Buying back heritage lines

[duffield]

...
it would give MNR funds to finish the Dereham-County School section, and give them a more managable heritage line with a lovely terminus at County School (esp. compared to Wymondham Abbey where's there's not really anything to do/see, not even running around unfortunately).
...

Just as a minor point, you do get running around at Wymondham Abbey on some occasions, it's just not in the platform. There is a run-round loop to the south of the level crossing which even has its own viewing area.

Last time I visited I boarded early when the inbound service arrived and remained on board while we were pulled south over the crossing, the loco ran round and we were then pulled back into the platform ready for departure.

I assume the reason it's not used all the time is because it considerably extends the dwell time at Wymondham which could make timetabling difficult (and of course it's not necessary for the DMU services).

It would be sad to see the MNR "de-heritaged" but OTOH Dereham seems like one of those places that should never have lost its service. I wonder if it would have survived with a DMU shuttle as part of the national network if there had been a bay platform at Wymondham?

 

[CMS1]

Thanks, yes aware they run around further down, but on most lines running around is the main opportunity visitors (non-enthusiast) take to properly watch the steam loco, from the platform. Personally I don't think a shuttle would have helped as its too short to Norwich to make 2 trains appealing (then maybe a 3rd to London).

 

[35B]

It takes an hour and a half. I used it last month. It was pretty grim to be honest, and that's with brand new electric vehicles.

The station is at the end of the high street.

Without question I'd have used the train were it an option.

You would. How many others would? And how many would stop using the railway if it were to stop being a heritage operation - and what would that do to the local economy?

How do you feel about Okehampton, which seems in a way a bit similar?

Much more relaxed, because Dartmoor Railway was a much more minor operation, whose loss would cause much less impact to offset the gains. It also serves a railhead function that Minehead is much less equipped to do.

It’s a pretty slow road even in a car.

I think there is still a big challenge in general for the south west to increase tourist passenger numbers for the railway stations that already exist.

That's the rub - if you want tourist rail numbers, you want the steam train. If the railway is to serve the residents of the area, then you hit the economic questions of what will be lost in the local economy by removing the attraction. Its the same reason why the Bodmin & Wenford will IMHO never reach Padstow, because it can't adequately replace the Camel Trail as an attraction.

As for the A358, I know it well and, when driving to the area, go via Taunton and the A358 rather than take the A39 from Bridgwater. But that road is still significantly more direct than the railway, and a lot faster - I was once dropped off at Blue Anchor, and my wife was at Bishops Lydeard before I was at Watchet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's the rub - if you want tourist rail numbers, you want the steam train. If the railway is to serve the residents of the area, then you hit the economic questions of what will be lost in the local economy by removing the attraction. Its the same reason why the Bodmin & Wenford will IMHO never reach Padstow, because it can't adequately replace the Camel Trail as an attraction.

Given that heritage lines are generally single track, you could easily have both on the same formation. The Northampton and Lamport runs alongside the cycle track (with a decent fence between the two of course) - having the steam train come past is an attraction in itself.

 

[CMS1]

That's the rub - if you want tourist rail numbers, you want the steam train. If the railway is to serve the residents of the area, then you hit the economic questions of what will be lost in the local economy by removing the attraction

Since the main times of demand don't conflict, why not do both? If a valuable rail service was provided and the heritage railway is made more sustainable that's a win-win.

 

[stuu]

Given that heritage lines are generally single track, you could easily have both on the same formation. The Northampton and Lamport runs alongside the cycle track (with a decent fence between the two of course) - having the steam train come past is an attraction in itself.

Only in places which used to be double track, which that example was. The Padstow branch certainly wasn't

 

[35B]

Since the main times of demand don't conflict, why not do both? If a valuable rail service was provided and the heritage railway is made more sustainable that's a win-win.

Because the requirements to run at 25mph under an LRO, and at a commercial speed as a part of the national network, are different. The risk is that the rail service will be a subsidy sink, while the heritage railway will be lumbered with a load of extra costs that undermine its viability.

