From the Financial Times


Shared properly Here in order to keep fully line with the tight FT copyright

 
There are plenty of examples in Germany where heritage railways are professionally-run and operated, commercially viable entities, which manage to provide a reliable year-round service with holiday-period steam, museums and preservation of historic stations and structures.

The question is, if adequately capitalised, supported by a suitable regulatory framework, local authorities and sub-contractors, could the same thing exist in the UK? Could, for example, the West Somerset railway lease 150/2s, upgrade the PW and signalling and offer an hourly service into Taunton, but still run weekend heritage steam and diesel, professionalise it's catering operations etc?
 
I suspect the problem is that the regulatory burden is too high in the UK, and that neither the unions, NR or DfT are going to want nimble local operators offering a better product than then big railway.
 

 

Back in the mid 1970s on the WSR we were complying with the regulatory burden.  Staff passed by British Railways traction and movements inspectors, for example.  We worked to the BR rule book. 

What stopped the progress of the re-opening was the BR Divisional Management at Bristol, who plucked some mad costs out of the sky (or elsewhere) and stuck them onto the Running Powers Agreement they wanted, for WSR trains to run over the couple of miles of former Up Relief line. You'd call these costs "Access Charges" these days, I guess.  Maintenance for the track, S&C, and signalling system.  A proportion of the Silk Mill signalmen's wages.  All sounds reasonable enough until you come to the BR way of calculating them

BR also wanted to control the maintenance of all vehicles that would be using their track, and wanted to charge exorbitantly for providing fitters and inspectors to do this.

The NUR's 1976 "blacking" of the railway "to protect the jobs of their bus driver members" was a godsend to the BR management.  They did not dare challenge the union (this was before the union power reforms of the 1980s) so it was convenient to blame the NUR for the through trains never becoming possible.

So it was the cost and inertia on the part of the big railway that meant the initial ambition of the WSR not becoming fulfilled

 

Many thanks for that.  It's a story that, sadly, I'm familiar with.  Been around with learned and informed people to have picked so much up by osmosis. It continues to feel like a tragic missed opportunity, and one that parties with differing interests put so much heart into delivering the outcome they wanted that they remain sore to this day, to the extent that trying to move forward towards a shared and connected future still reads like pulling teeth.

Even generations later, the "big railway" still seems to impose costs and regulations on smaller players who would benefit - and so would their areas - from a realistic approach, and the young volunteers who were so hurt by the failure(s) remain untrusting - they may say realistic - in their more senior years.  They don't want to risk going out onto a limb, or showing a weakness by offering compromise.   Add to that - the modern data and technology age give rise to an abilityto add layers or rules and regulation, consultation and analysis, all with costs and longer timescales.  So that really doesn't make it feel like things are well-placed to get arrangements good for passengers and the area served implemeneted.