Gloucester and Warwickshire Railway-the Plum Line?

[Ashley Hill]

Here is a BBC report celebrating the regions famous fruit. Perhaps along with the Bluebell and Lavender line etc the G&WR railway should perhaps now be known as “The Plum Line”? (As opposed to the plumb line)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79wej3r4qvo

People in Gloucestershire can board a special train which celebrates the 'Pershore Plum' - a locomotive named after the region's famous fruit.

The Gloucestershire Warwickshire Steam Railway (GWSR) is running a train which departs Broadway station at 14:25 BST for Cheltenham Racecourse.

It commemorates the revered locomotive and the use of the line in days gone by to bring people fruit and vegetables from the Vale of Evesham.

The event has been organised as part of the Pershore Plum Festival, which takes place over the bank holiday weekend of 24 to 26 August.”

 

[railfan99]

Excellent suggestion.

This is the longest heritage railway in the UK I've yet to do: on the list soon if all goes to plan.

It's an impressive-looking operation, so great to see it obtaining national publicity as your wonderful heritage railways benefit from 'free media'.

 

[CarltonA]

The line has never served Pershore though. The route from Ashchurch through Evesham would have been more appropriate IMO. Having said that, the line is nowhere near reaching Warwickshire either.

 

[12LDA28C]

Excellent suggestion.

This is the longest heritage railway in the UK I've yet to do: on the list soon if all goes to plan.

It's an impressive-looking operation, so great to see it obtaining national publicity as your wonderful heritage railways benefit from 'free media'.

The line has received national publicity before. The GWSR used to operate a post-Christmas running day using diesel traction. One year it was advertised by a presenter on National BBC Radio 2 as a worthwhile day out and he wasn't wrong. It's an excellent railway with plenty to offer both Steam and Diesel enthusiasts.

 

[CarltonA]

The line has received national publicity before. The GWSR used to operate a post-Christmas running day using diesel traction. One year it was advertised by a presenter on National BBC Radio 2 as a worthwhile day out and he wasn't wrong. It's an excellent railway with plenty to offer both Steam and Diesel enthusiasts.

Quite agree, that's why I've been a member for the last few years.

 

[nanstallon]

I enjoyed a day on the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway a week or so ago. It is a very pleasant line, not spectacular but redolent of England in a happier age. The best station for me was Winchcombe (station building imported from Monmouth Troy in Wales!) with a very nice tearoom and seating just outside on the platform where you can enjoy the atmosphere of a country railway. A Manor and a bewhiskered dmu were in service; it could easily have been 1964 or so.

 

[37114]

Excellent suggestion.

This is the longest heritage railway in the UK I've yet to do: on the list soon if all goes to plan.

It's an impressive-looking operation, so great to see it obtaining national publicity as your wonderful heritage railways benefit from 'free media'.

You shouldn't be disappointed, I have been going for 30 years and what the volunteers have achieved is amazing.

 

[Calthrop]

The line has never served Pershore though. The route from Ashchurch through Evesham would have been more appropriate IMO. Having said that, the line is nowhere near reaching Warwickshire either.

My bolding: this matter came up on a thread in this sub-forum, some eight years ago. It's reckoned, I think, that the route's "preservers" wished to have the initials GWR, in commemoration of the -- dearly loved -- one-time operating company. In (a highly remote contingency) very best possibly imaginable case, the preserved line might ultimately run all the way from Cheltenham to Stratford-upon-Avon: the northernmost five miles or so being indeed in Warwickshire. Traversed putatively-en-route to Warwickshire, are a slice or two of Worcestershire -- in which county the present northern terminus, Broadway, lies; but one feels that "Gloucestershire Worcestershire Railway" would sound awkward-verging-on-ludicrous. "Gloucestershire Warwickshire..." is quite elegant in comparison.

