Longest Heritage Railway extension

[Sir Felix Pole]

The South Devon Railway has long dreamed of returning to Ashburton - the station is largely intact, if modified as a garage, as is the broad-gauge engine shed. They narrowly avoided demolition a few years ago - the Dartmoor National Park Authority (of all people) saw no place for them in their 'master plan', but it was hastily withdrawn after a storm of protest. A study was commissioned a decade or so ago - a new formation to the west of the River Yeo would be fairly staightforward (the original formation to the east was obliterated by the A38), but going over or under the A38 to reach Buckfastleigh station would a major challenge. The only real opportunity would be if the A38 to Plymouth was ugraded to motorway status (ha, ha) and a bridge could be incorporated as part of the rebuild.

 

[bramling]

Whilst some on here are very concerned about Heritage Railways getting "Too long" and extensions seen as being potentially very bad/unwise, I think it is very dependant on the circumstances of each individual line. In the GCR case, completing the Gap project not only creates an 18 mile running length, it also gives a mainline connection to the whole line - including the 5 mile double track of Lbro to Rothley (This is also passed for high speed test running). Thus the visitor can choose to just enjoy the South section Lbro to Leicester North and return, or the North section Lbro to Ruddington and return or they could choose to do both for a longer experience, stopping at the intermediate stations and even going on the Mountsorrel branch. The double track is key to giving the Main Line experience and frequency of service.

Indeed, and notwithstanding the economic realities it’s an entirely laudable objective for preservationists to aspire to recreating as much as possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2023 ==

They built a small museum in southwold and laid some track and restored an old engine shed at Blythburgh.

They did have plans to reopen the whole line and have attempted to gain planning permission to reopen various parts of the railway but the majority of locals and the council are against reopening, so planning was rejected. I think the last attempt was to reopen the part along the old southwold docks and at Blythburgh, which faced a lot of opposition.

Plus part of the line ran along a nature reserve and the RSPB are dead against reopening.

I'm not sure much will be reopened beyond extending a small amount at Blythburgh and building on some track bed the society have purchased at wenhanston, although planning permission for the latter was rejected.

I don’t get why there’s so much local opposition here. After all we have successful narrow-gauge railways in sensitive areas like Snowdonia and the Lake District. Southwold isn’t that special. Seems like a funny breed of locals here who perhaps need a reality check.

 

[David Burrows]

This is something that really ought to be do-able. IIRC FGW/GWR have run a limited service in the past, as have one or two mainline charter operators. The WSR was already at the upper end of viable length, so running everything into Taunton (leaving aside capacity constraints on the main line between Norton Fitzwarren and TAU) would probably have a similar effect to the Bluebell's extension.
Something like the old Okehampton service at weekends either to Bishops Lydeard or through to Minehead, perhaps as extensions of GWR Taunton terminators, would at least "test the waters". It'd certainly be a step up from the no.28 bus (over an hour from Taunton to Minehead), or driving along the scenic but wiggly and congested A358.
It would likely need an extra diagram and crew of course, depending on current turnarounds at Taunton. If the turnarounds are generous enough, Lydeard might be feasible without an extra diagram.

The length question does have me wondering if an update to the 25mph speed limit (subject to improved maintenance of course) would be worthwhile? I'm not suggesting everything increases to 60mph of course, just whether a more holistic approach rather than the blanket 25 would be better overall. I realise this is only tangentially related to extentions, so perhaps warrants a speculative thread?

On the question of speed limits being raised from 25mph, at a heritage railway with which I was associated many years ago, when there were not many steam railways, an inspector was asked about the possibility of raising the 25moh limit. He replied that, with the 25mph restriction of the Light Railway Order, we know very well that sometimes you go somewhat faster, but not a great deal faster. Fair enough, but if we were to raise the limit to say 35 or 40mph, then what speeds might some think they can occasionally get away with?
I think the current limit still stands good for the same reason. We have probably all travelled on some 'heritage' railways where trains often go faster than they should occasionally!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

On the question of speed limits being raised from 25mph, at a heritage railway with which I was associated many years ago, when there were not many steam railways, an inspector was asked about the possibility of raising the 25moh limit. He replied that, with the 25mph restriction of the Light Railway Order, we know very well that sometimes you go somewhat faster, but not a great deal faster. Fair enough, but if we were to raise the limit to say 35 or 40mph, then what speeds might some think they can occasionally get away with?
I think the current limit still stands good for the same reason. We have probably all travelled on some 'heritage' railways where trains often go faster than they should occasionally!

