Assessing the Value of Railway Heritage for Sustainable Development: The Case Study of the Oraviţa–Anina Railway, Romania

Abstract

The value of historical railways and their important role in social, economic, technical, political, and cultural terms has led to their inclusion as industrial heritage attractions. This study aims to evaluate the heritage value of the Oraviţa–Anina linear railway, the first mountain railway in Romania. The assessment of the value of the railway involved both quantitative and qualitative methods. The value was assessed on the basis of a rigorous quantitative evaluation of key attributes of heritage railway, using a system of criteria and indicators. On the other hand, the selected qualitative methodology facilitated the critical interpretation of the perception of the local community as a beneficiary of the railway heritage and as an active stakeholder involved in its reuse. The qualitative evaluation of the heritage railway was also highlighted based on a critical analysis of tourists’ perceptions. The results indicate the usefulness of a mixed methodology for the complex evaluation of the value of a heritage railway and its sustainable capitalization. Railway tourism is a sustainable solution meant to stimulate interest in learning about local history and culture, and can at the same time contribute to the fulfillment of knowledge of the motivations that drive tourist demand.

1. Introduction

In Europe, railway heritage was not initially included in cultural patrimony because it belongs to the industrial field and was perceived as a recent legacy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries [1] (p. 8). The development of rail transport is closely linked to the Industrial Revolution [2,3,4]. The emergence of steam locomotives marked an important stage of the Industrial Revolution, with rail transport contributing to the development of industrialization worldwide, serving various industries [2]. At the same time, rail transport also contributed to the development of society in the nineteenth century [3], representing a symbol of progress in different countries [5]. Over time, the railways developed significantly and facilitated long-distance freight and passenger transport, spreading from the United Kingdom to other countries [6].

Railway transport has significantly contributed to the development of Romania in different historical stages. The first railways were put into use on the current territory of Romania in the second part of the 19th century, in the provinces of Banat and Transylvania, annexed at that time by the Austrian Empire and, respectively, the Kingdom of Hungary, which later, following the dualist pact, have become Austria-Hungary (1867) [7,8]. The construction of the first railways was linked to serving some areas of the extractive industry (in Banat: coal, in Transylvania: gold, silver, salt, coal), in order to facilitate the transport of exploited resources to the sales markets [9]. In numerous cases, as a result of financial constraints and technical restrictions related to the geographical setting (predominantly mountainous), numerous narrow-gauge lines were also built [9]. The unification of Romanian provinces of Moldova and Walachia in 1859, marked a turning point in the creation of a framework conducive to economic development, due to the implementation of fundamental reforms that contributed to the modernization of the Romanian state (e.g., to improve and expand the transport infrastructure). The first railways were built under concession starting with the second half of the 19th century, one of the most important lines being the one that connected the country’s capital with the Danube port of Giurgiu (1869) [10]. Furthermore, in the same period, in the province of Dobrogea, annexed by the Ottoman Empire, the Cernavodă-Constanţa railway (1870) built by the English company Danube and Black Sea Railway (DBSR) [7,8]. In 1918, the union of the Kingdom of Romania with the regions of Transylvania, Banat, Bessarabia and Bucovina was achieved. This important historical event generated the development of the Romanian Railway Society, which built different railways according to the conception of Romanian engineers [7,8]. During the communist period (1945–1989), significant investments were made in the development of railways to support the rapid industrialization process of the country, to which is added the construction of railways in rural areas. Starting from 1990, after the fall of the communist regime, Romania is among the European countries with a dense railway network, but at the same time, the process of maintaining and modernizing the railway infrastructure is relatively slow due to financial limitations.

The inclusion of railway vestiges in the sphere of cultural heritage initially faced with two obstacles: a lack of recognition of its cultural and technological value, resulting from its perception as an element of infrastructure with ordinary qualities, to which were added legislative obstacles [1]. Awareness of the heritage value of industrial heritage came late, in the context of deindustrialization, which led to underutilization, abandonment, and the deterioration of many industrial heritage sites [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20], including those making up transport infrastructure [12,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Abandoned railway lines are frequently found in areas where mining or heavy industry units are no longer operational [12,29]. The progressive modernization of railway infrastructure was another factor that led to the abandonment of many historical railway lines, some of which are elements of architecture and civil engineering that have great value [21,30,31,32]. Thus, a legislative framework was created for the conservation of industrial monuments by registering them in the category of cultural assets. The important role played by railways in the development of countries and their multiple values (historical, technical, social, economic, political, and cultural) have led to their inclusion as industrial heritage attractions [12,21,24,31,33,34,35,36,37]. The components of railway transport, built at the beginning of the 19th century, unimaginable a generation ago, represented by outstanding railway technical elements (steam locomotives) or functional buildings (signal boxes, maintenance workshops) are considered innovative elements of the period of the Industrial Revolution that have heritage value in a certain environment, a fact that justified their inclusion in the sphere of industrial archeology [4,38].

The railway heritage includes: heritage railways, working railway, tramways, railway museums, railway journeys in historical wagons, tram museums, and tourist railways; buildings or infrastructure related to the protection of railways, technical skills of construction and management of railways (freight stations, locomotive and tram depots, construction and maintenance workshops, etc.), but also intangible labor memory [23,29,31,39,40,41,42].

In recent years, railway heritage has been capitalized on as a tourist resource in many countries [12,31,43], which has ensured a second life for historical railways, vintage trains, and railway buildings [25]. Tourism is seen as a form of railway heritage conservation and at the same time provides a link with history [24,44]. Additionally, the conservation of railway heritage elements has been ensured by including them in technical museums [44,45], representing the conservation of technological artifacts [46] as static exhibits [43,47]. Some authors have developed the idea of “preservationism” related to the conservation of railway heritage elements as a reaction to modernization and even as collective nostalgia related to the industrial past [2,25,43,48,49,50,51]; rapid deindustrialization has generated a deep sense of the loss of technology (steam locomotives) and of the associated social life [44] (p. 152). From the conservation perspective, the need to highlight the links between the railway heritage and the history through the manner of exhibiting and presenting the types of artefacts to the general public has been justified. In this context, special attention is paid to the concept of heritage railways, which refers to the historical railways that have lost their original function and are reused for tourist purposes as a way of preserving them in the form of a dynamic museum [43]. The term of “dynamic museum” refers to the touristic use of the heritage railways as a way of preserving and extending their existence as well as the memory of the railways. Thus, “dynamic museum” highlights the historical, technological and aesthetic values of heritage railways that indicate the opposition to static preservation [43]. The historical or heritage railways differ from the tourist railways, both in terms of purpose and duration of the journey, as well as in the travel experience offered [43]. In the case of heritage railways, which usually operate irregularly and occasionally, the train is the attraction itself due to its physical characteristics (old equipment: steam locomotives, wagons) [51,52]. Thus, the mode of transport becomes the focal point of the tourist trip, to which the landscapes are added as secondary attractions of the destination [52]. Among the most interesting international heritage railways, we can mention: Talyllyn Railway (built in 1886) [47], which is the first historical line included in the tourist circuit in Great Britain [51], Semmering from Austria, the Rhaetian railway between Switzerland and Italy [2,12], the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway in India, the Yunnan–Vietnam Railway between China and Vietnam [34], etc.

The tourist railway operates according to a regular schedule, and the trip has integrated tourist services, to which are added marketing services, which differentiates them from traveling by train as a means of public transport [43]. In this case, regular trains are used (called tourist trains, e.g., in Brazil: Expresso Turístico—Tourist Express, Estrada de Ferro Campos de Jordão—Campos de Jordão Railway) which have the role of providing transport to different tourist destinations. Unlike historical and cultural trains, the main attraction of tourist trains is represented by the landscape [43] (p. 27).

Although there is a strong relationship between tourism and railway heritage, however, the tourist use of the railway has not always been linked to heritage [43]. Heritage railways were exploited for tourism purposes in the context marked by deindustrialization, the modernization of the railway transport (abandonment of steam locomotives and re-equipment with new means of transport: high-speed trains) or even the privatization of the railway transport and the concession of some railway lines (for example, Brazil), factors that generated a reduction in the use of the old trains and steam locomotives [43]. The authors Moraes and Oliveira (2017) [43] believe that this context cannot be associated with the end of the railway era, but on the contrary, the lack of railway services for travelers influences the interest of tourists for certain travel experiences. In this context, the closing of many historical railways and the inclusion of a limited number of them in the tourist circuit, indirectly triggered the tourist experience because there is little offer [43]. The conservation of railway heritage elements has also contributed to their popularization and recognition by the general public through railway tourism [29,34].

The development of railway tourism is also opportune because it represents an ecological and sustainable form of transport [29,53]. The railway is considered an environmentally friendly and efficient form of public transport mostly due to its low emissions and the reliability of its service [23,53]. In this regard, the European Commission launched in 2021 the campaign “The European Year of Rail” to highlight the sustainability, innovation, and safety of rail transport by encouraging its use both by passengers and for freight transport to facilitate the EU’s Green Deal target of becoming climate-neutral by 2050 [54]. The railway verges offer strips natural habitats for a variety of species [55,56,57,58] and/or corridors for biodiversity: green infrastructure along the rail can play an important role in connecting wildlife [56,57,58]. However, linear transportation infrastructures (including railways) can be both a lifeline for ecosystems and a physical barrier between areas of wildlife protection, thus blocking migration corridors pollution [56]; it generate wildlife mortality from collisions with trains, noise and light pollution as well as air pollution [56,58]. However, railways are less harmful than roads to both fauna and flora: the railway corridor is typically narrow [58] and thus occupies less physical space [56]; the railway tracks are slightly elevated, allowing animals to migrate underneath [56]. Special attention was paid to the measures to mitigate the damages that the railways could generate (fauna crossings made in the form of above-ground and underground passages that can be installed retroactively [56], preventing the passage of animals (for example, by enclosure) measure that can be applied for collision hotspots [58].

In the field of heritage protection, historical railways are related to the concept of “heritage corridor” [59] which implies a similar meaning with linear heritage such as “cultural route“ [59]. “Culture route“ is defined as a linear landscape with a collection of cultural resources along which the function of communication is one of the most important parts to reflect diverse types of culture and social development in the past [59]. ICOMOS representatives from the International Committee of Cultural Itineraries (ICCI) believe that the innovation introduced to this concept reveals the heritage content of a specific phenomenon of mobility and human exchanges, facilitated through the route. Beyond its character as a mode of communication or transport, the existence and significance of the cultural route can be explained by its use for a specific purpose and by the fact that it has generated heritage values and cultural properties associated with it that reflect mutual influences between different cultural groups as result of its own specific dynamics over long historical periods [60].

Some authors consider that rail transport could be the most appropriate way to make sustainable mobility policies at an international level [53]. As a result, the use of rail transport for both citizens and tourists is encouraged in different countries [25]. If we refer to the particular situation of the use of historic steam engines and vintage trains on heritage railways, whose operation involves the burning of coal, this is an activity that generates pollution and is in contradiction with the tendency to limit or even completely prevent the burning of fossil fuels. The regulations regarding the orientation towards an economy without carbon emissions adopted in different countries, threaten the activity of the operation of heritage railways [55]. Debates on this topic raise the issue of whether it is sufficient to invoke the rarity and cultural importance of steam locomotives used on heritage railways to justify the fact that this activity generates pollution that can be compensated by ecological regulations (e.g., planting trees) [55]. Carbon emissions are a major concern, including for representatives of technical museums, industrial heritage organizations and heritage railways, and the solution requires the identification of some forms of sustainable future use of steam locomotives. Furthermore, identifying the best solutions is a challenge and requires collaboration between experts from technical museums and industrial collections, from fields related to industrial heritage (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and environmental education [55]. These debates are useful because they justify the continuation of railway tourism in a sustainable way by foreshadowing the future planning of how steam locomotives will operate. In this context, the ethics of modifying historic engines to use new low-emission technologies has been brought into discussion. Historic engines are often adapted to new or modified fuels over the course of their working lives [55] to improve their performance [61]. However, this measure does not comply with the conservation criteria applicable to collections hosted by accredited British museums, and its implementation will be difficult to accept in the next 5–10 years [55]. An alternative solution would be to build engines that use new technologies to demonstrate mechanical principles. This alternative solution is necessary, especially in the event that the burning of fossil fuels would be permanently prohibited [55]. From the point of view of authenticity, adaptations are interesting from the perspective of explaining changes in processes or work models [61]. At the same time, the negotiation of new climate regulations at the local and national level are considered compensation measures for the carbon emissions generated by the historic engines that would allow the current ecological legislation to coexist with the historic engines. These compensatory measures are justified by the cultural importance of the steam locomotives which provide a directly lived experience and which allow at the same time to explain to visitors the history and reality of industrial work, thus contributing to the public’s appreciation of the past which, in the absence of their operation them, it would be irrelevant [55].