 

[gazthomas]

With the exception of the wiggle near Winchcombe, given it's straightness you might even be able to call it a "plumb line"

 

[peteb]

Ha ha Pershore is in Worcestershire! So the G&WR could be G &WWR as Broadway terminus is of course in Worcestershire too! Great line to travel on, nice folks staffing it and interesting selection of motive power and rolling stock.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There was a time, back in the 15th Century, that Gloucestershire and Worcestershire (and Shropshire and Cheshire) were lumped in with the Principality of Wales and The Marches, administered from Ludlow Castle and Shrewsbury. So arguably the G&WR was a precursor of Transport for Wales!

(Sorry, couldn’t resist the temptation.)

 

[Essan]

If only they could extend through to Honeybourne, then they would at least be in the Vale of Evesham (Pershore may be best known, because of its Plum Festival, but whole of the Vale is plum country, indeed, the spring blossom trail is centred around Evesham). And if they did that then, given there is normally only 1 tph on the Cotswold Line, they could (in theory) run a service from Worcester, via Honeybourne and Broadway, through to Cheltenham, right through plum country! Mind, then they really would have to rename themselves the Glos and Worcs Railway!

 

[duffield]

If only they could extend through to Honeybourne, then they would at least be in the Vale of Evesham (Pershore may be best known, because of its Plum Festival, but whole of the Vale is plum country, indeed, the spring blossom trail is centred around Evesham). And if they did that then, given there is normally only 1 tph on the Cotswold Line, they could (in theory) run a service from Worcester, via Honeybourne and Broadway, through to Cheltenham, right through plum country! Mind, then they really would have to rename themselves the Glos and Worcs Railway!

I won't repeat my fantasy calculations here but in my imagination the extension to Honeybourne would pay for itself in just a few years by running *very* pricey, steam hauled, 1st class only "champagne specials" from London direct to Cheltenham Racecourse, for posh rich types, just for the four days of the festival.

 

[Richard Scott]

I won't repeat my fantasy calculations here but in my imagination the extension to Honeybourne would pay for itself in just a few years by running *very* pricey, steam hauled, 1st class only "champagne specials" from London direct to Cheltenham Racecourse, for posh rich types, just for the four days of the festival.

Unfortunately it wouldn't. The cost of extending to Honeybourne is huge as lots of bridges need extensive work.
Outside of those Race specials there is no commercial case for going to Honeybourne.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

And if they did that then, given there is normally only 1 tph on the Cotswold Line, they could (in theory) run a service from Worcester, via Honeybourne and Broadway

Single track from Evesham to Norton Junction (near Worcester) though, so there’s less capacity than you’d think.

 

[74A]

Unfortunately it wouldn't. The cost of extending to Honeybourne is huge as lots of bridges need extensive work.

I don't think the cost of extending would be that high. Most of the bridges on that section of the route are road over rail which railway would not need to repair to be able to operate.

The problem is those bridges do need replacing as they are getting near the end of their life. So anyone taking on the trackbed would then become responsible for. That is the major cost that would need sorting out.

With the large rail storage facility at Long Marston I could see a use for a test track between there and Broadway which might be useful.

 

[John R]

I don't think the cost of extending would be that high. Most of the bridges on that section of the route are road over rail which railway would not need to repair to be able to operate.

The problem is those bridges do need replacing as they are getting near the end of their life. So anyone taking on the trackbed would then become responsible for. That is the major cost that would need sorting out.

Those two points appear contradictory. If they take over the trackbed, yes they do become responsible, and as I understand it, the DfT will not allow the trackbed to be sold to a third party unless it can demonstrate the financial resources to maintain the bridges on the route. (This came up when Sustrans decided it no longer had any use for the trackbed.)

Further south, the B4632 bridge has required considerable work in recent years, which the railway has had to bear the cost of.

Having followed the reopening of the section from Toddington to Broadway, which IIRC took around 13 years from the previous expansion and cost millions, I'm afraid that much as I would love to see a further extension to Honeybourne, I can't see it happening. We have to remember that building it is one thing, maintaining it, and running a commercially viable service with the increased costs that would ensue would be very challenging, particularly given that volunteer availability is an issue facing all preserved railways.