Given that heritage lines are generally single track, you could easily have both on the same formation. The Northampton and Lamport runs alongside the cycle track (with a decent fence between the two of course) - having the steam train come past is an attraction in itself.

Which heritage lines were double track? If we're looking at the WSR, it certainly wasn't

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which heritage lines were double track? If we're looking at the WSR, it certainly wasn't

The Northampton and Lamport, as I note. The cycle path runs where the second track did in BR days.

 

[duffield]

Because the requirements to run at 25mph under an LRO, and at a commercial speed as a part of the national network, are different. The risk is that the rail service will be a subsidy sink, while the heritage railway will be lumbered with a load of extra costs that undermine its viability.

Which heritage lines were double track? If we're looking at the WSR, it certainly wasn't

The Mid Norfolk Railway from Wymondham as far as Dereham (being discussed above) was double track from 1882 until it was singled in 1965, at least according to Wikipedia which does cite sources for this.

Quotes from "Route History" section with my bold emphasis added:

The Wymondham to Wells branch was opened in stages between 15 February 1847 and 1857,[13] after Parliamentary consent was given in 1845.[14] The entire line became part of the Great Eastern Railway in 1862.[15] The Wymondham to Dereham section received double track in 1882,[16] while the line north of there remained single track.

and

The passenger service between Dereham and Wells ended on 5 October 1964.[21] Dereham became an intermediate station for Norwich to King's Lynn services. In June 1965, the Wymondham to Dereham section was reduced to single track with a passing loop at Hardingham. The passenger service from King's Lynn ended on 9 September 1968,[22] with the Midland & Great Northern Joint Railway Society operating the 'East Anglian Branch Line Farewell' DMU special on the final Saturday.[23] The withdrawal of the remaining passenger services, between Wymondham and Dereham, followed in October 1969.[24]

 

[CMS1]

But that road is still significantly more direct than the railway, and a lot faster

Taunton station-Minehead station is 24.7 miles by rail and 23.6 by road, so hardly anything in it

Because the requirements to run at 25mph under an LRO, and at a commercial speed as a part of the national network, are different. The risk is that the rail service will be a subsidy sink, while the heritage railway will be lumbered with a load of extra costs that undermine its viability.

It will almost definately need subsidy like most the network, but the business case would take into account its not costing 30M+ a mile to build in the 1st place. Would only be fair if it reduces the financial burden on heritage railways, e.g. NR maintain the permanent way.

 

[stuu]

As for the A358, I know it well and, when driving to the area, go via Taunton and the A358 rather than take the A39 from Bridgwater. But that road is still significantly more direct than the railway, and a lot faster - I was once dropped off at Blue Anchor, and my wife was at Bishops Lydeard before I was at Watchet.

Obviously because the WSR goes no faster than 25 mph and stops at several stations which wouldn't be there if it were back on the national network. The A358 is terrible but the A39 is even worse. There's no way a train running at the sort of speeds other similar branches run at would be slower than a car

 

[joncombe]

Swanage. There is only really two roads in and out, the A351 which suffers terrible traffic congestion in the summer and the minor unclassified roads via Studland to Shell Bay and then the chain ferry, which is itself unreliable and quite expensive. Making the coast in the area a World Heritage Site (which I am in favour of and I think was generally a great thing to happen) has had a consequence of brining in even more visitors but with no investment in the infrastructure it made the existing traffic problems much worse. It is also not helped because the Swanage railway also has a bit of a park and ride at Norden but the service frequency has been reduced making this less attractive, too. Getting there in summer is difficult and time consuming because the bus service isn't particularly good either (though at least the fare cap has helped with the cost, it used to be very expensive too) so inevitably you end up sitting in traffic queues, which ever way you go. I am sad that the Swanage railway was established to re-open the full route and now seems to have given up with that goal (but got a vast amount of tax payers money to restore a link that now only seems to be used as a convenient way to get stock and locomotives to the line for the various annual galas). I can remember the first year of the trial service they stated passenger numbers exceeded expectations, but delayed and delayed the second year of the trial and when it did finally happen the timetable certainly looked like it had been set up to deliberately fail, with poor connections and timings. SWT also dabbled with running a service part way along the line but also seems to have given up. A real shame and missed opportunity but I do hope I will see it become part of the National network again one day.