To be honest, my query about raising speed limits was somewhat speculative, and if there's much to be discussed on the matter it probably belongs in its own thread- which I'll start if there's likely to be much to be said on the matter.

I'm not familiar with the "nuts and bolts" of what would be required to (for example) raise the linespeed of the West Somerset to say 40mph (where geometry and structures would feasibly permit it), so I'm happy to be educated by those with expertise. If we want to increase public transport use and reduce congestion, perhaps the blanket 25mph ceiling of Light Railway Orders could be amended where conditions allow? Obviously any upgrades would need to be paid for, but maybe the DfT could introduce grants for this where such investment would have a positive effect on the local environment?

Though I am just "spit-balling" here, as our friends across the pond say!

 

[satisnek]

Agree. It would increase running time considerably, and mean a less frequent service unless an additional set was run which I can't see happening. And given all the time and money invested in rebuilding Broadway station, that needs to be the primary destination, especially as the village itself, 10 mins walk away, is a tourist honeypot. Given the reported disappointing numbers using the mainline connection at East Grinstead, which is relatively close to London, I can't see Honeybourne being any more successful.

I would guess that it depends upon whether the GWSR want a physical National Rail connection or not. If they do, then it's a much better option than Cheltenham, which would require some major civil engineering work. If they don't think it necessary, then such an extension could well prove to be an expensive gamble (although the other mainline connections apart from East Grinstead all seem to 'work'). It would make the GWSR longer than the SVR and one of the longest heritage lines in the UK, which does indeed create a whole new set of problems. Personally, though, I think it would be a shame if it doesn't happen - 'so near and yet so far...'

 

[John R]

I would guess that it depends upon whether the GWSR want a physical National Rail connection or not. If they do, then it's a much better option than Cheltenham, which would require some major civil engineering work. If they don't think it necessary, then such an extension could well prove to be an expensive gamble (although the other mainline connections apart from East Grinstead all seem to 'work'). It would make the GWSR longer than the SVR and one of the longest heritage lines in the UK, which does indeed create a whole new set of problems. Personally, though, I think it would be a shame if it doesn't happen - 'so near and yet so far...'

"So near" is actually another 5 miles. That's a massive investment both in terms of cost and (presumably) volunteer labour. The railway has had more than its fair share of ongoing infrastructure issues in the last few years to challenge its finances without saddling itself with both the cost of a further extension and then its ongoing maintenance. I would love to see it happen, but realistically it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Iskra]

Indeed, and notwithstanding the economic realities it’s an entirely laudable objective for preservationists to aspire to recreating as much as possible.

Being laudable, isn’t the same as being sensible or financially realistic. Although timing (Covid) probably had something to do with it, the Elsecar Steam Railway foundered just after getting most of the work on the extension to Cortonwood done, which I doubt was a coincidence. Now all that work and investment is at risk of being lost, along with the then operational part of the line too.

 

[Magdalia]

I don’t get why there’s so much local opposition here. After all we have successful narrow-gauge railways in sensitive areas like Snowdonia and the Lake District. Southwold isn’t that special. Seems like a funny breed of locals here who perhaps need a reality check.

I haven't been to Southwold for a while, but for a long time I was a frequent visitor.

Southwold, with some justification, does regard itself as a sensitive area like Snowdonia or the Lake District. The geography is very peculiar: Southwold is effectively an island, with only one road in and out, surrounded either by the sea or by marshes, both of which are havens for wildlife. I have always thought that those proposing to reinstate the railway were the people who needed the reality check.