With regard to the current debates regarding the technical interventions on the historic engines with the aim of extending their functionality, it is also necessary to approach the ways in which the historical importance of the steam locomotives can be reconciled with the need to operate them for tourist purposes [47]. Extending their functionality involves technical revisions necessary to ensure the highest possible standards of operational safety. At the same time, revisions must be compatible with the exigencies of conservation practices [47] that limit changes to artifacts to prevent imminent heritage losses [62]: e.g., minimal interventions on its components and appearance [47]. For example, in the UK, the operation of steam locomotives on heritage railways is based on compliance with a conservation management plan which includes a series of overhaul guidelines (e.g., replacing existing components where absolutely necessary, using replication of damaged components by reusing the original components taken from other locomotives or, when the second situation is not possible, the replacement components must be of the same material) [47]. There is also the situation when some locomotives used on heritage railways have been rebuilt or replicated following the remanufacture of almost exact copies of an original [47], a situation that affects the historical importance and authenticity of vintage trains [47,61]. On the other hand, it was necessary to make some compromises in order to comply with the safety and operation standards of some steam locomotives that have registered a long industrial use followed by a re-use for tourist purposes. Conservation is not without contradictions [62], especially since this also involves interpretation [47]. Compromises are acceptable to the extent that a steam locomotive is capable of operating to be kept in service. In this context, a development of the railway market is foreshadowed, emphasizing the value of heritage railways as well as the quality of the travel experience [25,63].

Given the importance and complexity of railway heritage, researchers’ interest in its optimal evaluation, conservation, and monetization through railway tourism is justified. As a result, this study aims to assess the heritage value of the historical mountain railway Oraviţa–Anina, to serve as a useful tool in its sustainable use as a linear cultural site by local, regional, and national decision makers. The multiple meanings associated with this historical railway necessitated the use of mixed methodology (quantitative and qualitative), with the results being processed with the support of ArcGIS software (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA), allowing for its promotion as a linear heritage attraction.

The objectives of this study are: (1) to evaluate, in a complex manner, the historical railway Oravița—Anina, both from the perspective of its values as a railway heritage resource, applying an evaluation system, and from the perspective of the perception of the local population and of tourists to justify its reuse as a heritage tourist attraction; (2) to identify the main stakeholders and their degree of involvement in the tourist reuse of the heritage railway Oraviţa-Anina. In order to fulfill the objectives of the study, the authors used a quantitative evaluation based on a system of six key attributes analyzed in close correlation with the criteria and indicators adapted to the specific characteristics of the railway heritage, and a qualitative evaluation focused on the critical interpretation of the local community’s perception as a heritage beneficiary and stakeholder that can be involved in its reuse. The qualitative methodology facilitated understanding the voice of the local community in its attempt to sustainably reuse heritage railway. This important aspect draws attention to the need for community involvement also in the future stages of the research regarding the vision of local development correlated with the increase in the benefits generated by railway tourism. At the same time, the qualitative methodology validated the attractiveness of the railway heritage to tourists through a critical analysis of tourists’ behavior. In order to better establish and clarify the purpose and objectives of the study, the main research questions were formulated: What are the heritage values of the historical Oraviţa-Anina railway?; How can the values of the heritage railway be evaluated in a complex manner? What is the perception of the local population towards the heritage railway? Is the local population an active stakeholder in the action of reusing the railway as a heritage attraction? What is the degree of appreciation of the tourists regarding the heritage railway Oraviţa-Anina?

2. Literature Background

Railway heritage is among the most valuable elements of industrial patrimony [4,12,30,34,59], due to several values: the technological one (the pioneering elements from the period of the Industrial Revolution, which can be unique); the fact that railways had economic significance, as well as social and political importance. This justified the inclusion of some railways (e.g., Semmering in Austria) on the World Heritage List from the mid-1990s [25,50,64]. The usual criteria for the classification of classical cultural assets have been adapted by UNESCO representatives to make them applicable to railways [2,64]: a creative work indicative of genius; the influence of, and on, innovative technology; an outstanding or typical example; and illustrative of economic or social developments. Industrial heritage includes remnants of an industrial civilization [3,4,12,14,17] whose management as cultural attractions based on multiple uses (recreational, educational) can generate significant benefits today, especially in the context marked by the reduction of industrial activities and the development of the services [12,13,24]. Industrial heritage attractions can be further sub-divided into specific types of attractions, of which railway heritage forms one category [12,24,31]: “transport attractions” [65]. At the same time, the railway heritage has an aesthetic and educational value, these being arguments for its touristic exploitation [51].

The heritage generated by railways is seen as a high point in railway tourism [52], and generate a particular experience [12,38,43,52]. Heritage railway routes can be traversed with original locomotives (steam locomotives) and wagons for aesthetic and technological reasons, proving that, despite their age, they can still be functional today [44] which explains the emotional appeal of steam locomotives [38]. Traveling on heritage trains contributes to the discovery by tourists of some elements of railway heritage such as depots that were previously forbidden places but now can be visited respecting strict health and safety regulations [44]. Erving Goffman (quoted in Hallsall, 2001) [44] (p. 153) considers depots and railway workshops as representing the back regions which attract interest of tourists because they are associated with intimacy of relations and authenticity of experiences. The inclusion of heritage railways in the tourist circuit by operators increases the number of tourists, especially of stereotypic eccentric railway enthusiasts; thus, heritage railways can be classified as objects of the collective tourist gaze [44] (p. 153).

Heritage trains are also considered objects of romantic interest, giving passengers the opportunity to relive an old travel experience or others the opportunity to have an experience with a historic train for the first time [44]. The presence of artefacts and their observation while they function, represent for visitors an opportunity to live an experience of the past directly [51]. The railway heritage is part of the memory of those who initially used the old trains, which they associate with a historical period [52], namely the Industrial Revolution. In the case of vintage trains, the heritage involved creates a sense of belonging to the subject, especially for those who had a direct relationship with the railways, either through their use or because they had a certain function within railway transport [52].

Some heritage railways run only part of the original route and are not connected to a railway network, in most cases running only occasionally. As a rule, historical railways that have a short route length are open to the public during weekends and public holidays. Historical railways with longer lengths are operational throughout the week [51]. Many heritage railways have a narrow gauge [31,35,66,67], but they can also have a broad gauge (1435 mm). Some heritage trains run on the national network, and others may have a route in several countries [23,29,31,39,40].

Attractions associated with heritage railway can also be part of other heritage assets: as a means of ensuring the mobility and access of visitors within a destination and tourism attractions [12,31,44], or by facilitating travel to tourist attractions in ways that make them part of the tourist experience [12,31,44,52]. Thus, tourist monetization on the heritage railway attractions can also contribute to the capitalization of other elements of industrial or cultural patrimony [12,31]. Additionally, the geographical location greatly influences the successful operation of tourist railways and in particular of heritage railways. Development perspectives present the railways located in attractive tourist regions and in the vicinity of large cities [12,66] as a result of the fact that the presence of both a tourist railway and heritage railways is not enough to transform a certain location into a tourist destination [43].

In this context, railway tourism involves the analysis of several aspects as a result of its complexity: the problem of tensions between the value of use and the symbolic value [43]: the way of using historical railways should be evaluated from an ethical perspective, especially when attention is drawn to the aesthetics of the heritage elements and less to the historical value and narratives that accompany them [51]; tensions between the need to generate income and the desire to manage a credible heritage railway [51], respectively the issue of financing the conservation of heritage attractions and their exploitation and maintenance [47,51,66]. These tensions are based on the issue of the current debate on the sustainability of railway tourism, especially the capitalization of the heritage railways as a historical representation, as an educational tool, on the one hand, and the heritage railway reused as a theme park, which corresponds rather to ensuring the current needs of recreation and entertainment, on the other [51].

The railways are also analyzed in relation to the landscapes they cross; the railway is considered a tool used to perceive landscapes, and a creator and reformer of the landscape [23] (p. 3), thus presenting aesthetic value and increasing the attractiveness of the landscape it crosses [12]. In addition, due to the way they are structured, railways serve as a useful platform for appreciating and contemplating cultural landscapes [5,23,25,53,68], especially for tourists who want to discover the aesthetic and cultural value of the area located in the vicinity of the important tourist centers [53]. As with other forms of tourism, there is a close link between rail tourism and environmental resources [12].

The attractiveness of the railways is also conferred by the aesthetics of the landscape. During the Industrial Revolution, the train, perceived as a large industrial machine, was considered to be in contrast with the aesthetic natural landscape. Over time, due to the development of railway tourism, its negative image changed, contributing to the increase to the attractiveness of train travel [23]. Moreover, the railway elements facilitate the journey along a recreational route [5,25,29,31,69]. A slower rail trip allows tourists to observe more details of the landscape: the local culture, the dynamics, and the social values of the community [70,71]; buildings with architectural value [70,71]; thus, the landscape becomes as a way of interpreting the place [71]. The wagon frames the landscape and surrounds the traveler [71]. Although this situation imposes a distance, it also allows a more careful understanding of the landscapes [71] and leads to an abstraction based on the nature of the journey: the train, unlike other means of transport, is considered one of the best aids to thinking: the views do not have the potential monotony of those from a ship or an airplane; at the same time, after a train journey passengers can feel that they were in contact with emotions and ideas important to them [71]. Traveling by train is described as a proto-cinematic experience, a fact highlighted by its relatively constant speed (unlike traveling on foot or by car) and by offering a panorama over the landscape [71]. The choice of a particular type of train (high speed or slow) is determined by the traveler’s preference to linger and understand a place and the wider landscape in which they are. For example, regional architectural variations will not be easily visible in the case of a high-speed train journey, although the diversity of landscape types can be identified [71]. The analysis of the relationship between the landscape and the railway was materialized creatively through the concept of a “scenic railway,” defined as a railway used for leisure, entertainment, sightseeing, and heritage experiences [23] (p. 4). The railway is the core bordered by related functional, cultural and historical heritage assets [59]. Thus, considering the particular assets of railway heritage and the cultural resources located along the way, as forming a whole, it is considered a heritage landscape distributed in a linear space [59] (p. 1). The historical value of the railway is conferred both by technical, military and cultural communication, as well as by the “route“ [59].

Some authors consider that cultural landscapes and railways also have educational value [25,43,51,53] because it determines how people learn about the landscape through a simple and sometimes distant or fleeting observation depending on the type of train selected [71]. The railway also allows landscapes inaccessible to other modes of transport to be admired largely due to the geometric limitations of its route [53,71]. Thus, traveling by train is an option of the traveler who prefers a scenic experience of great aesthetic value [53].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

The Oraviţa–Anina line is one of the most spectacular and difficult railways in Romania due to the fact that its construction required works of engineering art made in a mountainous environment in the absence of modern technologies. The historical railway is located in the southwestern part of Romania, in Banat province (Figure 1).

Oraviţa–Anina was the first and most important mountain railway line on the current Romanian territory [7,8]. It has served freight transport since 1863 and has been open to passenger traffic since 1869 [7,72]. The construction of the railway line was considered a strategic investment by the Austrian Empire in order to transport the coal mined in the southern part of the Banat province, to the Danube and from here by ship to Vienna. The coal mines in Banat are the oldest in Romania and were linked to the interests of the Austrian Empire and later of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which annexed this province from the early 18th century to the first half of the 20th century [73,74]. Therefore, the railway was also called the “coal line” [7,74].

