Railway Preservation News :: View topic - Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Standard

A number of railways have, over the years, been built on private land and called names that end in Light Railway. These have not needed parliamentary powers or a light railway order. The name has only reflected light nature of the railway. Many miniature railways are named in this way.

Thanks, I'll contact Strasburg about how those cagneys fit into their operation.
As for cost related figures, I'll need those for my proposal, so it has some meat on the bones, so to speak. It's a good point that some sort of steamer of that size has the same sights and sounds, regardless of the fact that it's pint size. I want to give this proposal to the Depot Foundation board as the follow-up project to the depot's completion.

A project like this also could help with communtiy relations, as it being my responsibility to get younger people involved, something like this could be good training for someone who wants to work with the full size thing. So it would make sense to utilize signaling, switching, etc. for a venture like this. The only thing that worries me is if this line was to cross a road. Would that make it fall under FRA requirements.

I'm all for safety, but if were being faced with major constraints, then how can we make sure that people understand the authenticity behind something like a light railway. I cite the RH&D as a prime example of an industrial line that utilized massive steam engines (by my standards) for their day-to-day operations.

A miniature train will ALWAYS be perceived as being a toy train. You are locked out of using real historic equipment. I think you'll have some struggle with 501(c)(3) nonprofit status as a result.

A lot of people who post here pine away for an operation in this country like the North Yorkshire Moors or the Bluebell, and we just don't have the existing available plant, rolling stock, or preserved and operable locomotives in the states to make that happen in full-size.

Author:	daylight4449 [ Tue May 31, 2011 9:13 am ]
Post subject:	Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Standard
Well, I've come up with a predicament. Recently, I was outlining a proposal to reconstruct the North Brookfield Branch of the Boston and Albany. Now, using a base cost of $125 per foot of track, that makes the proposal cost in the $10 million range. This presents a major obstacle for the following reasons: 1) This is a massive amount of money that a pratically unknown group to raise. 2) There would be other costs, such as grade crossings and required safety apparati So, while reading Railway Modeler (strange way to get an idea), I saw an ad for a event on the Beer Heights Light Railway. So, here are the basic points of my question: 1) Per foot of track, how much would a 15 In. gauge railway cost 2) What are the safety precautions that would be needed for such a venture 3) Would such a venture be cost effictive 4) could a light railway help dipict railway history in an effective way that makes it appear as a normal operation, and not as a kiddie ride (I'm not opposed to them, but there is the need for giving a good dipiction of railway history.) Now, one of my reasonings is that light railways did see a use in industrial settings, and the North Brookfield having served industrial facilities, a light railway could help dipict a important part of industrial railways that has since faded in the majority of the preservation community, with most light railways (although operating to full size standards in respect to signaling and operation) being oriented to tourism or acting as an expensive backyard attraction for private owners. Advice please? Dylan M. Lambert

Author:	Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Tue May 31, 2011 9:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Stan
I should point out that in British parlance the term "Light Railway" actually has a legal meaning, dating back to the Regulation of Railways Act of 1868 and further defined by the Light Railways Act of 1896: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Railways_Act_1896 Quote: A number of railways have, over the years, been built on private land and called names that end in Light Railway. These have not needed parliamentary powers or a light railway order. The name has only reflected light nature of the railway. Many miniature railways are named in this way. The list of Light Railways listed at Wikipedia include several now operated as preserved railways, including the Kent & East Sussex, the Vale of Rheidol, and the Welshpool & Llanfair. As to whether a narrow-gauge, live-steam, or miniature railway can adequately substitute for a "real" line in terms of interpretation, I'll leave that up for others to argue. But in terms of a smaller-gauge railway being "cheaper" than a full-sized one, I would refer you to George Hilton's American Narrow-Gauge Railroads (and also an article by John H. White Jr. "The Narrow Gauge Fallacy" in the R&LHS Bulletin Railroad History #141 of 1979), in which Hilton (and White) analyzes, and ultimately demolishes, the fallacious theory of cost-savings in infrastructure costs of a narrow gauge. (Hilton's book is available for perusal in Google Books; start with page 48 and work from there forward.) Granted, you aren't worried about the freight capacity of your rolling stock and only minimally about the passenger capacity, as well as revenue-to-cost ratios. And we presume the right-of-way in question is already in hand or preserved. The basic problem is that unless you actually preserve narrow-gauge equipment of historic vintage linked to the area (see the Ffestiniog, East Broad Top, WW&F, Pioneer Tunnel, etc.), it probably won't matter if your equipment is accurate 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 scale models of the actual B&A equipment used on the line, it will still run the very real likelihood of being viewed, by donors and customers, as either an "amusement park ride" or "rich millionaires' playthings," like many/most live-steam/miniature operations of even historic vintage and substantial length. Will the additional tourist draws and headaches of operation detract from, or add to, your supposed historic preservation mission? Ask the Strasburg about their Cagney live steam shuttle.

