leisure trips Mon-Fri 1000-1600 and at weekends/bank holidays. The Mersey ferry operates in this way. The commuter rolling stock and staff could also be employed at other times at less busy periods - this would conserve use of older heritage steam locomotives and carriages .

Perhaps you didn't read the quote I supplied above, here it is again:

While their public subsidy for operational costs has been reduced by around £1m over the past four years... the Mersey Ferries still have to be subsidised by around £1.5m a year for day-to-day costs.

In addition, an average of around just under £2.5m a year of public money has been spent on capital programmes over the past six years including investment in maintaining the current Vessels and a new Pier Head Landing Stage.

These costs are despite them being the most popular paid for attraction on Merseyside.

Where do you think this sort of money will come from? The ferries don't even have to maintain their fences or permanent way!

 

[daodao]

Perhaps you didn't read the quote I supplied above, here it is again:

Where do you think this sort of money will come from? The ferries don't even have to maintain their fences or permanent way!

I was envisaging that any commuter operation would be a joint operation between the preserved line and a national franchised operator, e.g. ELR and Northern in the case of Rawtenstall-Victoria. It would only be justified if the BCR was sufficiently high, and would have to be of net benefit in a wider context even if government subsidy was required. Given the traffic congestion on the M66/M60 and main roads through north M/c, such a service might have a role.

 

[Train Maniac]

Kent and East Sussex to Robertsbridge- Connect to main line, Already happening
West Somerset Railway to Taunton- Already discussed in detail but i do genuinely believe people would use it all year round
Gloucestershire and Warwickshire Railway to Honeybourne and Cheltenham Spa- Connect to National Rail services and opportunity for through railtours and mainline locos. No serious obstacles at Honeybourne end, Cheltenham end a lot more ambitious!
Great Central Railway from Leicester to Ruddington with connection to Trams, Already Happening

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

Hopelessly romantic "wouldn't it be nice" extension and "public service" proposals are, IMHO two of the bigger threats to the continued existence of preserved railways. It is a lesson that each generation seems to have to learn, painfully, over and over again.

 

[The Ham]

I was envisaging that any commuter operation would be a joint operation between the preserved line and a national franchised operator, e.g. ELR and Northern in the case of Rawtenstall-Victoria. It would only be justified if the BCR was sufficiently high, and would have to be of net benefit in a wider context even if government subsidy was required. Given the traffic congestion on the M66/M60 and main roads through north M/c, such a service might have a role.

There is (was?) a plan for new housing at the Western end of the NVR, even with a housebuilder looking at funding the infrastructure costs to allow a commuter service as well as the current heritage services. However, it was found that the operating costs were so high that it would have been cheaper to have a fleet of buses serving more of Peterborough & more frequently & for free than running a rail service.

I don't know the final outcome, but if the houses are being built I can guess what will happen.

You also have to remember that most Heritage lines are run by people who want a full sized trainset rather than people who want to make a lot of money (yes there's people who are commercially minded, but only so far as to ensure that the line continues to be able to run).

It is likely that heritage lines could make more money, at a lower risk, by buying and relocating signal boxes for people to be able to stay in for 3/4/7 day blocks.

Offer them with driving packages, dining packages or whatever other "experiences" the line offers and they are likely to be fully booked for much of the season, almost regardless of how much you charge for it.

 

[daodao]

Hopelessly romantic "wouldn't it be nice" extension and "public service" proposals are, IMHO two of the bigger threats to the continued existence of preserved railways. It is a lesson that each generation seems to have to learn, painfully, over and over again.

Public service proposals should take priority over the desires of the owners of preserved railways to "play trains", provided the business case adds up.

You also have to remember that most Heritage lines are run by people who want a full sized trainset rather than people who want to make a lot of money (yes there's people who are commercially minded, but only so far as to ensure that the line continues to be able to run).

It is likely that heritage lines could make more money, at a lower risk, by buying and relocating signal boxes for people to be able to stay in for 3/4/7 day blocks.

The state, in the form of the local/regional/national authority as appropriate, should have powers to force heritage railways to provide public services in liaison with local transport providers, if the proposal is deemed to be financially viable and in the overall public interest after careful evaluation.

For the example of a Rawtenstall-Manchester Victoria service, I would envisage it being under the control of TfGM/TfN and run by Northern Rail with modern access-compatible dmus in liaison with the ELR. There may need to be some publicly funded track/signalling upgrades to enable higher speeds and adequate capacity (?dynamic loops) between Heywood and Rawtenstall. The service I would envisage is as follows:
Mon-Fri 0700-1000 and 1600-1900 every 30 minutes Rawtenstall-Victoria, run by NR; no ELR services at these times.
Mon-Fri 1000-1600 and Sat 0800-1800 every hour Rawtenstall-Victoria, run by NR, with an up to hourly heritage service (frequency varying according to season) run by ELR between Rawtenstall and Heywood.
Suns & Bank Holidays - no NR service, ELR free to run whatever trains they wished between Rawtenstall and Heywood.

 

[Aictos]

Public service proposals should take priority over the desires of the owners of preserved railways to "play trains", provided the business case adds up.



The state, in the form of the local/regional/national authority as appropriate, should have powers to force heritage railways to provide public services in liaison with local transport providers, if the proposal is deemed to be financially viable and in the overall public interest after careful evaluation.