 

[joebassman]

I don’t get why there’s so much local opposition here. After all we have successful narrow-gauge railways in sensitive areas like Snowdonia and the Lake District. Southwold isn’t that special. Seems like a funny breed of locals here who perhaps need a reality check.

I agree but Suffolk doesn't appear heritage railway friendly in general as a county. Other than the Middy there are no other heritage railways in Suffolk.

There's the Bressingham steam museum, but I'm not sure that counts, as it is a private collection and never a working railway.

Southwold doesn't seem to be a particularily welcoming place for tourists and a lot of the homes are second homes. From what I have read many of the locals didn't want the railway the first time it was built.

A shame really, would be a nice little railway. I've done the walk and there are some nice views.

 

[D6130]

There's the Bressingham steam museum, but I'm not sure that counts, as it is a private collection and never a working railway.

....and that's actually in Norfolk - which just proves your point!

 

[37114]

"So near" is actually another 5 miles. That's a massive investment both in terms of cost and (presumably) volunteer labour. The railway has had more than its fair share of ongoing infrastructure issues in the last few years to challenge its finances without saddling itself with both the cost of a further extension and then its ongoing maintenance. I would love to see it happen, but realistically it doesn't make any sense.

At Cheltenham Racecourse they are actually quite close to the mainline. It would need a new alignment to join there and I have seen somewhere a proposed line but I imagine cheaper than relaying to Honeybourne.

 

[Cowley]

At Cheltenham Racecourse they are actually quite close to the mainline. It would need a new alignment to join there and I have seen somewhere a proposed line but I imagine cheaper than relaying to Honeybourne.

I would have thought that reopening to Honeybourne would be way cheaper than reopening the bit through Cheltenham itself, despite it being further in length.

Do the G&WSR already own some of the trackbed towards Honeybourne does anyone know?

 

[AlbertBeale]

I would have thought that reopening to Honeybourne would be way cheaper than reopening the bit through Cheltenham itself, despite it being further in length.

Do the G&WSR already own some of the trackbed towards Honeybourne does anyone know?

Concerning the importance of having a mainline connection: I rely on easy [ie not a few buses a day if I'm lucky, with no easy information about them anyway] public transport links when visiting a heritage railway; hence I only ever visit heritage railways which do have a mainline connection. And I'm not the only one.

 

[John R]

I would have thought that reopening to Honeybourne would be way cheaper than reopening the bit through Cheltenham itself, despite it being further in length.

Do the G&WSR already own some of the trackbed towards Honeybourne does anyone know?

No. The ownership position of the trackbed is complex. In summary, for many years it was owned by Sustrans, which recently gave up any plans to build a cycleway and thus looked to dispose of it. However, former railway land has to have the approval of the government before it goes into private hands, and as I understand it, the govt would not/was unlikely to allow GWSR to buy it because of the liability of maintenance of some bridges which could need very hefty maintenance in the next few years. I recall one solution would be to get the county council to buy it, with a view to protecting the alignment for railway use in the future. That was the position about a year ago - not sure if it has moved on since then - I'm sure someone here will know and also correct me if any of the above is incorrect.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2023 ==

Concerning the importance of having a mainline connection: I rely on easy [ie not a few buses a day if I'm lucky, with no easy information about them anyway] public transport links when visiting a heritage railway; hence I only ever visit heritage railways which do have a mainline connection. And I'm not the only one.

But the evidence from those railways which have recently added a main-line connection appears to be that commercially it's a very marginal decision. Ultimately that will hold sway, particularly in the current very challenging environment for the preservation movement.

 

[37114]

I would have thought that reopening to Honeybourne would be way cheaper than reopening the bit through Cheltenham itself, despite it being further in length.

Do the G&WSR already own some of the trackbed towards Honeybourne does anyone know?