Author:	PaulWWoodring [ Tue May 31, 2011 12:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Stan
Over the years I've often considered many of these same ideas. I think if you want a light rail operation to be seen as a serious interpretation of history, and as a more affordable or realistic operation of equipment and practices that no longer exist, it must be done as close to the original appearance and practice as possible. As an example of a group that looks to be doing this right, here is a link to a small-scale operation in the UK called the Ryedale Society of Model Engineers, Northeast of York. Link: http://www.rsme.org.uk/ Just about everything on this live steam railroad appears to follow actual equipment plans and operating practices. They even have functional lever-operated towers, and their rolling stock is detailed and matched to the locomotives being used. These are aspects that are the most difficult, if not impossible, to reproduce on a full-size museum or tourist operation. Needless to say, this operation just blows me away. Maybe more impressive than the detail and authenticity of the operation is the fact that they have a group that is cohesive enough to all commit to a historically accurate and appropriate operation, without someone wanting to go off and "do their own thing", no matter how inaccurate or inappropriate it would be (like having a Big Boy on an operation depicting Northeastern U. S. railroading). A major reason to build a museum operation as a light railway would be to get around modern operating rules and restrictions, since under a number of circumstances, the FRA would not regulate a railroad under 24" ga. You could probably find components and parts that would work for rolling stock in 600 mm. ga. (about 23.5") and make that work on your operation. Now, I'm not suggesting doing this so you could do something absolutely unsafe, like build a locomotive with a lap-seam boiler, but you could do things like demonstrate poling cars in a smaller scale, which you could not do full-size today. In a smaller scale, certain types of components which have been disallowed in regular service - like arch bar trucks - could be used on rolling stock. You could push a live passenger train, or with the caboose of a freight train front-coupled in helper service. Most importantly, you could afford more and better numbers of accurately detailed period equipment in a smaller size. And your interpreting volunteers or employees could wear totally authentic period outfits, and not have to wear things used in current practice, like high-visibility vests made of materials that did not exist 60-70 years ago. Things like that are good reasons to pursue a light railway option.

Author:	Dave [ Tue May 31, 2011 12:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Stan
600 MM is a European industrial gage, and there's quite a bit of rolling stock made for it that has been brought privately to the US over the past 35 years or so. Perhaps the opening of Eastern Europe may provide some affordable sources of supply. dave

Author:	daylight4449 [ Tue May 31, 2011 1:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Stan
Thanks, I'll contact Strasburg about how those cagneys fit into their operation. As for cost related figures, I'll need those for my proposal, so it has some meat on the bones, so to speak. It's a good point that some sort of steamer of that size has the same sights and sounds, regardless of the fact that it's pint size. I want to give this proposal to the Depot Foundation board as the follow-up project to the depot's completion. A project like this also could help with communtiy relations, as it being my responsibility to get younger people involved, something like this could be good training for someone who wants to work with the full size thing. So it would make sense to utilize signaling, switching, etc. for a venture like this. The only thing that worries me is if this line was to cross a road. Would that make it fall under FRA requirements. I'm all for safety, but if were being faced with major constraints, then how can we make sure that people understand the authenticity behind something like a light railway. I cite the RH&D as a prime example of an industrial line that utilized massive steam engines (by my standards) for their day-to-day operations.

Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/

Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Standard https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31496	Page 1 of 1