 

[Trainlog]

You would. How many others would? And how many would stop using the railway if it were to stop being a heritage operation - and what would that do to the local economy?

Much more relaxed, because Dartmoor Railway was a much more minor operation, whose loss would cause much less impact to offset the gains. It also serves a railhead function that Minehead is much less equipped to do.

That's the rub - if you want tourist rail numbers, you want the steam train. If the railway is to serve the residents of the area, then you hit the economic questions of what will be lost in the local economy by removing the attraction. Its the same reason why the Bodmin & Wenford will IMHO never reach Padstow, because it can't adequately replace the Camel Trail as an attraction.

As for the A358, I know it well and, when driving to the area, go via Taunton and the A358 rather than take the A39 from Bridgwater. But that road is still significantly more direct than the railway, and a lot faster - I was once dropped off at Blue Anchor, and my wife was at Bishops Lydeard before I was at Watchet.

I fully agree on all 3 points.

Dartmoor Heritage Railway/Okehampton line was an interesting case because in comparison to other lines on here that many are suggesting, this line had very little in the way of interesting rolling stock for the public and for enthusiasts who are primarily interested in steam locos.

You also had to consider that Devon has many other competing heritage/tourist railways (South Devon Railway, Paignton and Dartmouth, Seaton Tramway, Lynton and Barnstaple Railway, Plym Valley Railway), along with its decent mainline link to Exeter, which made it a good candidate for trialling such a scheme.

Many other lines suggested on here are popular with enthusiasts and tourists, as they often boast a decent loco roster, scenery, potential attractions along the line that as you say would be missed and the tourist numbers will take a hit as a consequence. It would certainly see some interest in its first few months from enthusiasts, but once the YouTubers and the enthusiasts that went to see the line in its National rail guise have seen it, it will be up to the locals/those that really want to visit that area to help it become a viable option.

I wasn't keen on the no rover ticket policy on the Paignton and Dartmouth railway but it was certainly enjoyable from a gradient. steam operation, and scenery point of view and I am sure that many more tourists, locals, and enthusiasts will still find an excuse to visit the line in its current form. When it comes to re-opening any new National Rail lines in Devon, I would rather focus was put on Barnstaple to Bideford instead as there is demand for it from locals and rail campaigners for the line to return even if it means a fair bit of new expensive track and signalling equipment.

Devon rail link 'could give £1bn economic boost' if restored

Plans are put forward to extend the Tarka line between Exeter and Barnstaple to Bideford.

www.bbc.co.uk

Since the main times of demand don't conflict, why not do both? If a valuable rail service was provided and the heritage railway is made more sustainable that's a win-win.

It will almost definately need subsidy like most the network, but the business case would take into account its not costing 30M+ a mile to build in the 1st place. Would only be fair if it reduces the financial burden on heritage railways, e.g. NR maintain the permanent way.

Ideally, it would be nice if heritage railways could use this as a sustainable form of income, especially on weekdays.

However, wouldn't this mean that said heritage railway has to comply with many new forms of legislation, health and safety risks, costs, and daily operational pressures in order to comply with National Rail services?

Personally, whilst the current financial and resource problems heritage railways are facing are bad, they still perform their intended purpose very well as places to run heritage steam and diesel locomotives on their own lines. For instance (see attached videos), most tank engines are no longer considered worth the time or money to install mainline certified equipment to run railtours on National Rail services, and you also can't run 9Fs anymore due to the flangless wheel. Soon, things such as Semaphore signals will be admired and appreciated more at heritage railways, as more are withdrawn across the National Rail network.