The spectacular route, which is 33.4 km long [7,8], crosses of areas that are distinguished both by the increase in altitude and by the various forms of relief: from the town of Oraviţa, located in a depression area characterized by low altitudes (220 m), the line climbs to the town of Anina (559 m altitude), located in a mountainous area. Thus, the route has a level difference of 339 m. The Oraviţa–Anina railway is a linear site that includes a succession of natural and cultural landscapes (Figure 2).

Along the route, the views are picturesque; in some segments, the railway passes through limestone outcrops, which impose very narrow widths on the route. Due to its antiquity, the railway was included in the Heritage List [75], being classified as an industrial site of national importance. The Oraviţa–Anina line has a normal gauge.

3.2. Methodology

The methodology of the study involved a combination of various methods based on which the tourist attractiveness of the historical railway Oraviţa–Anina was evaluated. We consulted various studies focused on quantitative assessment of railway heritage elaborated by organizations in the field of railway transport, scientific articles in the technical field, cultural heritage, architecture, geography, etc. [12,34,61,76,77].

Taking into account the patrimonial value of the analyzed railway site, the qualitative method was applied because it allows for an in-depth interpretation of its significance for the local community and the degree of appreciation of the tourist experience.

The authors used Geographic Information System (GIS) to analyze the data in depth and adequately represent the diversity of the component elements of the historical railway. GIS has also been applied in studies dedicated to linear historical sites in the category of railway heritage [50], historical roads [78,79], or nature tourism routes [80].

3.2.1. Selection of Criteria and Indicators for Evaluating the Values and Tourist Attractiveness of the Heritage Railway

The authors used a framework for assessing the heritage value of the railway site that includes six key attributes adapted to the railway heritage, proposed by Xie (2006) [77] and also called critical success factors [12], as well as a number of associated indicators proposed by Jiang, Shao, and Baas (2009) [59]. The six key attributes are:

• The potential that justifies the selection of some elements of railway heritage as cultural tourist attractions at the same time offers an interaction between visitors and local heritage.
• Authenticity.
• Stakeholders.
• Adaptive reuse.
• Economic benefits correlated with economic sustainability.
• Community perception and social sustainability.

• The tourist potential of the heritage railways consists ofof its multiple types of value [12,23]. A set of criteria for assessing the potential of heritage railways has been established [12,23,59,77,78]:

(a). Historical significance correlated with historical characters and events

(b). Technological value, uniqueness, and representativeness;;

(c). Architectural value;

(d). Aesthetic value and the relationship between the railway site and the landscape;

(e). Economic significance;

(f). Social and political importance.

(a)

Historical significance. The railway has a historical past and a narrative behind it, related to the context of its formation and functioning in the era of the Industrial Revolution. Additionally, its historical value is linked with historical people, events, and activities that influence its originality and authenticity [34]. Each railway attraction is special, being defined by its own location and history [12,34].

(b)

Technological value is a basic criterion for assessing valuable railway heritage elements, which is also the attribute that individualizes them among other categories of industrial heritage [59]. Due to railway heritage belonging to industrial patrimony, numerous studies concluded that, unlike classical cultural assets, industrial ones present significant technological value. The construction of historical railways involved several technical difficulties that had to be solved by engineers [59], which gives them uniqueness and representativeness: steep slopes, height, number of curves and loops, slope arrangement, safety measures, construction of technical engineering elements (bridges, tunnels, and viaducts, as well as types of locomotive); for example, specific technical solutions were needed for mountain railways: loop lines and spiral loops, specially designed engines, etc. [34].

(c)

The architectural features reflect both local cultural and historical elements, as well the characteristics of the geographical settings. The stations are considered the main elements for the study of architectural aesthetics from previous periods, being one of the oldest industrial heritage assets observed by the public [50].

(d)

The railways have aesthetic qualities enhancing the landscape through which they pass [12,53]. The landscape is seen as being integrated into the railway heritage. The quality of the landscape becomes significant for railway heritage and tourism [23,81]. An area with high landscape value contributes to shaping a significant tourism value. For instance, in the case of the railways included in the UNESCO World Heritage List, the railway is understood as a force that generated the transformation of the land and the railway together, as a landscape, representing an attraction for tourists [23]. In addition, the historical railways that cross picturesque landscapes are identified as resistant infrastructure [23] associated with technological value, especially in mountainous areas where the arrangement of the railways has been difficult. Additionally, heritage railways are associated with historical events and public memories of their construction, and facilitated the transport of passengers over long distances and in hard-to-reach areas. Thus, some historical railways are reconstructed as typical cultural routes included in the category of linear historical sites to ensure the connection of tourist activities and preserve the integrity of the heritage in a landscape [23,50].

(e)

Economic value. The railway has played the role of transport in history [3,5,34], either as a means of transport for mining industry, urban tram, or forest railway, providing goods and services, generating economic benefits for development of the industry [34]. As previously highlighted, the cumulative action of some economic factors, such as deindustrialization, modernization or privatization of railway transport, determined the closure of many historical railways. Several heritage railway were included in tourist circuits which implies economic benefits: the economic impact generated by the direct revenues obtained from visitors, direct and indirect jobs; investments regarding either restoring and adaptive reuse of original buildings (for cultural or tourist purposes: accommodation units, railway museums) [12,24,32,33,34,66,82,83,84].

(f)

Social or political importance. The social and implicit cultural meanings of a heritage railway are also reflected in the communications along the railway routes, such as its role in connecting ethnic minorities [34,59], the public’ attitude towards the railway in the current period, the spread of technologies between different countries, and foreign participation in the railway construction process [34] (p. 2).

2.

Stakeholders: monetization of railway heritage is correlated with the diversity of the stakeholders [12,25,34,77]: active members of core organizations, community and potential tourists, planners, and local businesses.

3.

Authenticity is a basic feature of cultural resources [85,86,87,88,89,90,91] and implicitly of industrial ones [12,25,77,82,92]. Authenticity is a main factor in shaping the vitality of industrial heritage attractions being associated with the concept of genius loci—the spirit of a place [77]. The concept of authenticity has a particular relevance for industrial heritage objectives [92], which is linked to the degree of preservation of installations and equipment (authentic object may be considered as one made from the original components or one whose components correspond to the original model design) [61]. So, authenticity is related to the origin of the objectives, and to the use of authentic objects, in this case the use of historical trains. Authenticity is also related to the way of restoring the elements of heritage railways [25] in order to be reused for cultural or tourist purposes. Movement is an essential part of industrial heritage elements, especially machines and engines. The functioning of industrial heritage objects is part of their essence, as is the conception of the original design. However, the operational use causes wear, which determines over time the repair or replacement of some components, which is why some conservators opt for their inclusion in museums (as static exhibits), thus their authenticity being threatened [61]. This approach is justified if the technical object is unique and has considerable historical importance. The manner of care and display of the technical objects will depend on the recommendations of experts focused on ethical and practical aspects [61].

4.

Adaptive reuse: in the case of railway heritage sites, the reuse of old locomotives, wagons, and traditional lines involves technological limitations, especially if the railway requires certain types of trains with certain technical characteristics [25,82]. The cultural reuse of railway sites is motivated by the possibility of making industrial sites known to visitors as elements of the past. At the same time, for most elements of railway heritage where the main feature of the attraction is the reuse of historical locomotives, wagons, and traditional lines to preserve their use as a means of transport [12,44], they require investments in functional equipment in the form of leisure-oriented transport [31,82], including high maintenance costs [23,82]. Often, the adaptive reuse can compensate for the losses associated with deindustrialization [12,25,46,77], which also implies its importance in the economic sustainability of the monetization of the railway, there being a mutual influence of this criterion with the economic one.

5.

The economic benefits are quantified by the economic impact generated outside of the direct income obtained from visitors: indirect jobs; investments in cultural and implicitly tourism monetization [12,33,82,93]. The economic sustainability of the railway heritage elements is also highlighted by the process of reusing abandoned railway infrastructure, which is related to the circular economy theory that prevents the demolition of old railway buildings and inside seeks to give them a new use in order to make improvements in the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability: efficiency of materials, cost reduction, and conservation of intrinsic values [82], adaption of heritage industrial buildings to improve energy efficiency: savings in embodied energy by maintenance of traditional buildings using locally sourced materials (buildings based traditionally on their thermal mass for heat, cooling, natural light and ventilation), operational savings (by insulation or renewable energy) [94]. Some authors draw attention to the financial sustainability of tourist railways that must be analyzed, taking into account several factors that may affect the budget such as the seasonality of tourism and the ratio between the resources required for the operation of tourist railways and the number of travelers [12,25].

6.

Community perception and social sustainability. The attitude of the community in relation to the local cultural heritage is very important because it can influence the degree of its optimal capitalization. Various studies have pointed out that the local population shows a strong sense of attachment and identity long after industrial units or railways have been closed [12,73,95,96,97]. Often, the population also has feelings of regret and nostalgia that they associate with the industrial past, related to the disappearance of lucrative and social activities as a result of the decline generated by the closure of industry or railways, as well as the state of precarious conservation of the railway heritage elements (e.g., steam locomotives) [25,44,73]. Thus, the perception of the local community regarding the railway heritage can be analyzed through the prism of social sustainability, with the feeling of attachment correlated with the desire to preserve and capitalize on it [25,66]. To define the value characteristics of the historical Oraviţa–Anina railway, a synthetic assessment of the six key attributes was developed using four categories of criteria and 18 indicators. The criteria and indicators are adapted to the specific characteristics of railway heritage, as proposed by Jiang, Shao, Baas (2019) [59] (p. 5): Technical Difficulty (B1), Physical Evidence (B2), Cultural Communication (B3), and Social Impact (B4). The correlation of the six key attributes with the criteria and related indicators was synthetically represented in Figure 3.

The criterion of Technical Difficulty (B1) consists of 9 important elements with technical value (C1) for defining the heritage railway and the era in which it was built: length of the railway, number of tunnels, total length of tunnels, number of viaducts, total length of viaducts, maximum height difference, slope, gauge, minimum radius of curve. Another important indicator is the year of construction of the railway (C2) whose interpretation from a technical point of view reflects the fact that the older a railway is, the higher its level of technical difficulty [59].

The Physical Evidence Criterion (B2) was applied to evaluate the authenticity and integrity of the analyzed heritage railway: degree of retention of function (C3): it refers to the evaluation of the degree of functionality (partial or total, including the original locomotive); degree of retention of the track (C4): the degree of preservation of the originality of the railway (partial or total); number of remains (C5): richness of heritage; degree of route modification (C6): retains the original line and historic additions to the line; degree of route abandonment (C7): it refers to the state of the route: intact or partial abandoned; number of important events (C8): historical importance [59] (p. 5).

The criterion of Cultural Communication (B3) includes indicators related to the characteristics of cultural changes along the historical railway: colonial time (C9), number of colonial countries (C10): types of foreign culture, number of ethnic minorities (C11): types of minority culture, degree of foreign participation in railway construction (C12): foreign methods of construction and design of the engineering project [59] (p. 5).

The Social Impact criterion (B4) includes indicators selected on the basis of historical and current social development and the demand for the railway [61]: number of provinces (C13): spatial dimension of social impact; total number of stations (C14): the influence on the population that lived nearby; the impact of railway construction on social productivity (C15): the significant impact generated by the railway on social and economic development that marked the transition from a rural agricultural society to an urban industrial society; the historic need of railway transportation (C16): the historic functional importance of the railway; the current need of railway transportation (C17): it refers to the functional importance of the railway at present; degree of public acceptance (C18): the public attitude on railway heritage including history, heritage, and conservation in the current period [61] (Figure 3). Regarding the value evaluation of the Oraviţa–Anina historical railway, out of all the objective indicators, eleven (C1, C2, C9, C17 were analyzed by consulting various bibliographic sources (some of a technical character, developed by specialists in the field of railways, tourist monographs, etc.). The analysis of indicators C3 to C8 resulted from the field research. The last indicator (C18) correlated with the third key attribute (stakeholders) was derived from the interpretation of the results obtained both from the field research and the application of semistructured interviews with members of the local population, including railway employees. For the sixth attribute (Community perception), qualitative methodology was used, based on the application and interpretation of semi-structured interviews (Figure 3).

