Daylesford to Trentham

 
  JoppaJunction Chief Train Controller

Location: Banned
WIll this extension ever happen?

Is this a project the railway might seriously consider?

Sponsored advertisement

  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
Use the search function. https://www.railpage.com.au/f-p1971916.htm#1971916
  JoppaJunction Chief Train Controller

Location: Banned
Thank you for the link.  Reading the discussion on the other thread I think people would be interested in the ride out of Trentham.  You must consider the businesses at Trentham and how many people many actually take a return from to either Daylesford or an intermediate stop from Trentham.  Not necessarily Daylesford.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
You must consider the businesses at Trentham
"JoppaJunction"
Why? Are they going to pay for the enormous amount of work needed to extend the line?
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
I think it would be a good idea to heed VRfan's arguments on the matter, especially considering that he is actually involved with DSCR.
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
Why? Are they going to pay for the enormous amount of work needed to extend the line?
"Valvegear"


The current question is not who should pay and how but if this is a good idea and worthy of a study?
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
The current question is not who should pay and how but if this is a good idea and worthy of a study?
x31
Again, read VRFan's summation. There is no desire on the part of the DSCR to extend the line and an extension works against the viability of the line.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Well said, Blacksmith. The topic has been fully covered, and then another bright spark comes out of the woodwork.
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
Well said, Blacksmith. The topic has been fully covered, and then another bright spark comes out of the woodwork.
"Valvegear"


That seems a little unfair.  The question was asked and that is fair enough.

We have only heard from a single person at DCSR.  These views may not be the views of the organisation (no offence inferred) and the statements were made some time ago.  Times can change strategy.
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
That seems a little unfair.  The question was asked and that is fair enough.

We have only heard from a single person at DCSR.  These views may not be the views of the organisation (no offence inferred) and the statements were made some time ago.  Times can change strategy.
x31
Actually you have heard from two people at the DSCR, I am a member as well. And while I do not claim to speak for the DSCR in any official capacity, I can say quite definitely that I have asked the same question and been given the answer related here.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
I may have been a little unfair, but the statement which I found mind-boggling was, "You must consider the businesses at Trentham."

It's not the job of volunteer-based tourist railways to consider any business at all, if it's not on their route or base. They have their hands full to overflowing as it is.
  dthead Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia

We have only heard from a single person at DCSR.
x31
Go to the main DCSR thread and if you read it you WILL find more than one contributer. And there are more than 3 members active on Railpage.


Regards,
DavidHead

ps I'm not a member to be clear.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Need to pour some hot water on this thread to get rid of the foam !
  JoppaJunction Chief Train Controller

Location: Banned
I may have been a little unfair, but the statement which I found mind-boggling was, "You must consider the businesses at Trentham."

It's not the job of volunteer-based tourist railways to consider any business at all, if it's not on their route or base. They have their hands full to overflowing as it is.
Valvegear

Let me clarify. Tourist Railways drive tourists into a location. Trentham businesses would benefit as would the town of Trentham if the railway was extended the extra kms to Trentham which has a decent size rail yard.

Having services arrive and depart Trentham means tourists to Trentham instead of bypassing and going straight to Daylesford.

One frustrating aspect of posting on Railpage (sometimes) is the number of people who immediately find a reason WHY something CANNOT happen rather than exploring the potential benefits of making it happen.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Let me clarify. Tourist Railways drive tourists into a location. Trentham businesses would benefit as would the town of Trentham if the railway was extended the extra kms to Trentham which has a decent size rail yard.
JoppaJunction
Go and ask the traders in Gembrook how much they benefitted when PBR finally reached them. The train fare is not cheap, with the vast majority of passengers getting off at Lakeside and then returning to Belgrave. A very low proportion of PBR customers actually go on to Gembrook, and not much money gets spent.
A tourist railway has to keep itself within the bounds of what it can comfortably build and maintain. An extension to Trentham requires a money tree and there isn't one.

One frustrating aspect of posting on Railpage (sometimes) is the number of people who immediately find a reason WHY something CANNOT happen rather than exploring the potential benefits of making it happen.
JoppaJunction
Another frustrating aspect is armchair experts who propose ideas with no apparent consideration of cost, manpower, equipment and accreditation required, and despite the Group in question already saying that it ain't gonna happen. I have not observed one well explained and costed benefit put forward by you or anybody else - just a vague statement that Trentham businesses would benefit. Some of us have put in years with volunteer groups, and we know the unfortunate realities. If I had my way, there'd be tourist railways everywhere, but that will only happen in Utopia.
Just because you propose an idea does not make you immune from criticism. "Why don't they...?" is anathema to just about everybody involved as volunteers because no matter what we do, it's still not enough for some people.
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
Go and ask the traders in Gembrook how much they benefitted when PBR finally reached them. The train fare is not cheap, with the vast majority of passengers getting off at Lakeside and then returning to Belgrave. A very low proportion of PBR customers actually go on to Gembrook, and not much money gets spent.
A tourist railway has to keep itself within the bounds of what it can comfortably build and maintain. An extension to Trentham requires a money tree and there isn't one.