With this thread turning up, I am slightly concerned about the future of steam on the West Highland line between Fort William and Mallaig.

WCR - Jacobite 2026

Hi Folks, Does anyone in the industry have an insight into why WCR may not be running their second (afternoon) Jacobite service in 2026? I.e. Is it a pathing issue, rolling stock, loco leasing etc?

www.railforums.co.uk

Back to the point, I'd rather that focus was placed on re-opening lines with no existing heritage railways that could be beneficial economically and socially to a chosen area, without doing so to a heritage railway and taking away a valuable source of tourism.

 

[michaelh]

You would. How many others would? And how many would stop using the railway if it were to stop being a heritage operation - and what would that do to the local economy?

Much more relaxed, because Dartmoor Railway was a much more minor operation, whose loss would cause much less impact to offset the gains. It also serves a railhead function that Minehead is much less equipped to do.

That's the rub - if you want tourist rail numbers, you want the steam train. If the railway is to serve the residents of the area, then you hit the economic questions of what will be lost in the local economy by removing the attraction. Its the same reason why the Bodmin & Wenford will IMHO never reach Padstow, because it can't adequately replace the Camel Trail as an attraction.

As for the A358, I know it well and, when driving to the area, go via Taunton and the A358 rather than take the A39 from Bridgwater. But that road is still significantly more direct than the railway, and a lot faster - I was once dropped off at Blue Anchor, and my wife was at Bishops Lydeard before I was at Watchet.

Most of those travelling on the bus after 0930 will be doing it for free with their OAP Bus Passes.

 

[35B]

Most of those travelling on the bus after 0930 will be doing it for free with their OAP Bus Passes.

That too

 

[BayPaul]

Given that heritage lines are generally single track, you could easily have both on the same formation. The Northampton and Lamport runs alongside the cycle track (with a decent fence between the two of course) - having the steam train come past is an attraction in itself.

You've obviously never cycled along the Camel trail. It's so busy it needs every inch of its formation. And as others have said, it was never double track to begin with.

 

[35B]

It will almost definately need subsidy like most the network, but the business case would take into account its not costing 30M+ a mile to build in the 1st place. Would only be fair if it reduces the financial burden on heritage railways, e.g. NR maintain the permanent way.

My language was deliberate - the question of subsidy is one of degree.

What is being missed is the amount of rework that will be required to operate at a modern line speed, not the 25mph of the LRO. Signalling, track work, infrastructure maintenance have all been organised around a 25mph railway, which is known to have less than robust earthworks. All will need revisiting to allow modern speeds to deliver a commercially viable service.

There will then be requirements to install signalling to modern standards, including TPWS and, on trains, OTMR. At these higher speeds, the railway will lose its legal protections from “big railway” operating standards, meaning that every vehicle used will have to comply with network standards. Rather than NR maintaining the permanent way saving the WSR money, the WSR will have to bear the costs of additional on train equipment, which will have to be tested and proven before anything runs.

Government subsidies don’t extend to compensating companies long term for foregone income, nor will NR be resourced to cover those marginal costs.

The effect will be to diminish the WSR for a national network branch line of questionable utility, and which was made viable by long departed seasonal traffic.

I personally find that a bad deal, which will benefit a few in Minehead and surrounding villages, but cost income and jobs elsewhere in the area. If a choice is to be made, it needs to be made based on an honest appraisal of the pros and cons, not a rosy eyed romanticism that ignores all the costs and presumes all the benefits.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Feb 2026 ==

Most of those travelling on the bus after 0930 will be doing it for free with their OAP Bus Passes.

And would tend to continue to do so rather than pay a fare.

 

[The Planner]

Gloustershire and Warwickshire would surley fit. it plums into XC at the south and Honeyborne/Long marston to the north.

