Caernarfon to Llanberis - Feasibility

[EccentricCrank]

Despite the backdrop of rising financial and staffing pressures facing the private rail sector in the UK, I propose a new link line between Caernarfon and LLanberis.

Plan in brief:
Utilising the trackbed of the former Carnarvon & Llanberis Railway as far as LLanrug and that of the Padarn thereafter, this 6 mile (10km) line would link the Welsh Highland Railway (WHR) and Llanberis Lake Railway (LLR) and subsequently Caernarfon, Llanrug and Llanberis settlements.

The target market:
Primarily tourists and walkers wishing to visit Yr Wyddfa, Snowdon Mountain Railway (SMR) Llyn Padarn, National Slate Museum and Dolbadarn Castle.
This line would create a loop whereby anyone staying on the loop could take the WHR to Rhyd-Ddu, climb Yr Wyddfa, ride the SMR to Llanberis and finally this new link back to Caernarfon and the WHR.

Proposed method of operation:
Whilst potentially supported by a volunteer group, I envisage this line operating for-profit by full-time paid staff. A separate organisation from that of either the F&WHR or LLR would own the link trackbed and have access arrangements for running over WHR and LLR metals.

Obvious obstructions:
Heidelberg Materials' site on Seiont Mill Rd
- Potentially create new access road parallel to railway off A4085
Glan Gwana Holiday Park
- Rearrange internal access roads with creation of two environmentally sympathetic road bridges across the Afon Seiont
- Result in the loss of ~9 holiday caravans
A4244
- New road-overline bridge to the left of the current alignment

Construction cost:
Taking the WHR construction cost estimate of £30M for 25mile at 2000 prices, adjusting for inflation, the construction (as a wildly rough estimate) would sit at about £13M. This does not include any of the numerous other expenses not least of which would be land purchase.

Any thoughts?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2024 ==

Following on from the above, this would be my proposal for the rearrangement of the Glan Gwana Holiday Park.

 

[GardenRail]

I'd love to see them all physically linked up, but thats the enthusiast in me. Then maybe buy some new rail-cars to provide a public service.....

 

[Krokodil]

It's more important to see Caernarfon linked to the national network.

 

[30907]

One small query - I thought capacity to do the SMR one way was extremely limited or non existent, which rather spoils your idea of a circular tour.

Maybe a bus link from Beddgelert-Llanberis would be less unrealistic (and it already exists IIRC).

 

[EccentricCrank]

It's more important to see Caernarfon linked to the national network.

Certainly! The link to Bangor would be of greater benefit to the area, but is beyond the scope of the private sector. Construction of a heavy rail link to Bangor would require government funding, but that is not yet forthcoming. In any case, such a link is already adequately supported by other groups.

My interest in a 2ft link between Caernarfon and Llanberis is born out of the fact that there does not appear to be any active groups or in-depth study yet developed for this project - unlike the Caernarfon-Bangor line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2024 ==

One small query - I thought capacity to do the SMR one way was extremely limited or non existent, which rather spoils your idea of a circular tour.

Maybe a bus link from Beddgelert-Llanberis would be less unrealistic (and it already exists IIRC).

Very true. Thankyou for bringing that to my attention. I will have a look in to the daily capacity limits of the SMR and get back to you on that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2024 ==

Regarding the SMR capacity issue:
According to an article by North Wales Live (https://www.dailypost.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/visitor-numbers-rise-board-snowdon-8090238), the SMR recorded 130,000 passengers between March and October of 2014.
That is an average of 541 passengers per day. With a capacity of ~50 per coach and departures every half an hour from 9.30am to 3.30pm (weather dependant) from the summit giving a theoretical maximum passengers down the mountain per day of just 450.
Given that this is less than the reported figure of 541 per day, I think the reported figure must be for passengers each way. This comes out at ~270 for a single trip. As the highest demand is already for people coming down the mountain, I think you are probably right that there is not surplus capacity for additional services or for the current services to be advertised to an additional market.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2024 ==

Of course, this doesn't factor in the ability for SMR services to run directly behind eachother on line of sight working, but the point likely still stands.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2024 ==

I'd love to see them all physically linked up, but thats the enthusiast in me. Then maybe buy some new rail-cars to provide a public service.....