In order to prioritize and parameterize the quantitative evaluation of the values of the heritage railway Oraviţa-Anina, the authors applied a qualitative method of ranking the key attributes, using as a model the trial application [57]. This method proposed by Baker [57] assumed the evaluation of the potential value of three railway corridors in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada, as recreation routes, using specific criteria (e.g., user satisfaction, non-use values, etc.). Since the present study is focused on the analysis of the heritage values of a historical railway, the authors adapted the method using the key attributes, criteria and evaluation indicators specific to the heritage railways (Figure 3). The second stage of the method involves a ranking of the values. It was necessary to adapt the way of ranking the values used in the trial application. In the case of the evaluation of railway corridors as recreational routes, the method of quantifying the attributes of the route from the perspective of user satisfaction is specified in previous similar studies (measuring magnitude of change in user satisfaction starting from certain values calculated for ideal recreation routes) [57]. In the case of the studies focused on the evaluation of the values of historical railways, the authors identified only one paper [59] in which the values are compared according to their degree of importance, through the relationships between criteria and indicators, using a separate statistical normalization method of data to establish positive and negative correlations. As a result of the fact that the authors do not have advanced knowledge of statistics, the ranking of the attributes of the Oraviţa-Anina railway was achieved by giving scores on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means a low degree of importance and 5 a very high degree.

According to the methods applied by Baker [57] and Jiang et al. [59], the ranking must be done by different experts called key informants [57] to increase the degree of objectivity of the evaluation [57,59]. Thus, 6 experts were selected: three specialists in the field of railway transport within the Romanian Railways (the first and second experts worked in the Passenger Traffic and Railway Traction Services in Bucharest; the third is the head of the Oraviţa station) and 2 architects and an urban planner who have expertise in the evaluation of elements of industrial and railway heritage respectively.. The first architect is affiliated to the Polytechnic University of Timişoara, and the other two to the “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism—Bucharest. The discussions with experts, focused on the evaluation and ranking of the patrimonial values of the analyzed railway, were carried out in the form of interviews. According to the trial application method, the discussions with experts also aimed at evaluating the criteria established in this study in terms of their suitability and usefulness, leading to suggestions regarding the improvement of the method. Furthermore, this method involves a comparison of the railway evaluation criteria proposed by researchers with those used by experts [57]. The results of this comparison are useful in indicating whether the initial values proposed by the researchers are adequate measures to evaluate the potential of the railway route and whether important criteria for measuring it have been overlooked. The interviews took place either physically with experts from Bucharest or by telephone with experts from other cities, as it was difficult for the interviewer to travel long distances. The interviews were conducted in September 2022. The duration of the interviews was between 30 and 40 min.

3.2.2. Collection of Data

To collect data related to the historical and economic context that generated the need to construct the Oraviţa–Anina railway, we consulted books, technical reports, and monographs. We also gathered technical information related to the construction of the railway. The documentation also involved a review of specialist literature.

The data sources used to represent the railway site included photograms, old topographic maps, digital elevation models, and data obtained from topo-cadastral measurements that were previously performed by the authors using the total station. To these were added photos taken by the authors during several field campaigns (2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2021) to capture beauty of the railway and the landscapes it crosses. A database was created in File Geodatabase format. This type of database is used to store attributes related to entities represented in vector form. Vector data were obtained as a result of field measurements using modern technologies (using a total station), after digitization or from data in raster format following the vectorization operation. The data were organized in vector and raster format [50,98]. Vector data included polygons, polylines, and points along with their attributes [50,98]. The polygon dataset included characteristics such as vegetation distribution, land use, boundaries of territorial administrative units, roads, constructions; the polyline dataset contains the railway itself, water bodies, etc.; the set of points includes the distribution of heritage assets, points of interest located along the route (viaducts, tunnels, etc.).

3.2.3. Data Processing

Data processing consisted of analyzing and overlapping data, customizing the thematic map. In order to draw the limits of the route of the historical railway, criteria applied in other studies dedicated to the delimitation of the heritage corridors were used: natural landscape boundaries (e.g., ridge boundaries, water boundaries), cultural boundaries based on the definition of a cultural buffer that allows delimitation based on the distribution of cultural heritage elements around administrative centers [50,78], the sphere of cultural influence: the area seen as a cultural whole [61] and the administrative boundaries [50,78]. Along the linear railway site were the following administrative territorial units: two towns, Oraviţa and Anina, and two communes, Ciudanoviţa and Goruia.

A geodatabase was created to represent the railway and the associated heritage elements (stations, viaducts, bridges, depots), as well as other cultural heritage elements, using the ArcGIS digital platform, specifically the ArcGISPro application 2.9.3. The importance of creating a geospatial database is correlated with the need to assess the complexity of the railway heritage, facilitating its integration with other elements of natural and cultural heritage in a coherent form. There is currently special interest in integrating geoinformation data into heritage databases through the use of GIS software that has the ability to correlate geographical and alphanumeric information, also extremely useful in representing heritage elements along a historical route whose distribution in the territory is dispersed [62]. Based on the creation of the geodatabase, a model was elaborated that reflects the geographical reality, the emphasis being on the representation of the typology of the railway heritage assets. At the same time, particularities of the geographical framework represented by high values of the declivity were highlighted.

The qualitative method (for site research) has been applied in various studies focused on railway [29,44] or industrial heritage [95,97] because it allows for the use of various investigative techniques, based on which the researcher can analyze and evaluate in depth a case study from the perspective of the perceptions of the community [44,95,97], the scenic authenticity of the place, and the tourist gaze [44]. The active participation of the researcher is followed by a critical interpretation of the results. The authors conducted on-site research to observe the particular characteristics of the historical Oraviţa–Anina railway line during five field campaigns.

Additionally, the authors analyzed, based on participatory observation, the community’s perception of the tourist use of the railway and the behavior of tourists. Thus, discussions were held in the form of semistructured interviews with members of the local community, including railway employees, focused on analyzing their perception concerning the tourist reuse of the railway. Eighty-six semistructured interviews were conducted in the two terminus stations, the towns of Oraviţa and Anina. The duration of the semi-structured interviews was 35–45 min. Thirty-nine interviews took place in July and forty-seven took place in September 2021.

The semistructured interview was organized around the following open questions:

1. Do you consider that the Oraviţa–Anina railway defines the tourist image of the town where you live?

2. How do you appreciate the reuse of the railway as a tourist objective?

3. What are the elements that draw tourists to frequent the tourist railway?

4. Mention at least one favorable element and one weak point regarding the way of capitalizing the railway as a tourist objective.

The two towns have similar populations by age group: 0–19 years: Anina 20% and Oraviţa 18%, respectively; young population (20–29 years): 27.6% and 27%, respectively; adult population (30–64) 37% and 39%, respectively; and population aged 65 and over: 15.4% and 16%, respectively (statistical data calculated by authors, source: National Institute of Statistics) [99]. Regarding the age of respondents, the young population (up to 18) represents 34.6% (including people who have reached age of 18), the adult population 44.1%, and the elderly population 21.3%. The educational status of the respondents was quite varied, with more than half having secondary education. The respondents had varied occupations, which was relevant to the study (

Table 1. The social and demographical characteristics of respondents.

Characteristics of Respondents	Value (%)
Age	Young population (34.6%)
	Adult population (44.1%)
	Elderly population (21.3%)
Level of education	Primary school (3.2%)
	Secondary school (12.6%)
	Professional school (27.4%)
	High school (40.3%)
	University (16.5%)
Occupation	Employees in the primary sector (8.2%)
	Employees in secondary sector (9%)
	Employees in tertiary sector (54.3%)
	Retirees (24.5%) Students, pupils (4%)

Source: Data calculated by authors.

).

As participating observers, the role of the authors was also to critically analyze the behavior of tourists at the stations and during the train journey. The observation of the tourists’ behavior was made by the researchers as “bystanders” [44], who evaluated in a detached way the degree of appreciation of the tourist experience.

4. Results

As mentioned earlier, the authors assessed the value of the historical Oraviţa–Anina railway using six key attributes adapted to the railway heritage, as proposed by Xie (2006) [77], also called critical success factors [12], as well as a number of associated indicators [61], in order to quantify its tourist attractiveness.

4.1. The Potential of the Railway

The potential of the railway was assessed on the basis of its multiple types of value.

(a) Historical significance. The early construction of the Oraviţa–Anina railway (1847–1863) was related to the need to transport coal mined in the southern part of the historic province of Banat (Anina mining basin) to the Danube port Baziaş, and from here, by ships on the Danube, to Vienna. Coal was used mainly by large Danube shipping companies, the best known of which was the Donau Dampfschiffahrt Gesellschaft (D.D.S.G., established in 1829) [7]. The transport of coal from Anina to Oraviţa was carried out with difficulty until the construction of the railway, using carts [100]. The intensification of the coal exploitation from the Anina mine and the discovery of new coal deposits (at Gârlişte and Jitin) necessitated the building of the Oraviţa–Anina line. The Austrian professor Franz Xavier Riepl elaborated the first project of a railway network for the Austrian Empire, between 1829 and 1835, which also included a proposal to build a line connecting the Anina mining basin with the Danube port Baziaş [72]. Initially, the Oraviţa–Baziaş railway segment was built (started in 1847 and opened in 1854, originally used for the transport of coal and other goods from Oraviţa to the Danube; from November 1, 1856, it was also used for passenger transport). Later, the Oraviţa–Anina railway segment was built at the initiative of the director of the Banat mines, the aulic councilor Gustav von Gränzestein. However, the costs of building a standard gauge railway line were quite high. If we also take into account the fact that the line was going to cross a very difficult route through the mountains from Anina to Oravița, we understand why, at the beginning, a less expensive solution was chosen for this line. Initially, the railway had two segments: the first on the route Anina (Steyerdorf is the German name) to Lişava with horse traction, with a length of 25.7 km, which was used for the crossing of the sections with large slopes; this segment started in 1847, and was completed in 1854; the second segment, the Lişava–Oraviţa distance, with a length of 6.8 km, was a railway with steam locomotive traction. The traction on the provisional line Lişava–Oraviţa, with a different route than today, was ensured with type 1B–n2 locomotives, of the same type as those used on the rest of the line to Baziaş [7,72]. Part of the route of this narrow line can still be found today. Between Anina and Gârliște, one can see the tunnels of the former line next to the tunnels of the normal gauge line, then, near the Gârliște station, one can still see the embankment of the former line, as well as the tunnel, and the route can also be seen through the forest to Jitin Valley. Here, the narrow line ran much higher up the slope on the right bank of the valley. At the end of the embankment, towards Ciudanovița, there was also a shaft through which the wagons were lowered into Jitin Valley, to then reach Lișava station [100]. After 1852, with the increase in performance of steam traction, the decision was made to change the construction method of the horse-drawn segment.

Due to a financial crisis, the imperial authorities decide to sell to the Royal Privileged Caesar–Austrian State Railway Company (StEG) its mining, metallurgical, and forestry properties in Banat and Bohemia, together with a 90-year concession for the construction and use of a railway network. Due to the difficulty of transporting coal on the route by horse traction, StEG assumed the reconstruction of the railway project from Lişava to Anina by arranging a new route on which steam locomotives would be used. Between 1861–1863, the construction of the new normal railway with steam traction on the Oraviţa-Anina route was completed [72].

(b) Technological value.