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't think the cost of extending would be that high. Most of the bridges on that section of the route are road over rail which railway would not need to repair to be able to operate.

The problem is those bridges do need replacing as they are getting near the end of their life. So anyone taking on the trackbed would then become responsible for. That is the major cost that would need sorting out.

With the large rail storage facility at Long Marston I could see a use for a test track between there and Broadway which might be useful.

I'm afraid it would run into millions irrespective of road over rail bridges as still enough issues with the formation as it stands.
The current owners would dearly love the GWR Plc to take this section of trackbed on such are its liabilities.
If a test track were to be useful and someone else paid for it then great but I don't expect the GWR to extend beyond Broadway in the foreseeable future.

 

[lineisclear]

I'm afraid it would run into millions irrespective of road over rail bridges as still enough issues with the formation as it stands.
The current owners would dearly love the GWR Plc to take this section of trackbed on such are its liabilities.
If a test track were to be useful and someone else paid for it then great but I don't expect the GWR to extend beyond Broadway in the foreseeable future.

I understand that DfT have decided that its future policy is that no heritage railway will be accepted as financially robust enough to take on reponsibility for such overbridges.
The status of Broadway as the GWSR's honeypot destination would also need to be considered. If routine passenger services were restored to and from Honeybourne the attraction might be to travel from there only to Broadway and back. That could mean increased costs but reduced ticket revenue from the rest of the line.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Ironic really. If GWSR hadn't thrown such a wobbly in 2002 about Sustrans' ambition to run a cycle path along this stretch of line, the bridges would have been repaired as part of the path project, and the cost of reinstating a railway - running alongside the established path, as at Caernarfon, the Avon Valley, and elsewhere - would have been so much less. Instead they yelled a lot about "but this will stop us restoring the railway!". 20 years later and there is neither cycleway nor railway, just a very overgrown trackbed.

http://www.broadwayextension.50webs.com/sustrans.html

 

[Richard Scott]

Ironic really. If GWSR hadn't thrown such a wobbly in 2002 about Sustrans' ambition to run a cycle path along this stretch of line, the bridges would have been repaired as part of the path project, and the cost of reinstating a railway - running alongside the established path, as at Caernarfon, the Avon Valley, and elsewhere - would have been so much less. Instead they yelled a lot about "but this will stop us restoring the railway!". 20 years later and there is neither cycleway nor railway, just a very overgrown trackbed.

http://www.broadwayextension.50webs.com/sustrans.html

Sustains wanted to use part of the GWR line all the way to Cheltenham, which is owned by the GWR, so rightly so they didn't want Sustrans putting a cycle path alongside. The ability to use the side of the trackbed with no track on it for access is invaluable. What is there to be gained from Broadway to Honeybourne? A mainline connection? OK, so might be attractive but not an absolute necessity.
There is a obsession with some people about Broadway to Honeybourne and it's unlikely to ever be commercially viable. Longer railways rarely equal greater profit. So, no, it's not ironic and I would argue 20 years later that it was still the best decision not to allow a cycle path to Cheltenham.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

The planning application for a path between Broadway and Honeybourne was not at all contingent on any path along the line further south. Nonetheless GWSR still fought tooth and nail against it, in the service of some imagined future extension to Honeybourne.

 

[Richard Scott]

The planning application for a path between Broadway and Honeybourne was not at all contingent on any path along the line further south. Nonetheless GWSR still fought tooth and nail against it, in the service of some imagined future extension to Honeybourne.

It might not have been but that was the underlying intention. There was more to that then was in public domain.
Honeybourne to Broadway on its own was pointless so their intention was to try and expand into Cheltenham using part of the GWR formation.
If I remember correctly discussions went along the lines of we'll allow you access to Broadway to Honeybourne section in return for rights to access on part of Broadway to Cheltenham section.