Where are you plumbing it in at Cheltenham?

 

[duffield]

Where are you plumbing it in at Cheltenham?

If I got my crayons out I'd make a new route west from Cheltenham Racecourse through a new short tunnel tunnel north of the existing Hunting Butts tunnel, to join the Birmingham-Cheltenham line in the Swindon Hall area. No building demolition required, just fields. I think you could just about squeeze the curves in.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

If I got my crayons out I'd make a new route west from Cheltenham Racecourse through a new short tunnel tunnel north of the existing Hunting Butts tunnel, to join the Birmingham-Cheltenham line in the Swindon Hall area. No building demolition required, just fields. I think you could just about squeeze the curves in.

I think the Glos.& Warks. did propose such a scheme themselves a few years ago, so that mainline specials could reach the Racecourse station for the Gold Cup.

 

[yorksrob]

Swanage. There is only really two roads in and out, the A351 which suffers terrible traffic congestion in the summer and the minor unclassified roads via Studland to Shell Bay and then the chain ferry, which is itself unreliable and quite expensive. Making the coast in the area a World Heritage Site (which I am in favour of and I think was generally a great thing to happen) has had a consequence of brining in even more visitors but with no investment in the infrastructure it made the existing traffic problems much worse. It is also not helped because the Swanage railway also has a bit of a park and ride at Norden but the service frequency has been reduced making this less attractive, too. Getting there in summer is difficult and time consuming because the bus service isn't particularly good either (though at least the fare cap has helped with the cost, it used to be very expensive too) so inevitably you end up sitting in traffic queues, which ever way you go. I am sad that the Swanage railway was established to re-open the full route and now seems to have given up with that goal (but got a vast amount of tax payers money to restore a link that now only seems to be used as a convenient way to get stock and locomotives to the line for the various annual galas). I can remember the first year of the trial service they stated passenger numbers exceeded expectations, but delayed and delayed the second year of the trial and when it did finally happen the timetable certainly looked like it had been set up to deliberately fail, with poor connections and timings. SWT also dabbled with running a service part way along the line but also seems to have given up. A real shame and missed opportunity but I do hope I will see it become part of the National network again one day.

This would probably be the one that I'd find most useful. I often visit Swanage and have to get the bus, and although this is usually in mid winter (so the traffic isn't too bad) it is quite long and winding and doesn't particularly connect with the trains well.

The experiment with through trains was good, but it needs to be properly subsidised so that fares are in line with the rest of the network, the service is all day long and all year round.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

A couple of points occur to me:
- would NR* services have to run at over 25 mph? If through running to the local big town happens, and only the major stations on the heritage branch are served, would running under the LRO (with everything that implies for capital and running costs) be feasible?
- in terms of ownership and operation, this needn't be a one-size-fits-all exercise. At one end of the spectrum you have a completely free-standing but isolated heritage railway*, doing its own thing without any NR involvement, and at the other you have an NR branch line, run from the TOC head office. But in between there are options starting with the heritage railway running commuter (etc.) services for NR, moving through NR services on heritage infrastructure and heritage services on NR infrastructure and a mixture of operators, before getting to the other end of the spectrum. While it might be easier for NR to use one model, different models might be most successful in different places.

* Term used as shorthand. I do know that there's no monolithic National Rail, but a mix of Network Rail, TOCs, ROSCOs, the DfT and so on. Similarly 'heritage railway' won't take account of track ownership maybe being separated from operation and so on.

 

[David Burrows]

There's probably not many, but one I've thought of a few times is the Mid Norfolk Railway from Wymondham to Dereham, and the MNR transferring to Dereham to County School. As a heritage railway the MNR has come a long way but still has quite a way to go, plus they are also slowly expanding north. If Wymondham to Dereham was bought back, it would give MNR funds to finish the Dereham-County School section, and give them a more managable heritage line with a lovely terminus at County School (esp. compared to Wymondham Abbey where's there's not really anything to do/see, not even running around unfortunately). Then Dereham could get a rail link to to Norwich for potentially a 'bargain' cost. Whilst there is already a reasonable road option, this was also the case with Okehampton.