The route of the railway crosses mountainous areas around Anina and on the Lişava–Gârlişte segment, later passing through a hilly area near Oraviţa town, with a level difference of 339 m and very small curvature lines. Thus, from a technical point of view, the difficulty of the route required the construction of a prototype steam locomotive and wagons with a particular structure. The construction of the locomotive and wagons was designed with a smaller distance between the axles with a length and a light weight of only 42 tf, so as to avoid train derailment in areas with high declivity for reasons of railway safety [7]. This limits the maximum speed to 20 km/h, and even lower in segments with high declivities. The curves, numbering 160, represent 70% of the total length of the route; 129 curves (81%) have a radius of curvature of less than 200 m, representing 20 km in total [100]. Due to the very small radii of curvature of the route, some of which are only 114 m, and the slopes of up to 20 mm/m, the Oraviţa–Anina line is very similar to the famous Gloggnitz–Mürzzuschlag (Semmeringbahn) mountain line from Austria, which crosses the Alps Mountains through the Semmering pass (897 m altitude) [7]. This is why the Oraviţa–Anina line was called the “Banatian Semmering” [7,72,74,101].

The locomotive prototype was used only on this line and marked the history of rail transport. Due to their originality, the first steam locomotives that ran on the Oraviţa-Anina line, figures in the great treaties of steam traction. Due to the uniqueness, conferred by the orginal constructive solutions adopted, the first locomotive used on this railway was named no. 500 STEYERDORF (German name of Anina town).

It was presented at two universal exhibitions, in 1862 in London and later in 1867 in Paris, where it attracted great interest from specialists [7]. Thus, the first steam locomotive was designed in 1861 by the Austrian engineer Pius Fink, who worked in the Vienna locomotive factory of the StEG Company. In order not to exceed the axle load imposed, Fink designed an articulated tender locomotive with five coupled axles, similar to those designed by the Austrian engineer Wilhelm Freiherr von Engerth for the railway crossing the Semmering Pass in Austria. Engineer Pius Fink devised an ingenious way of coupling the wheels on axles in the form of a parallelogram, and an injector of his own design [7] (pp. 90–91). Through this construction, the tender frame took over part of the weight of the boiler, and the locomotive could fit in curves with a radius of up to 90 m. In order not to exceed the maximum permissible load of 9.5 t/axle, the water reserve was no longer placed in the tender, but in a special wagon, on two axles, insulated against frost, attached immediately after the locomotive. Because the maintenance of this type of locomotive was difficult and expensive, also presenting the inconvenience of having a relatively high weight, in 1891, due to the increase in train tonnage and traffic, new locomotives-tender were built on the Oraviţa–Anina line, with four coupled axles (compared to five axles in the first model), making them more modern and stronger [7]. In the history of the railway networks, there are few lines that required the construction of special locomotives and therefore the Oraviţa–Anina line is of special interest. Between 1919 and 1922, the Romanian railways (CFR) bought several E-h2 type locomotives, necessary to replace low-powered locomotives of old construction. The kkStB series 80 locomotive (type E-h2) was developed by the famous Austrian engineer Karl Gölsdorf and was an improvement on the kkStB 180 series locomotives (the prototype built in 1900 at Wiener Lokomotivfabriks AG, Floridsdorf). For this purpose, the Austrian type 80 was chosen, being in operation on the lines on Austria, with excellent results, since 1909 [7]. The locomotives of Romanian railways were initially supposed to receive numbers 5001–5010 (the order from 1919), but, with the introduction of the new numbering scheme in 1920, they were included in the 50.001– 50.080 series. Starting in 1956, there were new, more powerful CFR 50.000 series locomotives as passenger traffic increased. The Oraviţa depot was the last “bastion” of the CFR 50.000 series. The last CFR 50.000 series locomotives were withdrawn from service in 1981, and most of them were scrapped by 1988 (Figure 4a,b). Only two copies of the series were preserved: 50.025 (StEG 4483/1921), at the locomotive museum in Reşita, and 50.065 (StEG 4498/1921), in front of Oraviţa station. To repair the locomotive 50.065, in May 1994 at IMMR 16 February Cluj-Napoca, the boiler and other parts from the locomotive 50.078 were used, kept especially for this purpose by the late engineer Nicolae Călina, from the Traction Division Timişoara.

It is important to mention that, on the Oraviţa–Anina line, the traffic conditions did not undergo significant changes compared to the opening year. The only notable change is the replacement of steam locomotives with dieselelectric one, on four axles, having a special construction, in the sense that they were designed especially for this line, later also being used on industrial lines. The diesel electric locomotives, originally designed by Electroputere Craiova Plant as locomotives of the 040-DA series, were manufactured at the 23 August Plant in Bucharest using component parts from the 1250 HP diesel–hydraulic locomotives in production (Figure 5).

The passenger carriages were also modified. The old Hungarian wagons built at the end of the 19th century, being very old, were replaced by other short wagons. Additionally, particular to this line, the comfort and safety of operation of the wagons raised problems, so the Romanian railways modified the new wagons on four axles, unlike the old wagons that only had two axles [7,8]. The new carriages keep the interior arrangement of the timeThe construction of the line required artisanal engineering works by architects Karl Maniel and Iohan Ludvic Dolhodir [7,100]. Along the 33.4 km route, support walls and cuts in the mountain rock were made over a length of 21.3 km [72]. The engineering works are represented by 14 tunnels with a total length of 2084 m, 10 viaducts totaling 842 m, and numerous bridges and footbridges [7] (Figure 6).

Of note are the Racoviţă viaduct, with 11 openings, 115 m long, and located at a height of 26.5 m; and the Jitin viaduct, with seven openings, measuring 37 m high and 130.8 m long (Figure 7a). The longest tunnel is Gârlişte, at 661 m [72]. In 1978, the number of counter rails placed in difficult curves increased, increasing the speed from 15 to 20 km/h [8] (p. 41). Italian stonemasons also took part in the construction of the railway, using a mortar similar in composition to the Roman one, which explains the endurance of the tunnels and viaducts [74].

The Lişava–Gârlişte route segment is considered to be the most spectacular along the railway line. It has a high density of engineering works, with 8 tunnels and 25 footbridges for water drainage, and two bridges. This segment, considered to be the point of maximum technical performance of the entire railway [74], with a length of 11,139 m, is mostly traveled through on a slope of 10,942 m [100]. The maximum slope is 21‰ (with short sections of 23‰) for 5188 m. The length of the support walls is 2572 m, and the length of the rock excavations is 7988 m. [100]. The tunnels, viaducts, and bridges are artisanal engineering works because they were dug by hand with chisel, hammer, and drill (Figure 8a,b), in the absence of dynamite, which was invented three years after the completion of the works.

The rocks in the vicinity of the line break off into slabs. For digging, deep holes were made with a drill in the area where slabs were separated, then steel wedges were inserted by hammering into these holes. The wedges, being of a larger diameter than the hole, push the stone slabs apart, causing them to break and fall. The stone slabs were removed using rudimentary cranes with wooden beams that had fixed and movable pulleys.

(c) Architectural value.

The railway stations and other outbuildings along the route (Oraviţa depot, offices for rail staff, waiting rooms) stand out for their architectural value given their shape, proportions, and general design qualities, elements that give them the style of railway buildings. Due to their historical and architectural value, they have been classified as historical monuments along with the engineering constructions. Oraviţa and Anina stations have special architectural value. Oraviţa is the oldest railway station in Romania and was built according to the plan of the engineer Karl Bach [102]. The construction of Oraviţa station was completed in 1847 [75]. The building was equipped with an elevator. The elevator no longer exists, but the space where it was still exists. There is also a passage from the station to the platform above the street level, to ensure access of the station staff to the platform—a first for the period [7]. The Oraviţa train station has perforated wooden gussets on wooden pillars that support the ridge of the roof of the main façade (Figure 9a,b).

The perforated wooden gussets have a decorative role, having an elaborate shape and floral motifs, but also a function of resistance to the upper part of the pillars. We can note the use of more complicated cuts, as well as the alternation of “gaps” and “full” elements in the drawing, which leads to a realization of real lacework in wood, with obvious aesthetic appeal (Figure 9a).

Additionally, another way to decorate the building is with plaster applications made in relief (“stuccos”), like above the window frame. Stuccos are made up of geometric motifs (a rosette placed centrally between two broken lines). Gussets and stuccos have been highlighted in recent years, when the station of Oraviţa was renovated, with a lighter color (white) than the color applied on the main facade (yellow) (Figure 9b).

Anina train station, of elongated shape, is built of brick, which is also reminiscent of the construction of old industrial buildings. The brick gives the station an austere and elegant look (Figure 10).

(d) Aesthetic value and the relationship of the railway with the landscape.

The Oraviţa–Anina railway line has significant aesthetic value due to the shape and architectural details of the railway buildings, as well as to the picturesque landscapes along the route. From Oraviţa, the route goes through a succession of landscapes, hilly to mountainous. The Lişava–Anina route segment has the highest landscape value because it crosses an area of mountains that have limestone outcrops. The train also crosses narrow areas delimited by limestone vertical walls (Figure 11a,b).

Of the length of the railway, two-thirds crosses mountainous areas, through forest or limestone cliffs.

(e) The economic value.

The economic value of the railway at the time of the decision to build it was directly related to the transport of coal, thus generating economic benefits through the support given to the mining industry. The number of train pairs used on the Oraviţa–Anina line has decreased in recent years from three pairs only 10 years ago to a single pair nowadays, as a result of the closure of the Anina coal mine in 2006 and the fact that demand has fallen considerably as a direct consequence of the reduction in commuting. The trains on this line ran as mixed trains, with passenger and freight cars, but also only with freight cars. The Oravița–Anina line served both the coal mines and the sawmill warehouses at Anina; it also served the uranium ore mines at Ciudanovița and Lișava (opened during the Communist regime and currently closed), with a branch from the former Lișava Veche station to the Lișava stone quarry. In addition, it served the uranium ore mines from Dobrei, where there was a branch of the line to the mining complex that had its own shunting locomotive; the line had another branch to the ballast pit from Brădișorul de Jos Halt, as well as a branch at the quarry in Răchitova. Unfortunately, all these activities today belong to the domain of history and industrial archaeology. Additionally, commuting by people employed in the industrial sectors has disappeared. Basically, the trains ran for the commuting of station agents and switchmen from Lișava, Gârliște, and Anina stations, as well as a few locals, such as foresters and hunters. However, the aesthetic value of the railway has meant that, in recent years, it has been used for tourism purposes, with an increase being noted in the number of passengers eager to travel on a special train and wagons on the spectacular railway route. The tourist traffic is more intense during the summer, but does not make up for the losses caused by the reduction in rides that previously served the mining industry. Therefore, there have been several attempts by the Ministry of Transport to close the Oraviţa–Anina railway, due to the fact that its operation is not profitable. The efforts of the population of Banat, of representatives of the Caraş–Severin County Council, as well as of tourists, in the form of signing petitions and organizing tourist promotion of the railway route, especially online, have generated an increase in visitor interest in this railway. However, in order to maintain a minimum profitability of the line, it was decided that only one pair of trains per day should be run on this route. In 2021, it was necessary to supplement the train set with another wagon due to the large flow of tourists during the summer and the beginning of autumn (the first half of October). In 2021, about 35,000 people traveled on the Oraviţa-Anina route, the largest share of them being represented by tourists (according to the estimate made by the head of the Oraviţa station, Cherla Remus Ion). At the same time, in 2021 it was necessary to carry out the revision of two wagons, which determined that, for a period of about two months, the circulation on the historical railway was greatly reduced. So, it can be estimated that the number of tourists on the Oraviţa-Anina route is about 50,000 people per year (estimated by the head of the Oraviţa station). Regarding the categories of tourists who choose to travel on the Oraviţa-Anina route, from the point of view of demographic characteristics, there are people belonging to several age groups, but young people and adults are predominant.