The line to Cheltenham has had at least one bridge replaced by a new footbridge where a Waitrose had been built. There was a suggestion (not officially endorsed by the railway I hasten to add), that a new alignment curving west from Cheltenham Racecourse Station could be built to join the Mainline near Hyde Lane/Wymans Lane junction. It is less than 1 mile away from the Cheltenham racecourse station

 

[John R]

The line to Cheltenham has had at least one bridge replaced by a new footbridge where a Waitrose had been built. There was a suggestion (not officially endorsed by the railway I hasten to add), that a new alignment curving west from Cheltenham Racecourse Station could be built to join the Mainline near Hyde Lane/Wymans Lane junction. It is less than 1 mile away from the Cheltenham racecourse station

You'd also have to persuade NR to allow GWSR trains to use the existing tracks 2.7km south to Cheltenham Spa station (which only has two main line platforms), alongside the existing stabling siding on the east side of the tracks, which I believe is quite heavily used. That feels like a big ask given existing traffic volumes on that line.

 

[satisnek]

"So near" is actually another 5 miles. That's a massive investment both in terms of cost and (presumably) volunteer labour. The railway has had more than its fair share of ongoing infrastructure issues in the last few years to challenge its finances without saddling itself with both the cost of a further extension and then its ongoing maintenance. I would love to see it happen, but realistically it doesn't make any sense.

I make it 4¼ miles of exclusive trackbed (about the same as the Toddington - Broadway extension), to be honest I thought it was nearer 3! But as you say elsewhere, the poor condition of some of the bridges is the major stumbling block here.

At Cheltenham Racecourse they are actually quite close to the mainline. It would need a new alignment to join there and I have seen somewhere a proposed line but I imagine cheaper than relaying to Honeybourne.

Looking at the 1:25,000 OS map, the GWSR is around 25m higher than the NR line with quite a steep drop close to the former, so it would require some serious earthworks, a wicked gradient or both!

 

[Railcar]

But the evidence from those railways which have recently added a main-line connection appears to be that commercially it's a very marginal decision. Ultimately that will hold sway, particularly in the current very challenging environment for the preservation movement.

Speaking as someone who has visited the Bluebell several times in the last few years, I have travelled by train from East Croydon. What would be elegant is the extension of the line from Horsted to Haywards Heath to allow a 'loop', a return journey on on the BML in a 377 running at line speed up the Quarry Line, avoiding the all-station stops of the Southern train back from EGR

 

[Paul Hitchcock]

Speaking as someone who has visited the Bluebell several times in the last few years, I have travelled by train from East Croydon. What would be elegant is the extension of the line from Horsted to Haywards Heath to allow a 'loop', a return journey on on the BML in a 377 running at line speed up the Quarry Line, avoiding the all-station stops of the Southern train back from EGR

This sounds very much like a bit of WIBN, the acronym for "Wouldn't It Be Nice". A worrying number of lines currently are suffering from past overindulgence in WIBN driven schemes.

 

[AlbertBeale]

But the evidence from those railways which have recently added a main-line connection appears to be that commercially it's a very marginal decision. Ultimately that will hold sway, particularly in the current very challenging environment for the preservation movement.

I understand that - however, the pool of people who would be interested in visiting heritage railways might well overlap quite a lot with people who don't drive and only use public transport to get around. It seems a natural match, and perhaps this market is larger than might be apparent at first glance ... especially if the rail network could be persuaded to consistently show links to heritage rail routes. I and some others I know only ever visit heritage railways which do have a good public transport connection (which usually means a mainline rail connection).

 

[John R]

I understand that - however, the pool of people who would be interested in visiting heritage railways might well overlap quite a lot with people who don't drive and only use public transport to get around. It seems a natural match, and perhaps this market is larger than might be apparent at first glance ... especially if the rail network could be persuaded to consistently show links to heritage rail routes. I and some others I know only ever visit heritage railways which do have a good public transport connection (which usually means a mainline rail connection).

I understand that too, but the evidence to date is increasingly that there aren’t enough in that pool to make it commercially viable to build and run such a connection. Railways have to be run in a financially prudent way, else they will struggle, and you don’t have to look for long to find examples today, both big and small, of railways appealing for large amounts of cash to sustain their existing operations.