Probably not realistic as there is a bus every half hour from Dereham to Norwich Bus Station (in the city) taking 40 mins and continuing to Norwich station. Could a train do Dereham to Norwich in that time and wih that frequency? Unless passengers want to continue elsewhere by train from Norwich it is a quite long uphill walk from Norwich station to the city centre.

 

[fandroid]

What has stopped previous ideas of going over to modern Light Railway standards with line of sight replacing sophisticated signalling plus a higher speed limit? 50 mph or even 40mph would be a great improvement on 25mph. I'm thinking of a mix and match setup where the heritage trains would stick to the LRO standards. Coventry's VLR units relying on battery electric might produce a solution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What has stopped previous ideas of going over to modern Light Railway standards with line of sight replacing sophisticated signalling plus a higher speed limit? 50 mph would be a great improvement on 25mph. I'm thinking of a mix and match setup where the heritage trains would stick to the LRO standards. Coventry's VLR units relying on battery electric might produce a solution.

Line of sight doesn't work spectacularly well on single track?

 

[duffield]

A couple of points occur to me:
- would NR* services have to run at over 25 mph? If through running to the local big town happens, and only the major stations on the heritage branch are served, would running under the LRO (with everything that implies for capital and running costs) be feasible?
- in terms of ownership and operation, this needn't be a one-size-fits-all exercise. At one end of the spectrum you have a completely free-standing but isolated heritage railway*, doing its own thing without any NR involvement, and at the other you have an NR branch line, run from the TOC head office. But in between there are options starting with the heritage railway running commuter (etc.) services for NR, moving through NR services on heritage infrastructure and heritage services on NR infrastructure and a mixture of operators, before getting to the other end of the spectrum. While it might be easier for NR to use one model, different models might be most successful in different places.

* Term used as shorthand. I do know that there's no monolithic National Rail, but a mix of Network Rail, TOCs, ROSCOs, the DfT and so on. Similarly 'heritage railway' won't take account of track ownership maybe being separated from operation and so on.

On the specific option of a heritage railway running commuter services, I'm not sure how that could work. You can't run a commuter service (or really any sort of regular daily timetable all year) with volunteers, and paid employees would be expected by the unions (rightly IMHO) to be proper rail employees - so I guess the heritage railway would have to be paid to become like an open-access TOC but with their own infrastructure, and also paid to keep their infrastructure operational all year (currently I think most heritage railways have considerable shutdown periods for maintenance). I'm really not sure any heritage railway would want to take this all on unless they were paid sufficiently large sums to mitigate all possible risks and expenses.
But then there's also the whole accessibility issue. Although by sticking to 25mph running these operations might avoid the more stringent railway safety requirements, I don't think they could avoid the accessibility issues. It's one thing for a private heritage attraction to offer limited accessibility - no-one expects for example every aspect of a Norman castle to be fully accessible to modern standards; but once the state starts contracting commuter services on such a line, disability groups would rightly expect modern standards of accessibility for all rolling stock and stations - and that could mean major and expensive changes with possible serious detriment to the heritage atmosphere.

Heritage railways running commuter services themselves has been talked about for many years in relation to various lines. Maybe there are various good reasons, such as the above, why this has never come to fruition, despite some of these services looking attractive in theory.

The only sort of services I can see working are the reverse sort, which have been shown to be somewhat feasible, where a mainline TOC (or in future GBR) extends existing services onto heritage infrastructure for a short distance, as has happened sporadically with SWR services to Norden on the Swanage branch, and GWR services to Bishops Lydeard on the WSR. These sort of services solve most of the problems detailed (e.g. employees, rolling stock accessibility) as long as the target station/s on the heritage infrastructure conform to minimum accessibility standards.