Although it is a heritage railway, no funds have been allocated from national assistance programs for the restoration of buildings or other elements of the railway. The fund for the restoration of heritage buildings is provided from the budget of the Ministry of Culture. The value of the fund allocated for the restoration of heritage buildings is relatively small and, as a rule, it is mostly directed towards the historical monuments of national importance included in the category of civil buildings. At the national level, although in recent years the representatives of the Ministry of Culture have shown an increasing interest in industrial heritage buildings (the inclusion of new buildings on the updated List of Historical Monuments 2015), a lower rate of grant of funds for their restoration is however highlighted. The railway maintenance works for an optimal operation are supported by a fund from the CNCF Romanian Railways, Regional CFR Timișoara. The proceeds obtained from the sale of tickets do not cover the costs related to the functionality of the line. As a result of the fact that it is a heritage railway, the Minister of Transport and Infrastructure recently confirmed the decision regarding the provision of the fund necessary to keep the line functional, as well as for the technical works necessary for its maintenance.

(f) Social or political value.

The social value is conferred by the existence of a specific group of workers in the field of railway transport, especially since the railway is still functional. They are represented by technicians, locomotive engineers, train conductors, and station staff whose expertise and technical skills contribute to the maintenance and operation of the railway. About 50 employees work on the Oraviţa–Anina line, some of them on the restoration of tunnels and the maintenance of the railway. A large number of the Italian stonemasons who built the viaducts remained in Banat, and their descendants still live in villages such as Brădişor or Ciudanoviţa.

Additionally, near the stations, especially in the towns of Anina and Oraviţa, are the homes of the railway employees—buildings with social value and historical resonance due to their antiquity. The houses of the railway personnel are in the vernacular architecture, being distinguished by the harmony between the shape and the size, sometimes echoing elements of the architecture of the railway buildings (Figure 12a,b).

The political importance of the heritage railway it is related to its early construction at the initiative of the Austrian colonists. Its construction represented a strategic investment through which coal was transported from the Anina basin to the Danube port of Baziaş and from here, by ships on the Danube, to Vienna. Furthermore, the colonists designed for this line a series of locomotive models adapted to the particularities of the terrain along the route, which presents a complicated topography in the segment that crosses the Anina Mountains where the coal resources were located. Thus, the railway represented one of the oldest transport facilities that ensured the transport of goods and later passengers between South-Eastern Europe and Central Europe.

An analysis of the preferences for public use of the Oraviţa–Anina railway reveals that both the local population and tourists are aware of its historical, technological, and sociocultural importance and support its tourist use. At the same time, the tourist use of the railway is the only viable solution to keep the heritage railway functional.

4.2. Stakeholders

The population of the localities located along the railway, the inhabitants of Banat, and tourists are the most involved stakeholders that made possible the operation of the Oraviţa–Anina railway after the closure of the Anina coal mine. The local population was actively involved in various campaigns to promote the heritage railway at the national level, in order to justify its functionality when there were proposals to close the railway line. The petition signing campaigns, started by the local population, contributed to the continuity of the operation of the heritage railway. These steps taken by the community reflect the fact that it is an important stakeholder that got involved in the process of preserving the heritage railway, identifying as the optimal solution the maintenance of the functionality of the line through tourist reuse.

The stakeholders in the central public administration category had little involvement in keeping the railway operational, e.g., The Ministry of Transport (through the state company National Railway Passenger Transport Company, Passengers Romanian Railway S.A.) is directly responsible for the minimum operation of the train pairs on this route. However, the initiative of specialists from the Ministry of Culture to classify the entire railway as a historical monument of national importance is to be lauded. It launched a series of actions by the representatives of the local public administration in Oraviţa to increase the tourist attractiveness of the railway, actions that will also have a positive impact on the quality of life of the local population. For instance, there is a project for the rehabilitation of the protection area of the station and the arrangement of the public space adjacent to the station [103]. Local entrepreneurs have less influence on the development of the railway as a tourist product, due to the fact that tourist activity is poorly developed and the number of tourism entrepreneurs is limited. It is important to emphasize the role of local entrepreneurs in the future development of the railway heritage. They can be key actors who can be more actively involved in the development of entrepreneurial activities, through which different elements of railway heritage are capitalized: extending the stay of tourists in the space adjacent to terminus stations by creating commercial activities related to railway heritage: souvenir shops, sale of postcards focused on the promotion of railway engineering objectives or heritage buildings along the railway route, buffet/cafe set up in terminus stations in a way that captures the dynamics and economic importance of the railway (old images from the period of the construction of the railway, images of locomotives with steam that transported coal, images along the route, photos of railway workers), making packages of various cultural offers, setting up cycling routes along the railway, etc.

4.3. Authenticity

The authenticity is related to the use of authentic objects, represented by the diesel–electric locomotives and old wagons. The steam locomotive was used only for special events in recent years (e.g., the line anniversary). Currently, the steam locomotive is completely nonfunctional, but it can be repaired. Although steam locomotives have been replaced by diesel electric locomotives, from the point of view of authenticity this change is considered by experts to be ethically acceptable, as a result of the fact that the adaptation is interesting from the perspective of explaining changes in the processes or models of work [61]. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the diesel electric locomotives used on the Oraviţa-Anina route have a special construction, in the sense that they were designed especially for this line. Furthermore, the use of diesel electric locomotives contributes to the ecological sustainability related to the functionality of this heritage railway, in the sense that these locomotives have engines that use new non-polluting technologies. Although the diesel electric locomotives are different from a technological and design point of view, compared to steam locomotives whose technical elements create a particular tourist experience (steam, noise), it is important to highlight that the diesel locomotives on the Oraviţa-Anina route have technological value and ensure the continuity of the functionality of this heritage railway. At the same time, the particularity of the tourist experience is conferred by the possibility of viewing particular elements of the railway heritage (e.g., the depot, the steam locomotive parked in front of the Oraviţa station).

Moreover, the train carriages retain elements of authenticity: wooden paneling inside, wooden benches, and heating of the carriages during the winter with wood at a stove in the middle of the carriage. The elements of authenticity of the historic train are appreciated by tourists.

4.4. Adaptive Reuse

The tourist reuse of the historical Oraviţa–Anina railway represented a sustainable form of its monetization as a cultural resource, which also facilitated the conservation of the railway heritage elements (stations, train, and wagons). The closure of the Anina coal mine represented a turning point in the evolution of the railway, which served the mining industry for 143 years. As was the case with other railways that served that industry, the low profitability of the Oraviţa–Anina line was one of the main arguments for its closure. The heritage value facilitated its exploitation as a cultural tourist attraction and generated an increase in the number of passengers. At the same time, tourist exploitation of the railway facilitated the appreciation of railway heritage by tourists from different areas. The tourist exploitation of the heritage railway brought the towns of Oraviţa and Anina into the center of tourists’ attention, which benefited from a significant image capital. In order to capitalize on the potential of the heritage railway in a complex way, the representatives of the Oraviţa town hall outlined two project proposals. The project plans were made with the support of the professors and students of the Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning of the Timişoara Polytechnic University. The first project proposal is focused on the reorganization of trade in the protection area of the station, which aims to enhance the historical monument through the general zoning of spaces and functions, the reorganization of the trade and the facilitation of the development of new socio-cultural functions and for tourism. The project foresees several measures: freeing the space from existing parasitic constructions in the vicinity of the station (non-conforming kiosks made of PVC type plastic) and transforming the public space adjacent to the station into a passenger and tourist reception area, with a predominantly pedestrian character, with the construction of alveoli for car parking/temporary stopping, including buses, public space paved with tiles containing green, etc. In addition to these measures, the arrangement of spaces for socio-cultural events, bicycle racks. The project envisages the rehabilitation of the storage hall located in the perimeter of the station and its transformation into a commercial center, as well as the construction of new building extensions of the storage hall for the creation of socio-cultural and tourist functions (on the west side, towards the track railway) in direct relation with the public space (auxiliary spaces will be built on the north side: e.g., parking) [103]. The second project proposal aims to rehabilitate the protection area of the Oraviţa train station by creating a social space with community facilities for different users. The project proposal has as its objective the transformation of the railway into a place of sports recreation, reusing the old wagons which are assigned different functions. The wagons will be connected by ramps and stairs. The project plan proposes the creation of a complex that will include the parking area, the reception area of the station, which makes the transition between the urban fabric and the ensemble of railway constructions with heritage value, a playground, a sports field, a cafe and terrace, a dining area and an interactive platform [104]. These project proposals have not yet been implemented.

The adaptive reuse of the heritage railway is potentially connected to some public policy measures correlated with one of the general objectives of the Strategy for Culture and National Heritage (2016–2022) [105]: the expansion and modernization of the cultural infrastructure. In this sense, investments are planned for the capitalization of the built heritage for the development of cultural activities: supporting the arranging of cultural areas in the centers of localities, establishing new forms of cultural services, by using the heritage assets located in the open air. We can also mention legislative measures initiated to stimulate the opening and administration of alternative cultural centers within public-private partnerships. Accessing the funds related to these public policy measures can ensure the implementation of the rehabilitation project of the Oraviţa train station protection zone.

These project proposals are necessary to integrate the heritage railway into a cultural-tourist system that would generate more benefits in the plan socio-cultural and economic, both for the community and for tourists.

4.5. Economic Benefits

The economic benefits generated by the tourist reuse of the Oraviţa–Anina railway have a low impact on the local economy as a result of the fact that the direct revenues resulting from the sale of train tickets are predominant. Regarding the financial sustainability of the railway, as stated previously, it is affected by several factors: the seasonality associated with predominantly tourist use; the reduced number of rides in the summer when the most intense tourist traffic is recorded, a fact that limits the direct income obtained from ticket sales; the lack of recreational elements such as a technical museum, souvenir shop, restaurant or cafe that could be set up in the station premises to remind visitors of the atmosphere specific to the old railway buildings; and the inclusion in the tourist circuit of the former tunnel of the horse-drawn line.

It is worth noting that tourists who choose to travel the railway route also visit cultural attractions in the towns of Oraviţa and Anina (Figure 13). In the case of tourists who opt for the round trip by train, the route runs along the Oraviţa–Anina route (at Anina the train stops for 85 min.) then the train returns to Oraviţa, where it stays until the next day. During this time, tourists have the opportunity to visit a series of cultural attractions that make Oraviţa stand apart from other small towns: the theater—the oldest cultural building in Romania, and the first mountain pharmacy in the nation [73].

Regarding the indirect generation of jobs, this is limited as a result of a lack of investment in tourism. The importance of investments in cultural valorization through ongoing projects (e.g., the restoration of the theater building in Oraviţa) or project proposals mentioned before related to the oraviţa station will contribute to the diversification of tourism offers that could motivate tourists to extend their stay and contribute more to the economy. The cultural and historical value of the theater in Oraviţa ranks it as the most important cultural objective in the town: it hosts major events like the international symphonic music festival, ”Days of Music in Oraviţa”. The completion of the theater restoration project will ensure the resumption of cultural activities and the attraction of visitors who practice railway tourism. Anina is a town in economic and sociocultural transition [95] after the deindustrialization that resulted in the closure of the coal mine. The industrial heritage assets in Anina (coal mine, power plant), recognized for their heritage value since the 1990s [95], are discovered by tourists through railway tourism. Of course, numerous repair works on the line, wagons, and locomotives would be necessary, but in the absence of a concrete plan and an in-depth medium- and long-term study of the tourist potential of this line, structural funds cannot be accessed; only minimal maintenance work is done so as not to have to close the line for technical reasons.

4.6. Community Perception

The attitude of the local population towards the railway heritage, as its beneficiary, allows for a more in-depth interpretation of the degree of appreciation and its reuse mode. The first question addressed to the local community had the role of highlighting whether they consider the railway as a representative element for the tourist image of the native locality. The members of the local community consider the Oraviţa–Anina railway to be a symbolic element of the local culture and history, and perceive it to be a tourist objective that could define the image of the two towns. The appreciation of the railway as a tourist attraction deserves to be reproduced in the words of the respondents: it is “a miracle [that it] still exists thanks to the efforts made by us, the Banatians, and by the tourists; unfortunately, it is neglected by the authorities; the Anina–Oraviţa railway has a very great tourist potential!” (a retiree from Anina); it is “the most beautiful railway in the country, it is part of the local history and culture; it makes us all proud; we must preserve it so that it can be used by future generations” (a teacher from Oraviţa).