Author:	robertmacdowell [ Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Stan
daylight4449 wrote: Thanks, I'll contact Strasburg about how those cagneys fit into their operation. As for cost related figures, I'll need those for my proposal, so it has some meat on the bones, so to speak. It's a good point that some sort of steamer of that size has the same sights and sounds, regardless of the fact that it's pint size. I want to give this proposal to the Depot Foundation board as the follow-up project to the depot's completion. Well, for the cost of such lines, I suggest talking to Train Mountain out in Oregon. They have 15 miles (real miles not scale) of 7.5" gauge. If I recall they even make their own prestressed concrete ties. On the other hand, if you want to build FULL scale standard gauge, I suggest you talk to the Pacific Locomotive Association in Niles Canyon. They have relaid nearly as many miles of REAL railroad, and I think you will find they didn't pay much more per mile than Train Mountain. And because they're a real full size historic train, they have a hell of a lot better revenue model, as they can fetch $10++ per ride. Their secrets are: first, they obtained used rails and ties, either donated or obtained at scrap value. (getting used ties donated by the thousands is not that hard; the trick is moving them :) And second, they built just 1/2 mile at first, got running, and used the revenue to build more. Quote: A project like this also could help with communtiy relations, as it being my responsibility to get younger people involved, something like this could be good training for someone who wants to work with the full size thing. So it would make sense to utilize signaling, switching, etc. for a venture like this. The only thing that worries me is if this line was to cross a road. Would that make it fall under FRA requirements. Wow... you are unclear on the regs. You need to get very clear. However, you ALSO need to reckon with the fact that most of the people you deal with (including FRA employees) will be as befuddled by the regs as you are, but a lot more cocksure. As Mark Twain says: "It's not what you don't know that gets you: it's what you "know" that just ain't so!" Here is the best place for you to start. http://www.fra.dot.gov/pages/2348.shtml Read both documents. The flowchart best describes which category you're in, and the letter calls out what applies in that category. Even if a reg is applicable, you must also look at the reg individually, and look for a section called "Applicability" and read that in detail. For instance most equipment regs make equipment past a certain age exempt. You can also apply for exemptions in common-sense cases, and FRA is obliged to give them due to 49 USC 20103. (hehe, and most of you thought they were just being nice guys.) Actually FRA are nice guys if you can get your local man to read the above letter. I would argue that the regulatory sweetspot is actually that middle category in the letter, "barely regulated by the FRA". You do not want to be UNregulated by FRA, because surprise! You'll be regulated by somebody else. Probably your state's PUC, weights and measures, Dept. of Labor or whoever their Roller-Coaster Kops are. And the problem is you'll be getting irregular and inconsistent regulation, possibly draconian regulation that will shut you down, which has been a constant vexation for the miniature train guys. Quote: I'm all for safety, but if were being faced with major constraints, then how can we make sure that people understand the authenticity behind something like a light railway. I cite the RH&D as a prime example of an industrial line that utilized massive steam engines (by my standards) for their day-to-day operations. [/quote][/quote] From the history I read, RH&D was never an industrial line, but was always a rich man's play-toy, albeit on with some utility in public transport between the towns. In any case there is no precedent in America. A miniature train will ALWAYS be perceived as being a toy train. You are locked out of using real historic equipment. I think you'll have some struggle with 501(c)(3) nonprofit status as a result. No, I advise putting it back proper standard gauge, as a historical recreation, in a 501(c)(3) format, basically replicate what Pacific Locomotive Asoc. did. Throw down 1/2 mile of rail, get a relevant engine and a Lackawanna coach, and have at. Heck, if you can't afford that, start with speeders.

Author:	PaulWWoodring [ Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:01 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Stan
robertmacdowell wrote: A miniature train will ALWAYS be perceived as being a toy train. You are locked out of using real historic equipment. I think you'll have some struggle with 501(c)(3) nonprofit status as a result. I definitely would take issue with the struggle to get 501(c)(3) non-profit status. I can think of at least two live steam clubs that have it off the top of my head (CALS and NEOLS), both of which operate in public parks. The CALS were able to fend off the Dept. of Labor amusement people as long as Don Schaefer was either Mayor of Baltimore, or Governor of Maryland, but they eventually came under their authority, and have been able to come to terms with those folks and keep hauling the public. They had a couple of things going for them that helped. Seeing that Maryland was going to impose some type of miniature boiler regulation in the late '80's, they helped write the rules, so they were reasonable. Also, the CALS have long had a tradition of being very safety conscious, with a formal rule book and training for hauling the public that rivals many full-size tourist and museum operations. (It helps when one of your rules people is also one of Amtrak's rules people.) NEOLS largely lifted their operating rules for their track in Lester, Ohio from the CALS. One thing that they apparently don't have to deal with (surprisingly, after the Medina tractor boiler explosion several years ago) are miniature boiler regulations (yet). Really, depending on what state you are looking to set up in, liability insurance might end up being a bigger problem than government regulation. I also think that you don't have to be perceived as a "toy" train operation, just because you don't have a one-to-one operating scale in 56.5" ga. I don't think anyone thinks of the WW&F as a "toy" train. Granted, they are using historic Maine two-footer equipment, but I thought that we were talking about an operation of 15" ga. or larger for the most part. I threw in the small scale UK operation to show what was possible for the money in terms of the accuracy and detail of equipment and plant. A lot of people who post here pine away for an operation in this country like the North Yorkshire Moors or the Bluebell, and we just don't have the existing available plant, rolling stock, or preserved and operable locomotives in the states to make that happen in full-size.