 

[paul1609]

I understand that - however, the pool of people who would be interested in visiting heritage railways might well overlap quite a lot with people who don't drive and only use public transport to get around. It seems a natural match, and perhaps this market is larger than might be apparent at first glance ... especially if the rail network could be persuaded to consistently show links to heritage rail routes. I and some others I know only ever visit heritage railways which do have a good public transport connection (which usually means a mainline rail connection).

I've done a lot of research in to the market for heritage railway through customers from the mainline. The market is surprisingly small and largely depends on the specific geographical location of the interchange station and it's proximity to metropolitan and tourist areas. The fact that the Swanage Railway is subsidising the Wareham link by in excess of £100k pa says it all really.

 

[47434]

Once upon a time, the Wensleydale were dreaming of running a huge line, they seem to be struggling with their new extension to Northallerton let alone anything else.

They were. And then realised it is utter madness as they are already too long. Maintaining 22 miles is a huge undertaking in itself. It isn't just the cost of materials but also volunteer availability to support such infrastructure. The section to Northallerton is useful for the main line connection but when trains ran there weekly, they were, by and large, empty.

 

[Titfield]

I've done a lot of research in to the market for heritage railway through customers from the mainline. The market is surprisingly small and largely depends on the specific geographical location of the interchange station and it's proximity to metropolitan and tourist areas. The fact that the Swanage Railway is subsidising the Wareham link by in excess of £100k pa says it all really.

I have to confess to being somewhat intrigued by this "subsidy" ie a loss of £100K.

My intrigue stems from:
1) the DMUs (1 X Class 117 and 1 X Class 121) were provided free of charge by Dorset County Council who paid the vast majority of the cost of refurbishment to mainline standards. The shortfall was caused by the cost of the refurbishment increasing because all the axles and wheels on the units were condemned when crack tested. SRC had not taken account of this possibility. All the other capital costs (line upgrade and signalling improvements) were paid for by others. (Chalk and Cheese Fund and Network Rail).
2) The DMU servicing centre at Corfe Castle Station was funded (whether 100% or less I do not know) by a grant from the Talbot Trust.
3) Despite many years work (at least 8) and the payment of fees to Rail Business Solutions, SRC has not been granted its mainline operating certificate (or whatever the correct wording is). The service is being operated by WCR using WCR drivers and SRC Guards and TTIs (I believe) but using the aforementioned SRC rolling stock.
4) The cost of Public Liability Insurance for operation on the mainline is very high indeed even though the amount (distance) of running on the mainline is small. (From Worgret Junction to Wareham Station). I think but am not sure that WCR's insurance has to be used.
5) SRC does not set aside money from revenues for future refurbishment of rolling stock. IE there is no fund for the DMUs overhaul when they become due.
6) It also appears that the Wareham service is being run as some form of pseudo charter so that some of the passenger service obligations of running a scheduled servcie do not have to be complied with.

If the loss ends up being £100K over 90 days service (compared with £70K over 60 days service in 2017) then proportionately it is slightly better but in 2023 SRC does not have to hire in the rolling stock it did in 2017. Looking at the two years, despite the difference in economic circumstances, the result is still the same - a significant loss. As is said in the film Frozen "let it go".

IMHO SRC should tell Dorset Council that the Wareham service is unviable and say it will not run again. If Dorset Council want SRC to operate it, then Dorset Council would have to pay at least twice Swanage Railways loss on this years operation (if not more). The reason I say twice is that I am not confident that Swanage Railway allocate all the costs incurred by an activity and SRC could not afford to run the risk of undercharging Dorset Council and finding itself in financial difficulty as a result of operating the service in future years.

I struggle to see why potential customers would drive to Wareham (and park) to catch the DMU service (whether to interchange or not at Corfe Castle to steam) when they can drive to Norden and catch the steam service from there.

The benefit is in persuading customers to ditch the car and use mainline services to Wareham and connect there. However imho it just is not sufficiently appealing for customers to get mainline to Wareham and connect for services to Swanage: combined fares too high, service only operates 4 days a week, lack of frequency, concerns over connections etc.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I have to confess to being somewhat intrigued by this "subsidy" ie a loss of £100K.