Railcars was my thinking also. To match up with the characteristically low platforms of the WHR, I had been exploring the possibilities a low-floor design meeting the best-practice set out by UK Tram under their "Tramways Principals Guidance" documentation - https://uktram.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Tramway-Principles-Guidance-Final-2.pdf

This would be a low-floor design at 350mm from the railhead at the point of access/egress brought up to ~600mm from the railhead by interior ramps to clear the bogies.

 

[Belperpete]

I'd love to see them all physically linked up, but thats the enthusiast in me. Then maybe buy some new rail-cars to provide a public service.....

Forget local usage, unless you could beat the current subsidised bus service on cost and frequency.

For narrow gauge, push-pull operation with a conventional diesel loco is a much better option than trying to fit the traction kit under passenger cars, especially where they are low floor. Keeps the noisy traction kit away from the passengers, and in a location where it is easily maintainable, and the passenger coaches are kept simple and (relatively) low cost. The FR used push pull successfully for many years, but eventually gave up on it as in practice it takes little time to run a diesel loco around.

The OP doesn't seem to have much experience of the SMR. To ride it, you need to book well in advance. The morning trains in high summer usually are booked out the day before, you may get a seat on an afternoon train if you are lucky.

I presume that the proposal would be to have a separate track from Caernarfon station out to where the Llanberis and Afon Wen lines diverged? Rather than put in a junction on the WHR so close to Caernarfon.

Personally, I don't really see the point in the proposal. Far better to try and restore the original Padarn railway, with its unique history and features.

The Llanberis Lake is a commercial concern, as the OP proposes, and they have decided that their current length is about the limit for what is commercially viable. I understand that their extension into Llanberis is commercially questionable. I think I know what their view of an extension all the way to Caernarfon would be, which is effectively what the OP is proposing!

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Far better to try and restore the original Padarn railway, with its unique history and features.

Quick, snap up those old Glasgow Subway cars before they go to the scrapyard...

 

[EccentricCrank]

Forget local usage, unless you could beat the current subsidised bus service on cost and frequency.

For narrow gauge, push-pull operation with a conventional diesel loco is a much better option than trying to fit the traction kit under passenger cars, especially where they are low floor. Keeps the noisy traction kit away from the passengers, and in a location where it is easily maintainable, and the passenger coaches are kept simple and (relatively) low cost. The FR used push pull successfully for many years, but eventually gave up on it as in practice it takes little time to run a diesel loco around.

The OP doesn't seem to have much experience of the SMR. To ride it, you need to book well in advance. The morning trains in high summer usually are booked out the day before, you may get a seat on an afternoon train if you are lucky.

I presume that the proposal would be to have a separate track from Caernarfon station out to where the Llanberis and Afon Wen lines diverged? Rather than put in a junction on the WHR so close to Caernarfon.

Personally, I don't really see the point in the proposal. Far better to try and restore the original Padarn railway, with its unique history and features.

The Llanberis Lake is a commercial concern, as the OP proposes, and they have decided that their current length is about the limit for what is commercially viable. I understand that their extension into Llanberis is commercially questionable. I think I know what their view of an extension all the way to Caernarfon would be, which is effectively what the OP is proposing!

Conventional locomotive operation is probably preferable, very true.
Regarding the SMR, you are quite right; I have limited experience of the line. I am much more familiar with the LLanberis and WHR - the latter for which I have a family member very closely tied to the construction and design of. If any proposal is to involve the SMR, I should do more research before putting it forward.

Unfortunately, due to the constricted nature of the trackbed at Caernarfon, there is no room for a separate but parallel line as SusTrans route 5 is on the original Caernarfon/Afon Wen alignment. Therefore, a junction would be unavoidable.

I understand your concern as to the point of the proposal; it would indeed be competing with the frequent and (currently) subsidised bus service. However, one of my key aims is to reduce the car traffic in the LLanberis area. Although it is possible that people driving to stay in Caernarfon may chose to take the bus to LLanberis, since it is not itself a tourist service, it does not oft attract people away from their cars. A service aimed specifically at tourists would to an extent "solve" this issue.

The original Padarn railway was a fascinating operation. However, it used a track-gauge now unique in the preservation world, did not transport passengers and would require the demolition and rebuilding of all that the LLR has constructed over the years. Like so many lines, I fear that the Padarn is lost to all but the history books.