The tourist attractiveness of the Oraviţa–Anina line is accompanied by an emotional charge marked by the experience of various feelings: pride to a cultural–historical objective that is distinctive at a national level due to its manifold patrimonial value, to which it is added nostalgia in connection with the preservation of elements of railway heritage,and feeling related to the industrial past. The feeling of nostalgia is felt more strongly by the inhabitants of Anina, a town that registered a decline in industrial activity with the closure of the coal mine. On the other hand, respondents also expressed regret at the lack of involvement of authorities at the central level with the management of the railway line.

Taking into account the change in use of the railway line, respondents were asked to comment on how they appreciate the reuse of the railway as a tourist attraction. Most of the respondents lauded the touristic reuse as a unique solution for keeping the railway line in operation and a way to enhance its cultural, technological, and implicit aesthetic value. The respondents stated that the touristic reuse of the Oraviţa–Anina line is also a way to discover elements of the natural environment and the cultural–historical sites of the Mountainous Banat.

Regarding the third question (“What are the elements that draw tourists to frequent the railway?”), the respondents highlighted the heritage value of the railway, which gives it tourist attractiveness (its age; technological, cultural, and aesthetic value). The interviews reflect the high degree of appreciation of the local community for the heritage value of the railway, as expressed in these appreciative statements: it is “the most spectacular railway in the country! about the Oraviţa–Anina line, one can only speak in superlative terms: a historical monument, the first railway built in Romania, the railway built at the highest height in the country; a wonderful technical achievement, the tunnels were dug by hand with a chisel and hammer; Oraviţa is the oldest railway station in Romania” (a Romanian Railways employee from Oraviţa); it is “the most interesting railway in Romania, a route that takes your breath away; once you’ve traveled it, you can never forget it!” (a student from Oraviţa); “The railway route is wonderful, scenically speaking… if the line remains functional, then Anina and the villages along the line will be discovered by tourists” (a forester from Anina); “It is worth cherishing this heritage [the Oraviţa–Anina railway] because it is a particularly beautiful natural wonder; this year (2021) marks 158 years since the railway was opened” (a retired woman from Oraviţa); and “The story of this railway line is fascinating! It was originally a ‘coal route,’ now it is a tourist railway; it must remain operational for both the beauty of the sites and its place in history! The locomotive was specially made for this railway line” (a retiree from Anina).

Furthermore, the respondents were asked to mention at least one favorable element and one weak point regarding the use of the railway as a tourist destination. In the view of most respondents, the touristic reuse of the railway ensured its continued operation. Additionally, it was appreciated as a way to discover the cultural–historical elements of the towns located along the railway route. The weak points mentioned by the respondents are related to the limited number of pairs of trains, which should be increased in the summer season when the tourist demand is at its highest, the weak promotion of the tourist railway by the authorities, and the lack of a railway museum.

4.7. Evaluation and Ranking of Heritage Railway Values

The evaluation of the heritage railway values was carried out by correlating the key attributes with the system of criteria and indicators (

Table 2. The correlation between the key attributes and the system of criteria and indicators selected for the evaluation of heritage values and their interpretation.

Key Attributes	Criteria	Indicators	Value/Interpretation
1. Potential
a. Historical significance	Technological difficulty (B1)	The year of construction (C2)	1863; early construction is linked to a high degree of technical difficulty taking into account the large number of hand-made railway engineering elements
	Physical evidence (B2)	Number of important events (C8)	Important events: initially, the route Anina-Lişava was with horse traction used for the crossing of the sections with large slopes, the second segment Lişava-Oravita was a railway with steam locomotive with a different route than today; line anniversaries at 100 and 150 years
b. Technological value	Technological difficulty (B1)	9 Technical elements (C1)
		Length/km	33.4
		Number of tunnels	14
		Total length of tunnels/m	2084
		Number of viaducts	10
		Total length of viaducts/m	843
		Maximum height difference/m	339
		Slope/‰	20–23
		Gauge/mm	1435
		Minimum radius of curve/m	114
c. Architectural value	Physical evidence (B2)	Number of remains (C5)	7 stations, 2 halts, 1 depot, 1 warehouse, houses of railway workers
d. Aesthetic value			Particular design of railway buildings, variety of landscapes
e. Economic significance	Social impact (B4)	The historic need of rail transportation (C16)	The historic functional importance of heritage railway is related to the transport of coal from Anina town to the Austrian Empire
f. Social and political importance	Cultural communication (B3)	Colonial time (C9)	The colonists controlled the railway for 64 years
		Number of colonial countries (C10)	Austria and Hungary
		Number of ethnic minorities (C11)	Types of minority culture: Austrians, Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Serbs
		Degree of foreign participation in the process of railway construction (C12)	Austrian method of construction and design developed for mountain railway
	Social impact (B4)	Number of provinces (C13)	Spatial extent of social impact: in the past: Banat province (including Voivodina, Serbia) and former Archduchy of Lower Austria (Niederösterreich), at present: Romanian Banat
		Total number of stations (C14)	7 stations
		The impact of railway construction on social productivity (C15)	The construction of railway supported the development of coal industry initially and later of other types of industry
2. Authenticity	Physical evidence (B2)	Degree of retention of function (C3)	Heritage line is still in use; the original locomotive is currently non-functional and needs repairs; a specific diesel-electric locomotive is used
		Degree of retention of track (C4)	Retains the original line
		Degree of change of the route (C6)	Retains the original line
3. Stakeholders	Social impact (B4)	Degree of public acceptance (C18)	The community, local administration, and tourists are the most important stakeholders. There is a high interest of tourists for the heritage railway.
4. Adaptive reuse	Physical evidence (B2)	Degree of route abandonment (C7)	The route is intact
5. Economic benefits	Social impact (B4)	The current need of rail transportation (C17)	The present functional importance of heritage railway: tourist reuse
6. Community perception			Community is involved in the conservation of heritage railway and shows a strong social and cultural attachment to it

Source: Prepared by the authors.

). Each key attribute was analyzed in correlation with one or even two criteria whose quantification was carried out according to the relevant indicators, also ensuring a succinct interpretation (Table 2).

There are some key attributes, such as the aesthetic value or the perception of the community, whose assessment can be done based on qualitative methods.

In order to increase the relevance of the results, the authors also applied a qualitative assessment for the ranking of heritage values, which was carried out by experts from the field of railway transport and from the academic environment, professionals in the preservation of industrial heritage, architectural history in relation with railway heritage and urban planning. The analysis of the results obtained following the application of interviews with key informants reveals the fact that technological value, historical significance, aesthetic value, authenticity and adaptive reuse are the elements rated with the highest degree of importance by most experts (

Table 3. Hierarchy of heritage railway values.

Key Attributes	Criteria	Indicators	Expert 1	Expert 2	Expert 3	Expert 4	Expert 5	Expert 6
1. Potential
a. Historical significance	Technological difficulty (B1)	C2	5	5	5	5	5	5
	Physical evidence (B2)	C8	3	3	3	4	4	4
b. Technological value	Technological difficulty (B1)	C1	5	5	5	5	5	5
c. Architectural value	Physical evidence (B2)	C5	4	4	4	5	5	5
		Degree of conservation *				4	5	5
d. Aesthetic value		Picturesque landscapes **	5	5	5	5	5	5
		Aesthetic of railway heritage buildings *				5	5	5
e. Economic significance	Social impact (B4)	C16	3	3	3	5	5	4
f. Social and political importance	Cultural communication (B3)	C9	2	3	3	5	4	4
		C10	3	3	3	4	3	4
		C11	5	4	3	5	4	5
		C12	4	4	4	5	4	5
	Social impact (B4)	C13	3	3	3	5	4	5
		C14	5	5	5	5	4	5
		C15	5	5	5	5	5	5
2. Authenticity	Physical evidence (B2)	C3	5	5	5	5	4	5
		C4	5	5	5	5	5	5
		C6	5	5	5	5	5	5
3. Stakeholders	Social impact (B4)	C18	5	4	4	5	4	5
4. Adaptive reuse	Physical evidence (B2)	C7	5	5	5	5	4	5
		Evaluation of the reuse potential of underused/abandoned railway heritage buildings *				5	5	5
5. Economic benefits	Social impact (B4)	C17	5	5	5	4	3	4
6. Community perception			5	4	4	5	4	5

* Indicators mentioned by the specialists in the field of Architecture and Urban Planning. ** Indicators mentioned both the specialists in the field of railway transport and those in the field of Architecture and Urban Planning

).

Regarding the way of evaluating the aesthetic value, depending on the expertise of the specialists, various elements were highlighted. In the case of experts in the field of railway transport, the aesthetic value was analyzed in relation to the succession of landscapes along the heritage railway which, in their opinion, gives a high attractiveness to the railway route. The station head of the Oraviţa station believes that the landscapes along the railway route are unique. At the same time, the attribution of a high score for the aesthetic value of the landscapes along the route correlates, in the opinion of transport experts, with the fact that the particularities of the land, especially the characteristics of the mountainous area, required the creation of a large number of railway technical elements. Thus, in their opinion, the Lişava-Anina segment is considered the most spectacular, both from the point of view of the high density of railway technical elements, and from the point of view of the landscape. With regard to the assessment of the aesthetic value carried out by the architects, the awarding of a high score was justified both by the aesthetic value of some railway heritage buildings (stations, houses of the railwaymen) and by the landscape changes along the route.

In the process of evaluating the architectural value, the economic significance and the social and political importance received a higher score from the architects (Table 3). This difference in the evaluation and ranking of the heritage values, carried out from the perspective of the experts, is a result of the way of interpreting the values which is related to the level of expertise of the specialists. Giving a higher score to the architectural value is explained by the fact that it represents one of the criteria used in establishing the status of a historical monument, an action that represents one of the main responsibilities of the architects.

Economic significance is framed as a value that defines the potential of the heritage railway and refers to the economic importance of the line in the past. Thus, the economic significance represents, in the opinion of the architects, an important element that justifies giving a high score due to the fact that the economic value contributed significantly to the construction of the heritage railway line.

Regarding the higher score given by the specialists in the field of architecture and urbanism to the social and political value, this is related to the cultural and social importance of the railway as a result of the fact that it was built by the colonists. This aspect correlates with a historical period in which their influence was manifested, both in political and economic terms (the construction of the line to serve the coal industry), and in socio-cultural terms (the coexistence of the local population with the ethnic groups that migrated from different parts of the Austrian Empire in the localities located along the railway line). Thus, the social and political value presents a high degree of importance as a result of the fact that it defines the particularities of the heritage railway analyzed both from the perspective of social impact and cultural communication. Even in the current period, although the number of minorities has decreased in the province of Banat following their migrations to the countries of origin, it is still noticeable that the multicultural character is preserved, also reflected through various elements of material and intangible culture.

The experts gave the stakeholders very close scores, respectively very high and high scores, which reveals the fact that they consider that the stakeholders play an important role in identifying new solutions in outlining some scenarios for the sustainable development of the heritage railway with the aim of generating multiple socio-cultural and economic benefits. Furthermore, the specialists know very well the current socio-economic context that determined the tourist reuse of the Oraviţa-Anina heritage railway and consider that this situation represents an optimal form of maintaining its functionality. As a result, they gave high and very high scores for the tourist reuse of the Oraviţa-Anina railway, especially since it is fully included in the tourist circuit. Regarding the possible solutions needed for a sustainable exploitation of the railway as a heritage attraction, the specialists in the field of architecture and urban planning consider it appropriate to evaluate the potential of adaptive reuse of some railway heritage buildings along the route or the rehabilitation of the areas located in the vicinity of the terminus stations. In this sense, experts consider as necessary actions the rehabilitation of railway heritage buildings, especially those that are underused or even abandoned, to be reused as support spaces for recreational and socio-cultural activities. Furthermore, they believe that it is also necessary to make arrangements that facilitate connections between the terminus stations and their adjacent areas, through which the heritage railway can be better exploited as a cultural attraction; for example, arrangements related to multiple cultural reuses of railway heritage buildings (including a railway museum) would facilitate tourists to discover the railway as an element of industrial heritage of national importance and not just as a tourist attraction.