My intrigue stems from:
1) the DMUs (1 X Class 117 and 1 X Class 121) were provided free of charge by Dorset County Council who paid the vast majority of the cost of refurbishment to mainline standards. The shortfall was caused by the cost of the refurbishment increasing because all the axles and wheels on the units were condemned when crack tested. SRC had not taken account of this possibility. All the other capital costs (line upgrade and signalling improvements) were paid for by others. (Chalk and Cheese Fund and Network Rail).
2) The DMU servicing centre at Corfe Castle Station was funded (whether 100% or less I do not know) by a grant from the Talbot Trust.
3) Despite many years work (at least 8) and the payment of fees to Rail Business Solutions, SRC has not been granted its mainline operating certificate (or whatever the correct wording is). The service is being operated by WCR using WCR drivers and SRC Guards and TTIs (I believe) but using the aforementioned SRC rolling stock.
4) The cost of Public Liability Insurance for operation on the mainline is very high indeed even though the amount (distance) of running on the mainline is small. (From Worgret Junction to Wareham Station). I think but am not sure that WCR's insurance has to be used.
5) SRC does not set aside money from revenues for future refurbishment of rolling stock. IE there is no fund for the DMUs overhaul when they become due.
6) It also appears that the Wareham service is being run as some form of pseudo charter so that some of the passenger service obligations of running a scheduled servcie do not have to be complied with.

If the loss ends up being £100K over 90 days service (compared with £70K over 60 days service in 2017) then proportionately it is slightly better but in 2023 SRC does not have to hire in the rolling stock it did in 2017. Looking at the two years, despite the difference in economic circumstances, the result is still the same - a significant loss. As is said in the film Frozen "let it go".

IMHO SRC should tell Dorset Council that the Wareham service is unviable and say it will not run again. If Dorset Council want SRC to operate it, then Dorset Council would have to pay at least twice Swanage Railways loss on this years operation (if not more). The reason I say twice is that I am not confident that Swanage Railway allocate all the costs incurred by an activity and SRC could not afford to run the risk of undercharging Dorset Council and finding itself in financial difficulty as a result of operating the service in future years.

I struggle to see why potential customers would drive to Wareham (and park) to catch the DMU service (whether to interchange or not at Corfe Castle to steam) when they can drive to Norden and catch the steam service from there.

The benefit is in persuading customers to ditch the car and use mainline services to Wareham and connect there. However imho it just is not sufficiently appealing for customers to get mainline to Wareham and connect for services to Swanage: combined fares too high, service only operates 4 days a week, lack of frequency, concerns over connections etc.

The one possible flaw in this argument - though I can't contest your figures if you've researched this - is where what you write is based on the assumption that people have cars to "ditch" in the first place. Car owners/drivers seem not to realise that there is a very significant proportion of the population who don't have use of, and/or don't want use of, a car. (The proportion is a majority in some parts of London in fact, as I know from where I live.) If there's any future for our ecosystem, that proportion is only going to increase rapidly in the coming years; so on that basis I'd say that heritage rail lines need excellent public transport connections for their own future survival - even if the financial balance is the other way at the moment.

 

[Titfield]

The one possible flaw in this argument - though I can't contest your figures if you've researched this - is where what you write is based on the assumption that people have cars to "ditch" in the first place. Car owners/drivers seem not to realise that there is a very significant proportion of the population who don't have use of, and/or don't want use of, a car. (The proportion is a majority in some parts of London in fact, as I know from where I live.) If there's any future for our ecosystem, that proportion is only going to increase rapidly in the coming years; so on that basis I'd say that heritage rail lines need excellent public transport connections for their own future survival - even if the financial balance is the other way at the moment.

Yes agreed. Swanage Railway has excellent public transport connections by bus. Hourly by bus from Poole via Wareham* to Norden, Corfe Castle and Swanage, hourly (half hourly peak season) by bus from Bournemouth (railway station) to Swanage over the chain ferry.
* In the height of the season there are buses which run from the campsites in the Wareham forest via Wareham and Corfe Castle to Swanage giving a half hourly service over the section between Wareham and Swanage.
There is also a ferry service from Poole Quay to Swanage which runs 3 or 4 times a day in the summer season.