The LLanberis Lake Railway already operates quite merrily at their current length. My proposal is not for that service to be replaced or extended - my proposal is for an hourly service on the intermediate primarily unused timetable path. Rather like the system set up by the railway clearing house in the 1800s, I expect a proportion of all ticket sales charged by this new Caernarfon-LLanberis line to be paid out to the LLR for running over their line. Whilst the proportion would have to be arranged, this should not prevent their current operation, but may bring new passengers up -and thus revenue - from Caenarfon.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jun 2024 ==

Good luck with that one XD

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jun 2024 ==

^That last line was meant to be attached to a different post. It doesn't make any sense here.

 

[Meerkat]

My crayons want to build this as a way of getting all that slate waste down to Caernarfon harbour, with a sideline in summer tourist traffic.
If they get carried away then extend it to a new station on the coast line by the suspension bridge (unless a tunnel to Bangor station wouldnt be much more expensive).

 

[MarkyT]

Conventional locomotive operation is probably preferable, very true.

Might be push-pull operation to save time running round at termini, but unlikely to be a major issue as both termini already have the facilities and tourist oriented services tend to have long turnarounds and leisurely boarding. Alternatively, a new 2ft gauge unit solution might incorporate a mid-consist power pack like the Stadler GTW. In that design, unlike later FLIRTs or WINKs, the traction pod is self-contained with engine and driven axles all in one short wheelbase twin axle fixed chassis power car module with a through corridor connection. The passenger cars on either side hang from the power car at that end with articulated or conventional bogies at their other extremities. By contrast, FLIRTs and WINKs have their traction motors elsewhere and the power pods sit on unpowered articulated trailing bogies shared with adjacent passenger cars.

A problem with the current FfR/WHR diesels is the limited train length they can haul. The gauge cleared one can handle a typical FfR consist, but neither Funkey can handle more than 6 cars on the gradients of the WHR alone, and they're struggling with that. the usual steam locos can haul double that easily. Having a single diesel available isn't a viable rescue plan but luckily the Garratts have proved immensely reliable. The Funkeys also struggle with the heavy wagons imported from South Africa and used for maintenance work. While the LLR section alongside the lake is clearly flat, in the ~10km from Caernarfom to the west end of Llyn Padarn, the route climbs 100m, so an average of about 1:100 or 1%, fairly reasonable compared to the WHR's 1:40 maximum. Therefore a small diesel might handle a reasonably sized train, as one of the Funkeys and the Baguelies do on the less steeply graded FfR (~1:80).

Unfortunately, due to the constricted nature of the trackbed at Caernarfon, there is no room for a separate but parallel line as SusTrans route 5 is on the original Caernarfon/Afon Wen alignment. Therefore, a junction would be unavoidable.

I agree, but operationally I believe that's not a big problem as it is under one kilometre from run round spur buffer stop to the junction site. More important would be a separate platform at Caernarfon for the Llanberis train to load, and be cleaned and serviced in, while a WHR train is able to use the single line and existing platform. Failing that at least a siding might be provided near the station where the Llanberis train could go to layover out of the way. The section from the station to the junction would need to be a separate block and Ideally would be controlled with electric points and signals so neither lines' crews would have to get off at the junction and operate a local lever frame or similar. Trains could just run straight through, keeping the line occupancy as short as possible on the shared section. Similar separate facilities (platform/siding) for the train to layover would be useful at Llanberis too.

I understand your concern as to the point of the proposal; it would indeed be competing with the frequent and (currently) subsidised bus service. However, one of my key aims is to reduce the car traffic in the LLanberis area. Although it is possible that people driving to stay in Caernarfon may chose to take the bus to LLanberis, since it is not itself a tourist service, it does not oft attract people away from their cars. A service aimed specifically at tourists would to an extent "solve" this issue.

And possibly get the limited number of tourists on existing buses onto the trains, which could be a problem if ridership and income was significantly reduced. If the tourist proportion is small however that effect would also be small, and possibly the seats given up to locals and the more reliable bus journeys from general car traffic reduction might be more of an attraction for locals to use the buses and result in a business increase.

The LLanberis Lake Railway already operates quite merrily at their current length. My proposal is not for that service to be replaced or extended - my proposal is for an hourly service on the intermediate primarily unused timetable path. Rather like the system set up by the railway clearing house in the 1800s, I expect a proportion of all ticket sales charged by this new Caernarfon-LLanberis line to be paid out to the LLR for running over their line. Whilst the proportion would have to be arranged, this should not prevent their current operation, but may bring new passengers up -and thus revenue - from Caenarfon.

