Ah, thanks for that!  Phrases involving 'worms' and 'can' spring to mind (as they so often do, when ticketing is involved)... I suppose the most plausible answer is 'fraud', but 'plausible' is not the same things as 'satisfactory'.

Can anyone explain to me why a return journey that can be completed within a day (if that's not a tautology) should be significantly cheaper than a return journey that cannot be completed within a day (if that's not an oxymoron)? Or am I falling into the same trap of trying to apply logic where logic is not appropriate?

Your logic is impeccable. But it is logic, and as such has no place in a discussion on train ticket pricing and policy.

17 Alexandria

OK, I think we've milked this enough. We could go on about a cow mincing down the line until - well, until the cows come home - but personally I'm udderly fed up with it all. I just hope the farmer beefs up his security.

There seems to be a view that heritage railways are inherently good for the tourist economy, so they tend to get the support of Local Authorites (though not always - see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=583.15). Plainly some are - the Bluebell, Severn Valley and West Somerset are all examples of well-run tourist attractions, and of course there are many more. But there is another league of heritage line which seems to be run for enthusiasts by enthusiasts - which might be fine if they were not exactly the same people. Essentially it can look like 12" to the foot railway modelling, and you can get the feeling that some of the volunteers see visitors as a necessary nuisance at best. You can't help thinking that such operations will need to change their ideas if they are to survive beyond the medium term, but then a few apparently hopeless ventures have come good with the right leadership.

Is there room for new heritage operations? The answer must be 'yes', but they need a USP. I travelled on the Ludgershall line many years ago (would it have been GWR150?) and I can't say I found it particularly scenic, so I'm not sure where its attraction might lie. As to the question of materiel, or heritage assets: for the tourist market, steam sells. Unless the route is particularly scenic, steam traction is a must. There are a number of new-build, or all-but new build steam loco projects underway as the heritage rail industry adapts to keeping a reliable fleet of kettles running well beyond their sensible scrap dates, but you have to think that the trend must be for the fleet to slowly reduce in size. Where is a family more likely to go for a day out: Ludgershall to ride in a Mk3 carriage behind an industrial 0-4-0, or Alresford..?

Gosh, it hadn't occurred to me that people could really think such a thing, any more than they would think that it ran on 12V DC^▸ (Direct Current).

Edit:


Indeed - see this wikipedia article


I think the early ones (in the thirties) ran one 240v - with no earth leakage devices..!

Did anyone else spot the fact that - erm - there's only two rails in the picture? Or is there some part of the country where they use a beefed-up version of the Hornby system?

An observation for people like me who spend time staring at Google maps and Google earth, dreaming of reopening old lines: This satellite view of Galashiels shows clearly that there are no significant obstacles in the path of the Borders line - doesn't it? Well not quite - the street view tells a different tale, of what looks like quite a few thousands of tonnes of spoil dumped on the trackbed.


They don't make it clear what sort of material it is - does anyone know? Was it a landfill site?

Edit: fixed sickly owl

Yes, perhaps I should have thanked Lee for that (Thanks, Lee!  ) , because (as I've said elsewhere on this forum) it really matters to know who is saying these things, and whether they represent a moderate or an extreme view. Of course, extreme views are arguably more interesting and sell more papers than moderate ones!

On your second point about unbalanced ends; the Severn Beach line (which, of course, used to be double-ended) is a prime case in point - traffic falls away sharply at Clifton Down, but to prune it there would be to play into the hands of the bustituters who would, without doubt, argue that existing bus services have the whole route covered without laying on extra services.

Essentially this is Beeching's argument - that the right mode for local services (outside London, of course) is the bus; rail was just to get people in and out of London and one or two other large cities. But Beeching's primary directive was to make rail profitable (outside London, of course); the 'social railway' concept was limited to London commuter flows and a few marginal constituencies. The consensus has now, thankfully, shifted, but those who acted on Beeching's report very nearly took the railway to an unrecoverable tipping point - and there are poeple will who, to my amazement, still see all investment in rail as a waste of money.

 

Please note that this is an opinion piece, not a news item.

A little googling of 'brian monteith' (I'd not heard of him before) reveals that it is fairly predictable that he would take this view. The fact that he claims to have been the only person to have voted against the scheme - 'passed by 114 votes to one (that one being me)' - suggests that he is rather out on a limb in holding these opinions. Or - adopts BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) 'in the interests of balance' voice - maybe he's right and all the others are wrong.

Oh, Brian... I think you just compared yourself to one of the great visionaries of the 20th century. I don't think I need say more.

The age of a building is no excuse IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) - it is a lot cheaper to maintain a roof properly than to deal with rust, damp damage and rot that results from failing to do so.

I read this on the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website:


I'm not sure whether it's better that they 'accepted' the motion (rather than 'passing' it), but I'm glad they 'climbed down'. I suppose with a story like this it is hard to avoid puns and doubles-entendre; an earlier version of the same story was headlined "Woman squats in public toilet in Bath to protest against closure "...

Welcome to Bath, twinned with Clochemerle.

It struck me when reading the last few posts that we could almost rename the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) as 'HS0'; at least the core Bristol - London route. It is an object lesson in the benefits of vision, and not cutting corners, when investing in infrastructure.