If I am travelling from London to Swanage I get the train to Bournemouth and then change to the bus at Bournemouth (rather than train to Wareham and bus from Wareham) as it is the simplest and lowest journey time. The ride over the ferry is also very pleasant and is quite uplifting.

My point really is that the Swanage Railway Wareham extension is a money pit. The bus services provide a far superior service (days of operation, times of operation, frequency, fare levels, accessibility) and therefore if support is required it should go to these services and not the Swanage Railway Wareham service.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Yes agreed. Swanage Railway has excellent public transport connections by bus. Hourly by bus from Poole via Wareham* to Norden, Corfe Castle and Swanage, hourly (half hourly peak season) by bus from Bournemouth (railway station) to Swanage over the chain ferry.
* In the height of the season there are buses which run from the campsites in the Wareham forest via Wareham and Corfe Castle to Swanage giving a half hourly service over the section between Wareham and Swanage.
There is also a ferry service from Poole Quay to Swanage which runs 3 or 4 times a day in the summer season.

If I am travelling from London to Swanage I get the train to Bournemouth and then change to the bus at Bournemouth (rather than train to Wareham and bus from Wareham) as it is the simplest and lowest journey time. The ride over the ferry is also very pleasant and is quite uplifting.

My point really is that the Swanage Railway Wareham extension is a money pit. The bus services provide a far superior service (days of operation, times of operation, frequency, fare levels, accessibility) and therefore if support is required it should go to these services and not the Swanage Railway Wareham service.

Aha - thanks for this. I had no idea about the local bus services - which tend to be far harder to track down reliably than information about rail links (even with our currently fragmented rail system). And - apart from a handful of places - I find bus services less reliable, and increasingly being run down, even where you can find out about them. But where bus connections are good and reliable, then publicising their links to heritage railways makes sense.

Though how many heritage operators are there which promote, and give intelligible information about, bus links to their stations with the same degree of prominence and accuracy as they do for reaching them by private car? Though they're not the only tourist attractions away from major conurbations who do this - there have been plenty of places around Britain I've wanted to visit in recent years where the information from the attraction is based solely - or almost solely - on visits by car (and, ironically, places which boast their environmental and sustainability credentials are often no different).

 

[Titfield]

Aha - thanks for this. I had no idea about the local bus services - which tend to be far harder to track down reliably than information about rail links (even with our currently fragmented rail system). And - apart from a handful of places - I find bus services less reliable, and increasingly being run down, even where you can find out about them. But where bus connections are good and reliable, then publicising their links to heritage railways makes sense.

Though how many heritage operators are there which promote, and give intelligible information about, bus links to their stations with the same degree of prominence and accuracy as they do for reaching them by private car? Though they're not the only tourist attractions away from major conurbations who do this - there have been plenty of places around Britain I've wanted to visit in recent years where the information from the attraction is based solely - or almost solely - on visits by car (and, ironically, places which boast their environmental and sustainability credentials are often no different).

An excellent point. The Swanage Railway leaflet used to give details of all three modes (mainline train, bus and car) with a useful map which showed the mainline stations but I havent seen the leaflet this year. However generally speaking many attractions are only accessible by car, locally Monkeyworld, The Tank Museum and the Etches collection all being car only. I think the National Trust do give some information for bus and train users.

It can be very difficult tracking down public transport information even using the many online tools. Ironically the best source of information is often forums like this where usually there is someone who knows the area and can give advice.

 

[paul1609]

Concerning the importance of having a mainline connection: I rely on easy [ie not a few buses a day if I'm lucky, with no easy information about them anyway] public transport links when visiting a heritage railway; hence I only ever visit heritage railways which do have a mainline connection. And I'm not the only one.

Coughs

 

[Titfield]

Coughs

Take some linctus it usually works.

Seriously yes apps can be extremely useful and you have just given an excellent example. If only everything in life was as reliable as......