An interesting idea. I'm quite keen on the idea of heritage rail services coexisting with other classes of traffic on marginal routes, whether national network or private/heritage owned. It tends to enforce more central operations control with modern methods, but narrow gauge is already fairly inventive with signalling such as the new Micro ETS (Electric Train Staff) system being implemented by the WHR, a form of traditional token block using original instruments, as historically on the FfR, linked by internet protocol for communications on the WHR, meaning good broadband, even an IP connection over radio, at each token exchange site is sufficient to interconnect extremities of blocks rather than private cabling throughout along the trackside, a major expense and maintenance liability avoided for a long rural railway.

 

[Krokodil]

The OP doesn't seem to have much experience of the SMR. To ride it, you need to book well in advance. The morning trains in high summer usually are booked out the day before, you may get a seat on an afternoon train if you are lucky.

Often booked out several days ahead but that's not the main issue. The main issue is that the SMR does not sell downhill single tickets until the train has arrived at the Summit. This is to avoid anyone buying a ticket and being stranded at the top in the event of foul weather or a breakdown.

 

[Belperpete]

Conventional locomotive operation is probably preferable, very true.
Regarding the SMR, you are quite right; I have limited experience of the line. I am much more familiar with the LLanberis and WHR - the latter for which I have a family member very closely tied to the construction and design of. If any proposal is to involve the SMR, I should do more research before putting it forward.

Unfortunately, due to the constricted nature of the trackbed at Caernarfon, there is no room for a separate but parallel line as SusTrans route 5 is on the original Caernarfon/Afon Wen alignment. Therefore, a junction would be unavoidable.

I understand your concern as to the point of the proposal; it would indeed be competing with the frequent and (currently) subsidised bus service. However, one of my key aims is to reduce the car traffic in the LLanberis area. Although it is possible that people driving to stay in Caernarfon may chose to take the bus to LLanberis, since it is not itself a tourist service, it does not oft attract people away from their cars. A service aimed specifically at tourists would to an extent "solve" this issue.

The original Padarn railway was a fascinating operation. However, it used a track-gauge now unique in the preservation world, did not transport passengers and would require the demolition and rebuilding of all that the LLR has constructed over the years. Like so many lines, I fear that the Padarn is lost to all but the history books.

The LLanberis Lake Railway already operates quite merrily at their current length. My proposal is not for that service to be replaced or extended - my proposal is for an hourly service on the intermediate primarily unused timetable path. Rather like the system set up by the railway clearing house in the 1800s, I expect a proportion of all ticket sales charged by this new Caernarfon-LLanberis line to be paid out to the LLR for running over their line. Whilst the proportion would have to be arranged, this should not prevent their current operation, but may bring new passengers up -and thus revenue - from Caenarfon.

There is certainly no room for any extra track at Caernarfon station itself. However, there should be room between the station throat and where the two lines diverged for a second track. Don't forget that there used to be two parallel standard gauge lines there. It is beyond the divergence where the WHR has to share the trackbed of the single track Afon Wen line with the cycle path that things get tight. Having the junction at Caernarfon station rather than a mile or so away would make operation much simpler, even if both lines had to share the station itself

You wouldn't need to rip out the LLR, all you would have to do is lay mixed gauge. That, and the uniqueness of the Padarn, would make it much more of a draw than yet another 2' line. The Padarn certainly carried passengers, and had both workmens carriages and a saloon car, a big carriage shed to store them, and formal stations en route. And one of the locos survives.

My point about the LLR is that there is already a commercially run railway there who do not think a commercially run railway to Caernarfon would be viable. A rail link to Caernarfon wouldn't do much for the traffic in Llanberis, as most traffic comes from the Bangor direction. And the existing bus services that the trains would be failing to compete with are part of the Snowdon Sherpa network, squarely aimed at both tourists and locals. All you would be doing is taking tourist traffic away from the LLR and WHR, and I would expect both those lines to be firmly opposed to such a scheme.

 

[EccentricCrank]

Thank you Belperpete, Krokodil, Meerkat and MarkyT for your constructive comments.
From what you have all said, it is clear that before any plan could move forward (either 2ft gauge as I have proposed or 4ft as Belperpete has suggested) that discussions should be had with all of the major stakeholders involved. I would be very interested to see how any such plan would or would not align with WHR and LLR plans. Also, discussions should probably be held with the operators of the Snowdon Sherpa network to see what - if anything - should be factored in to any final proposal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2024 ==

I do still hold that it is a link with merit, though clearly there are various valid objections to be made.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2024 ==

I will go away now and try and develop this in to something more fleshed out.