Author:	daylight4449 [ Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Stan
Alright, so from what I got so far is that FRA regulations don't normally cover 15 in gauge, but that is circumstancial (other criteria fall into play, but that is based off of a examination by the FRA), there's merrits to a full size or light railway, either in case of accuracy or being able to interpret historical facts and operations. This has proven very helpful. Thanks. If anyone else has some other suggestions, please share. Anything is helpful (i.e. supply sources, etc)

Author:	Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Stan
PaulWWoodring wrote: A lot of people who post here pine away for an operation in this country like the North Yorkshire Moors or the Bluebell, and we just don't have the existing available plant, rolling stock, or preserved and operable locomotives in the states to make that happen in full-size. Oh, we do. We absolutely, positively do. We just don't have either the willpower or the audience/ridership interested in sustaining such an operation. If we did, we'd still have the Blue Mountain & Reading, Grand Canyon steam (more than we do), and mainline steam excursions that aren't as rare as honest politicians.

Author:	JR May [ Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Stan
Dylan: I would suggest you join the yahoo "Grand Scale Railway Forum" and the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/parktrains forum as well. They both have a search function that should prove quite helpful. A group down in Maryland ran a similar exercise recently with cost much less than you are looking at. If I recall correctly it was something under $200K per mile installed. You will see some older notices on availability of new rail at a very decent prices at these sites. I'd suggest you make contact with John Rimmasch of Wasatch Railroad Contractors. His web site is http://wrrc.us I would take issue that 15" gauge is always viewed as an "amusement park ride." Look at early Cagney history and you will see that they were part of a transportation system used at various expositions. They were not an amusement ride, although they were seen as a marvel due to their small size. Look up the history of the "House of David" park in Michigan. Again, it was a transportation system and hauled more people that you will ever dream of. A book is available on ebay about the House of David which is today being rebuilt. And look at it this way. If some do consider it to be an amusement ride, yet it brings in gobbs of cash, so what? Take the money. As to this gauge being "rich millionaires' playthings," I am not rich by any means but I do own a 15" gauge 1907 Herschell-Spillman 4-4-0 steam locomotive used at one time at Cedar Point in Ohio. It is undergoing restoration at this time. Herschells and Cagneys are nearly identical, with the Herschell being a tad heavier. Lots of these engines are owned by regular guys. I would suggest you pick up a copy of "LITTLE RAILWAYS OF THE WORLD" by Frederic Shaw. It should give you lots of ideas. There is some beautiful 15 and 18 inch gauge equipment out there including Pacific's and northerns. WF&P out in the St Louis area is 12" gauge, which is probably too small for you, but they run a very professional operation complete with signals and such. Very impressive and I'm sure you could learn something from them. I would also suggest you look at what your real goals are. As an attraction, a 15" gauge Cagney would be outstanding. But, if it rains or snows, you are out of luck. Going with standard gauge may bring up issues with the neighbors, but it gives you all weather operation. Hope this helps a bit, J.R.

Author:	Ed Kapuscinski [ Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:06 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Stan
To play devil's advocate. How would you defend this pie in the sky idea from someone asking why they should donate to it instead of some actual preservation project, you know, where someone takes something physical that exists and helps it continue to exist? This type of thing would take a LOT of money, money that might be better spent by our community on restoring any one of the lot of steamers at the RR Museum of PA, or on any one of the thousands (probably) of existing preservation projects nationwide? For example, why should someone help fund this when there is an existent railroad, The Stewartstown in PA, that could be saved for far, far less?

Author:	PaulWWoodring [ Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comparisons between standards of Light Railways and Stan
I don't think this has to be an either/or thing. From what I have seen in photos, it looks like the C&O HS Heritage Center in Clifton Forge has made use of a live steam track and appropriate visiting smaller scale locomotives to help interpret static full-size displays, as well as help attract families to the museum with something to ride. I would love to see the late Bruce Hamilton's Greenbrier operate there while 614 is in residence. The live steam track runs right beside where 614 is on display. The point is that a smaller scale operation within a full-scale museum may be the only way there can be any kind of actual moving operation with some museums. It might also be a way to attract the public to a museum with hopes of operating full-size equipment, but one that has yet to develop the patronage and income base to complete their operating track (like, um, NORM). If they had say an 18" to 24" ga. scale trolley ride around their property, like the late Willard Edson had at his home near Toledo over 30 years ago (it was a wonder what one could do with some old washing machine motors, plywood, and Masonite), they might attract many more visitors and income to complete their long contemplated ride to Chippewa Lake. Not a criticism, just a musing aloud thought.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/