For the example of a Rawtenstall-Manchester Victoria service, I would envisage it being under the control of TfGM/TfN and run by Northern Rail with modern access-compatible dmus in liaison with the ELR. There may need to be some publicly funded track/signalling upgrades to enable higher speeds and adequate capacity (?dynamic loops) between Heywood and Rawtenstall. The service I would envisage is as follows:
Mon-Fri 0700-1000 and 1600-1900 every 30 minutes Rawtenstall-Victoria, run by NR; no ELR services at these times.
Mon-Fri 1000-1600 and Sat 0800-1800 every hour Rawtenstall-Victoria, run by NR, with an up to hourly heritage service (frequency varying according to season) run by ELR between Rawtenstall and Heywood.
Suns & Bank Holidays - no NR service, ELR free to run whatever trains they wished between Rawtenstall and Heywood.

I would change the proposed ELR plans to be that NR operate 06:00 to 09:30 then 16:30 to 19:00 Monday to Friday and outside these hours ELR operates because the plans that the quoted poster has will affect the income from the ELR unless they saw some of the income being shared between NR and ELR.

 

[The Ham]

Public service proposals should take priority over the desires of the owners of preserved railways to "play trains", provided the business case adds up.



The state, in the form of the local/regional/national authority as appropriate, should have powers to force heritage railways to provide public services in liaison with local transport providers, if the proposal is deemed to be financially viable and in the overall public interest after careful evaluation.

For the example of a Rawtenstall-Manchester Victoria service, I would envisage it being under the control of TfGM/TfN and run by Northern Rail with modern access-compatible dmus in liaison with the ELR. There may need to be some publicly funded track/signalling upgrades to enable higher speeds and adequate capacity (?dynamic loops) between Heywood and Rawtenstall. The service I would envisage is as follows:
Mon-Fri 0700-1000 and 1600-1900 every 30 minutes Rawtenstall-Victoria, run by NR; no ELR services at these times.
Mon-Fri 1000-1600 and Sat 0800-1800 every hour Rawtenstall-Victoria, run by NR, with an up to hourly heritage service (frequency varying according to season) run by ELR between Rawtenstall and Heywood.
Suns & Bank Holidays - no NR service, ELR free to run whatever trains they wished between Rawtenstall and Heywood.

Or the state just provides subsidy for 4 to 6 buses an hour and saves itself a shed load of money and doesn't have to pay for infrastructure upgrades.

 

[daodao]

Or the state just provides subsidy for 4 to 6 buses an hour and saves itself a shed load of money and doesn't have to pay for infrastructure upgrades.

That may be cheaper, but it doesn't provide a faster or more reliable transport service that may additionally entice people out of their cars, particularly where there is major traffic congestion, as occurs in much of Greater Manchester at rush hours. It all comes down to cost-benefit analysis, which doesn't necessarily lead to choosing the cheapest option.

If your approach was taken, much of the existing railway network would be closed down, starting with the the Conwy valley branch, and there would be no light rail services. The remaining rail network would resemble that proposed by Serpell in 1982.

 

[apinnard]

Epping to Coopersale.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Couple of other Scottish ones that are aspirations of the existing lines - Strathspey railway into Grantown of Spey (needs approximately £5 million) and The Scottish Industrial Railway Centre to buy the existing mothballed freight line and run from Patna to their old site at Dalmellington

I think the Strathspey line has already extended a little way towards Grantown and is the Keith Line also looking to join up with the main line at Keith Station in one direction & Grantown in the other?

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

Public service proposals should take priority over the desires of the owners of preserved railways to "play trains", provided the business case adds up.



The state, in the form of the local/regional/national authority as appropriate, should have powers to force heritage railways to provide public services in liaison with local transport providers, if the proposal is deemed to be financially viable and in the overall public interest after careful evaluation.

For the example of a Rawtenstall-Manchester Victoria service, I would envisage it being under the control of TfGM/TfN and run by Northern Rail with modern access-compatible dmus in liaison with the ELR. There may need to be some publicly funded track/signalling upgrades to enable higher speeds and adequate capacity (?dynamic loops) between Heywood and Rawtenstall. The service I would envisage is as follows:
Mon-Fri 0700-1000 and 1600-1900 every 30 minutes Rawtenstall-Victoria, run by NR; no ELR services at these times.
Mon-Fri 1000-1600 and Sat 0800-1800 every hour Rawtenstall-Victoria, run by NR, with an up to hourly heritage service (frequency varying according to season) run by ELR between Rawtenstall and Heywood.
Suns & Bank Holidays - no NR service, ELR free to run whatever trains they wished between Rawtenstall and Heywood.

Now what was I saying about hopeless romanticism which never learns?

 

[daodao]

Now what was I saying about hopeless romanticism which never learns?

I am not being hopelessly romantic. There are a few instances where lines that were preserved as heritage railways might have a role in providing a public service once more, due to change in circumstances such as greater population catchment or increased road traffic congestion. Any proposals would need to be properly assessed from a commercial perspective, but public authorities should have a compulsory right to be able to make use of preserved lines for public service if it can be demonstrated to be in the overall public interest.

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

I am not being hopelessly romantic. There are a few instances where lines that were preserved as heritage railways might have a role in providing a public service once more, due to change in circumstances such as greater population catchment or increased road traffic congestion. Any proposals would need to be properly assessed from a commercial perspective, but public authorities should have a compulsory right to be able to make use of preserved lines for public service if it can be demonstrated to be in the overall public interest.

Based entirely on the premise "someone else will pay"

Similar views have been put forward since the start of railway preservation. They were hopelessly romantic then as they remain. A fair deal of money was lost in finding out just why the railways closed in the first place which was not due to any wickedness on the part of "them".