 

[35B]

What has stopped previous ideas of going over to modern Light Railway standards with line of sight replacing sophisticated signalling plus a higher speed limit? 50 mph or even 40mph would be a great improvement on 25mph. I'm thinking of a mix and match setup where the heritage trains would stick to the LRO standards. Coventry's VLR units relying on battery electric might produce a solution.

I think you are confusing "Light Railway Order" (a legal form that used to be used for approving heritage railways, now replaced by a "TWAO", and "light rail", which is (over-simplifying somewhat) a synonym for "tram". While they have line of sight signalling on large sections, they also have sophisticated equipment including plenty of electronic monitoring - precisely the sort of kit that would break the economics of a heritage railway.

More generally, you might want to read the Railways Act 1994. It clearly sets out a set of standards for railways, and defines a line speed of 25mph or less (with some other criteria) as the basis for treatment as a heritage railway, and obtaining exemptions from national network standards.

I can see, just, how an application to have a line treated as "heritage" on some days and "network" on others might work, but not by mixing and matching light rail rules with heavy rail rules - especially on single track. When you then add the engineering considerations for mixing the different vehicle types and compliance with things like accessibility regulations, the whole thing becomes excessively complicated.

A couple of points occur to me:
- would NR* services have to run at over 25 mph? If through running to the local big town happens, and only the major stations on the heritage branch are served, would running under the LRO (with everything that implies for capital and running costs) be feasible?
- in terms of ownership and operation, this needn't be a one-size-fits-all exercise. At one end of the spectrum you have a completely free-standing but isolated heritage railway*, doing its own thing without any NR involvement, and at the other you have an NR branch line, run from the TOC head office. But in between there are options starting with the heritage railway running commuter (etc.) services for NR, moving through NR services on heritage infrastructure and heritage services on NR infrastructure and a mixture of operators, before getting to the other end of the spectrum. While it might be easier for NR to use one model, different models might be most successful in different places.

* Term used as shorthand. I do know that there's no monolithic National Rail, but a mix of Network Rail, TOCs, ROSCOs, the DfT and so on. Similarly 'heritage railway' won't take account of track ownership maybe being separated from operation and so on.

If you were talking about a short branch*, I can see how these might work and, with the right application and goodwill, a solution be found. If we look at the WSR, one of the major examples raised, that 25mph limit is why the railway is not a viable public transport alternative and makes the line excessively slow.

* - for the sake of example, and noting that the idea has been investigated and rejected, the KWVR

 

[Killingworth]

I'm surprised extention from Matlock to Rowsley over Peak Rail is not being mentioned. A large car park at Rowsley for Derby and Nottingham bound commuters.

Financially viable? No chance!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Financially viable? No chance!

None of these schemes are going to be profitable. The question, as with any reopening, is cost-benefit to justify the subsidy.

I doubt for instance that the Northumberland Line or Okehampton will ever make a profit, but they are believed to bring more benefit than the subsidy costs.

 

[Killingworth]

None of these schemes are going to be profitable. The question, as with any reopening, is cost-benefit to justify the subsidy.

I doubt for instance that the Northumberland Line or Okehampton will ever make a profit, but they are believed to bring more benefit than the subsidy costs.

Indeed, there's unlikely to be any rail restoration or creation scheme that could succeed without substantial subsidies both to become active and subsequently to run.

That's where feasibility studies will always have difficulty offsetting definite monetary costs against perceptions of benefit in the eyes of those trying to apply some monetary value to them.

The Northumberland line is a good example. Subsidy costs are relatively easy to quantify and they're enormous. It's well used at the low fares currently charged. Having used it I'd say it brings much benefit. How much in cost terms, spread over maybe the next 50+ years, is very difficult to calculate against what alternative uses those subsidies could be used for.

As an enthusiast for rail and for transformation of the region in which I grew up, I'm probably too emotively biased in favour of that particular scheme