Another frustrating aspect is armchair experts who propose ideas with no apparent consideration of cost, manpower, equipment and accreditation required, and despite the Group in question already saying that it ain't gonna happen. I have not observed one well explained and costed benefit put forward by you or anybody else - just a vague statement that Trentham businesses would benefit. Some of us have put in years with volunteer groups, and we know the unfortunate realities. If I had my way, there'd be tourist railways everywhere, but that will only happen in Utopia.
Just because you propose an idea does not make you immune from criticism. "Why don't they...?" is anathema to just about everybody involved as volunteers because no matter what we do, it's still not enough for some people.
Valvegear
Everything he says and more.

Puffing Billy is a vastly more patronised heritage railway than Daylesford, and yet they don't get large numbers of passengers travelling to Gembrook. There is only one train a day to Gembrook and it does not necessarily run every day either. It takes 1 hour 50 minutes each way, and is just too long for most people. Also, you can't make the trip in reverse.

The DSCR is probably the next most successful heritage railway in Victoria after PB, and for good reason, they have a great management team who know what they can manage and don't try to exceed their capabilities. Leave them to make the decisions, they know their subject better than you do.
  NSWGR8022 Chief Train Controller

Location: From the lands of Journalism and Free Speech
Puffing Billy is a vastly more patronised heritage railway than Daylesford, and yet they don't get large numbers of passengers travelling to Gembrook. There is only one train a day to Gembrook and it does not necessarily run every day either. It takes 1 hour 50 minutes each way, and is just too long for most people. Also, you can't make the trip in reverse.
TheBlacksmith

Puffing Billy does not offer a service from Gembrook to Belgrave with any regularity and Gembrook is a long way from Melbourne.

Trentham would be at the Melbourne end of the service.  Me thinks I am not getting any further involved.  Heaven forbid someone on Rp asks a few questions and publish a view.
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
WIll this extension ever happen?

Is this a project the railway might seriously consider?
JoppaJunction
This is the question that was originally asked.

According to those who have connections with the DSCR, no, it will not happen. And according to the same people, yes, it has been considered and is not in their plans.

Want to have an opinion? Sure. Do what you like. But if someone asks a direct question like this, and someone else happens to know the official view of the DCSR, then why not accept it instead of throwing a hissy fit because you don't like the answer.

Trentham is about a quarter the size of Daylesford, and has far less attractions for the tourist. Daylesford on the other hand, is geared up for tourism and is a far better place to situate the railway. The Sunday Market is a vital feature as well, and attracts a lot of people who subsequently decide to take a short trip on the train. They are not interested in a long trip, and want to be delivered back to where they departed from in around an hour maximum. In the main, they are not railway enthusiasts, just family and perhaps some kids, who can be entertained by a short train trip, but otherwise would be bored by a lengthy trip.

To these people, the destination is of little importance, it is the novelty of the ride they go for, so while Bullarto is a bit short on features, they are happy to go there and return. They need to get back in a reasonable time so they can either resume their sightseeing or go home again.
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
Puffing Billy does not offer a service from Gembrook to Belgrave with any regularity and Gembrook is a long way from Melbourne.
NSWGR8022
Actually, PB does offer a service from Gembrook to Belgrave with absolute regularity, it is called a timetable and it is published on their web site. But that trip is mostly on weekends only

But you cannot travel from Gembrook to any stations towards Belgrave and then return on the same day.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
When it comes to future extensions of tourist & heritage railways (T&HR), there are three good questions to ask, aside from the most important one ("how much will it cost?"):

  • Is there a separate significant tourist attraction at the extension's terminus that would generate extra traffic?
  • Will it enable a connection to the mainline, if no such connection exists already?
  • Will it take the total railway length greater than the 'sweet spot' of roughly 10 miles?


An extension to Trentham meets none of those criteria. So, lets look at some other T&HR extensions in Victoria that have either been constructed or have been proposed:

  • Lakeside-Gembrook (PBR) doesn't meet any of them
  • Muckleford-Castlemaine (VGR) meets all of those criteria
  • Moorooduc-Baxter (MRPS) is short enough and enables a mainline connection
  • Yarra Glen-Lilydale (YVR) is a bit long (15 miles) but enables a mainline connection, so might be viable.
  VRfan Moderator

Location: In front of my computer :-p
We have only heard from a single person at DCSR.  These views may not be the views of the organisation (no offence inferred) and the statements were made some time ago.  Times can change strategy.
x31

I'm very active with the DSCR and while I can't officially speak on behalf of the railway, my comments (which are only from a few months ago) are still the prevailing view in my opinion. ie: Daylesford to Bullarto is enough for a volunteer workforce to maintain and the current timetable is well suited to our target market of Joe Public with the kids.


Let me clarify. Tourist Railways drive tourists into a location. Trentham businesses would benefit as would the town of Trentham if the railway was extended the extra kms to Trentham
JoppaJunction

The current operational section is 9.25km platform to platform. By the time you add all the yard track, shed extension and the end of the line at Kangaroo Creek, you're up to about 11km to maintain.

Extending to Trentham adds another 9.65km. ie: you are doubling the amount of track that must be maintained (almost 19km, and over 20km including sidings), doubling journey times and increasing fares to cover the extra distance.

For some families it's either too long and/or too expensive. Even if they travel on the train, you can get the scenario where one parent jumps on the train for a one way trip with the kids while the other drives the car. You also have the scenario where there aren't enough departures from Daylesford or Trentham so people rock up for a train ride, find they have to wait 2 hours and simply drive away.

Puffing Billy has an advantage that the railway has sufficient patronage so they can run more than one train. Therefore people who want a shorter journey can travel to Menzies Creek and change trains to come back. The DSCR has no where near the patronage (or volunteer crews available) to support multiple trains in operation on a regular basis.

Maintaining track isn't simply replacing a few sleepers (that is a big job in itself). There's also maintenence of joints, clearing of vegetation from the line, clearing of drains and formation of the ballast, maintenence of structures, signs, signals, interfacing with neighbouring properties, councils, the list goes on. Then you have the extra wear and tear on rolling stock from doubling the running distance.

While I agree that businesses in Trentham may have a boost from tourist trains running into the town, I don't think it would be anywhere near sufficient to outweigh all the problems that extending would generate.


Trentham which has a decent size rail yard.
JoppaJunction


Given that the DSCR runs rail motors and the current yard space is more than sufficient to hold the collection, I really don't see how a "decent size rail yard" provides anything other than yet more track and ground to maintain for no real benefit to regular operations.


One frustrating aspect of posting on Railpage (sometimes) is the number of people who immediately find a reason WHY something CANNOT happen rather than exploring the potential benefits of making it happen.
JoppaJunction

What makes you think this hasn't already been seriously looked at many times long before Railpage even came into existence? The benefits do not stack up against the problems of extending.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Go and ask the traders in Gembrook how much they benefitted when PBR finally reached them. The train fare is not cheap, with the vast majority of passengers getting off at Lakeside and then returning to Belgrave. A very low proportion of PBR customers actually go on to Gembrook, and not much money gets spent.


A tourist railway has to keep itself within the bounds of what it can comfortably build and maintain. An extension to Trentham requires a money tree and there isn't one.


Valvegear

The 'money tree' is your Sunday market, every Sunday, corporate sponsorship (there's a lot of upwardly mobile residents and visitors at Daylesford) and access to government grants.

Puffing Billy travels a lot slower in open carriages, hence this is a poor comparison with the Daylesford operation...

Mike.
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
If Daylesford struggle to maintain 9kms of track and right of way I am wondering how Maldon seem to maintain 3 yards and a lot more track?
  TheBlacksmith Chief Commissioner

Location: Ankh Morpork
If Daylesford struggle to maintain 9kms of track and right of way I am wondering how Maldon seem to maintain 3 yards and a lot more track?
x31
I don't think anyone said Daylesford 'struggle' to maintain their track, they actually are well set up in that regard. And the length of Maldon is only double that of Daylesford, at about 18 km.

A lot of it is about how many volunteers you have, how you attract revenue and the grants that are available. More than that, the key element is how you organise and run your railway. Daylesford manages all of these quite well, and better than some other heritage railways.


Maldon has a quite expensive railway to run, more so than Daylesford, steam locomotives are much more expensive to maintain and operate.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
If Daylesford struggle to maintain 9kms of track and right of way I am wondering how Maldon seem to maintain 3 yards and a lot more track?
x31
I'll just leave this here... http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/242558/Derailment-of-Tourist-and-Heritage-Train-Victorian-Goldfields-Railway-Near-Maldon-4-March-2012.PDF

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, JoppaJunction, Nightfire, x31

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.