The analysis of the assessment and ranking carried out by the experts highlights some differences between the indicators used in the study and the indicators proposed by the experts. Thus, the architectural value is evaluated in the matrix of the study taking into account a single indicator (number of remains), and the architects propose the addition of a new indicator: the degree of preservation related to the Physical evidence criterion. Furthermore, in the evaluation of the aesthetic value for which no specific criterion was identified, the authors only mentioning as an evaluation tool the observation during the field campaigns that strictly refer to the value conferred by the aesthetics of the landscapes along the line, the architects propose also the evaluation of the value aesthetics of railway heritage buildings. Furthermore, related to the adaptive reuse, the architects include a new indicator regarding the evaluation of the potential of reusing some underused or abandoned railway heritage buildings. The comparison between the system of criteria and indicators used in the study and the one proposed by the experts reveals the fact that there are small differences at the level of the indicators, in the sense that architects and urban planners have added three relevant indicators for a more in-depth assessment of the heritage railway values. It is noted that the evaluation and ranking of heritage railway values by specialists contributes to the improvement of the system of criteria and indicators used in the study.

4.8. Critical Analysis of Tourists’ Interest in the Oraviţa–Anina Railway

As participant observers, the authors detachedly followed the behavior of tourists in the terminus stations and during the train journey, with the aim of critically analyzing the degree of appreciation of the railway heritage by the tourists. In Oraviţa and Anina stations, which represent a high degree of conservation and have special aesthetic value due to their architectural decorations and construction materials, the tourists, while waiting to make the trip, took pictures and read the commemorative plaques on the main facade of the Oraviţa station to mark the 100th and 150th anniversaries of the opening, to which is also added the accolade: “the oldest railway station in Romania”. Pulling the train onto the line, adding the wagons, and preparing for the new trip, creates excitement among tourists. Boarding the wagons allows tourists to discover the atmosphere of an vintage train due to the presence of wooden benches and the general aesthetic appearance of the wagons. Along the route, which lasts 2 h, tourists are fascinated by the picturesque natural landscapes they pass through and by the elements of railway technique. Some tourists prefer to stand for the duration of the trip, at the end of the wagons, in order to immortalize in photos and videos the beauty of the route. One of the moments of greatest intensity along the route is when the train passes through narrow segments delimited by limestone walls, or when higher viaducts or very narrow tunnels are traversed. Tourists who travel the railway route from Anina, are surprised to discover at Oraviţa station the old steam locomotive, which is parked outside the depot, on a secondary line. The presence of the depot (an example of authenticity of the railway site) offers the opportunity to observe and photograph (with the consent of the railway staff) a railway building with a technical role—e.g., one can see the coal loading spaces for locomotives, the turning plate of locomotives, hydraulic columns, and inspection channels (Figure 14).

Furthermore, the presence of the steam locomotive and the depot in Oraviţa, which has the year of construction inscribed on the pediment (1886), the smell of the depot, and the landscape form a multisensory background. The preparation of the train for the Oraviţa–Anina route is an opportune moment for tourists to photograph or film the maneuvering procedures of the locomotive and the wagons. When standing on the platform and detachedly observing the behavior of the tourists who made the railway trip, the authors were also attentive to the visitors who had just arrived in the station and talked with the administrative staff to check the travel schedule and ask details about the route (which they had read about by accessing official websites dedicated to the line (information are posted on the websites of the town halls of Oraviţa and Anina) or those created by tourists who had already traveled on it). In general, tourists are pleasantly surprised to learn that the Oraviţa–Anina route takes 2 h and that they can thus observe in detail the technical elements and the picturesque landscapes along the route, due to the low speed of the train.

A more detailed analysis of tourists’ behavior, based on the participatory observation, was carried out taking into account the socio-demographic characteristics of the tourists. Thus, it was noted that the predominant types of tourists are from the category of the young and middle-aged population and, as a rule, they travel alone or in small groups. In the case of tourists traveling alone, it was observed that they prefer to stand up at the ends of the carriages throughout the route in order to be able to photograph or film both the railway technical elements and the landscapes. In the case of tourists who choose to travel in small groups or with the family, they follow the route with interest sitting on the wooden benches looking out the window and taking photos. It has been observed that, in the case of tourists who travel with their families and who also have a child, one of the adults provides explanations during the route, a fact that attracts attention on the one hand, because the adult knows the route that he or she is visiting at least the second time, and on the other hand, because the trip is made both for recreation and for educational purposes.

Furthermore, the behavior of the tourists was analyzed taking into account the feelings or emotions experienced by them during the trip. Various details regarding the tourists’ feelings could be observed, through their non-verbal interpretation: for example, in the case of the parent, when he gives explanations, he shows the joy of offering the child a particular touristic and educational experience; the explanations provided by the parent are necessary to make the child understand that traveling the heritage railway is a special experience, unlike ordinary train journeys; at the same time, the joy of the adult is also related to the possibility of seeing again the elements of railway technique along the route. In the case of tourists who travel standing, at the ends of the wagon, they are more focused on capturing all the details along the route, and the emotions were observed through standardized facial expressions: a carefully focused look at the route, the quick raising of the arms to take photographs when elements of railway engineering and/or picturesque landscapes appear in the visual field, the desire to visualize the clarity of the pictures immediately after they have been taken and the sketching of a smile when their clarity is confirmed.

The analysis of tourists’ behavior during the train journey on the historical Oraviţa-Anina railway reflects the fact that, although there are different types of tourists, they show a special interest in the elements of railway technology, but also in the different landscapes traveled, the differentiation of which it is given by the crossing of areas with relief and varied types of vegetation. Unlike the journey on the heritage railway, which represents a special tourist experience, which also involves the experience of emotions, in the studies based on the participatory observation of the behavior of passengers during journeys with “normal” trains, it was noted that their predominant activities are different: looking ahead/out window, sleeping/eyes closed, reading, writing in notebooks or on printing sheets, talking, listening to music, etc. [106].

The observation and interpretation of the non-verbal expression of the feelings or emotions of the tourists facilitated the authors to conclude that the degree of appreciation of the heritage railway is very high.

5. Discussion

5.1. Significance of Findings

The present study focused on the evaluation of the heritage value of a complex railway site, the historical Oraviţa–Anina railway, by applying a mixed methodology that involved the combination of quantitative methods (an in-depth evaluation of the heritage value of the railway site using different criteria and indicators) with qualitative methods (the perception of the value and reuse of the heritage railway from the perspective of the local community, and of the scenic authenticity of the place via the behavior of tourists, trial application used to evaluate the key attributes that have associated significant values). The complexity of the heritage railway requires the use of an appropriate methodology useful for the evaluation of heritage value and its sustainable monetization.

The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods increased the complexity of the assessment of the heritage railway. In the case of the quantitative assessment, it is particularly important to identify relevant groups of stakeholders, in the case of the qualitative assessment, as the perceptions of the local population [73,95] and tourists [44] are defining elements.

The quantitative evaluation of the values of the Oraviţa-Anina heritage railway was carried out by referring to six key attributes whose analysis indicates its potential to be a heritage tourist attraction offering an authentic experience. By relating the key attributes to the relevant criteria and indicators, the evaluation of the Oraviţa-Anina heritage railway highlighted the special significance of the technological, historical, architectural, aesthetic, economic, social and political values, as well as the elements of authenticity. At the same time, the evaluation of some key attributes such as stakeholders, adaptive reuse capacity, and the economic benefits related to the capitalization of the heritage railway as a transport attraction revealed a series of problems regarding the ability to manage the new economic function that the railway acquired in the current economic context marked by the closure of the industrial activity that generated the need for its construction. Managing the heritage railway as a tourism resource generates fewer economic benefits compared to when it served the local industry. This situation determined that the representatives of the central public administration proposed to close the railway due to the low economic profitability. Later, the status of the heritage railway as a historical monument of national importance was the main argument invoked to oppose the closure of the railway line by the local population, representatives of the local and regional public administration and tourists. On the other hand, the evaluation of the tourist capitalization of the heritage railway highlighted the fact that this action correlates with the continuity of its operation. The management of the tourist function generates limited economic effects as a result of the fact that it does not involve an optimal capitalization of the reuse potential of the railway heritage elements along the railway. This situation is also explained as a result of the limited budget granted at the national level for the restoration and cultural reuse of industrial heritage assets. However, the concern of the representatives of the local public administration to propose solutions focused on the reuse of several elements of railway heritage that are currently underused or abandoned with the aim of developing socio-cultural activities so that the heritage railway is better valued is noted. A possible solution would be for local entrepreneurs to get involved in the development of projects for the adaptive reuse of railway heritage buildings through a minimal investment effort by accessing the cultural infrastructure development funds allocated from the budget of the Ministry of Culture.

In order to obtain relevant results, a prioritization and parameterization of the quantitative evaluation of the heritage railway values was carried out. Following the ranking of the values by a group of experts from fields such as railway transport, architecture and urban planning, it turned out that the most important values are associated with the criteria: Technical difficulty, Physical evidence, to which are added the Social impact and the Cultural communication. In the case of the ‘technical difficulty’ criterion, the highest scores were given to the elements of engineering technique and the year of construction of the heritage railway. Furthermore, the indicators related to the authenticity, as well asadaptive reuse, received the highest score, which reflects a special importance for the Physical evidence criterion. Similar results were obtained in the evaluation and ranking of the values of several heritage railways in China [59]. These results indicate that the elements of the heritage railway have a high technological value. The indicators ‘degree of foreign participation in the process of railway construction’ and ‘economic significance of the line from the past’ have the greatest impact on the ‘Social impact’ criterion, thus highlighting the social and political value of the historical railway. At the same time, the evaluators proposed a new economic indicator, included in the ‘Social impact’ criterion, the evaluation of the reuse potential of several heritage buildings railway to generate more socio-cultural and economic benefits. These results reflect a series of difficulties in the tourist reuse of the heritage railway, as previously mentioned. High scores were given by the specialists to the aesthetic value of the heritage railway. The awarding of high scores to the landscapes along the heritage railway is due both to the configuration of the land and to the natural elements (e.g., changes in the vegetation) that contribute to shaping the aesthetic aspect of the railways, even those that are no longer functional, being used only as well as recreational corridors, as highlighted in a Canadian study [57].

Qualitative methods offer the researcher the ability to approach the problem from the perspective of the local community, as a beneficiary of the heritage and as a stakeholder that plays an important role in its monetization, on the one hand, as well as via the analysis of tourist attractiveness, on the other hand. The importance of the community’s perception regarding the local heritage and its reuse is revealed by the fact that, in the case of the industrial heritage and implicitly the railway heritage, the community expressed contradictory feelings. On the one hand, there was a feeling of nostalgia associated with the industrial past, generated by the economic stagnation as a result of the closure of gainful activities [73,95] that once ensured the income of the local population. In the context of deindustrialization, nostalgia was linked to the reduction in use or even the abandonment of some railway lines [44] or their disappearance, and the reduction in gainful and social activities related to railway transport [44,73]. On the other hand, the local population expressed feelings of pride and belonging towards elements of industrial culture [95,97,107], and implicitly towards the railway heritage [25,45,73]. The population of the towns of Oraviţa and Anina expressed their desire to extend the use of the railway, whose operation after the closure of the mining industry was limited. The tourist reuse of the railway is thus seen by the community as an optimal solution, also justified by the large number of tourists who travel the railway route due to its particular attributes.

The analysis of the perception of the local community regarding the reuse of the railway reflects feelings of pride and belonging, expressed either directly (“it makes us all proud”) or deciphered based on the use of appreciative epithets (“the most spectacular railway in the country”, “the most interesting railway in Romania”). The statement “makes us all proud” also refers to the social attachment of tourists from different areas of the country who traveled the tourist railway route, expressing at the same time a feeling of national identity, as suggested by the use of the word “all” to refer to the population of Romania as a whole. Additionally, another respondent invoked a feeling of national identity that united the country’s population behind the railway line conservation—actions that contributed to maintaining this “miracle” thanks to “the efforts made by us, the Banatians, and by tourists.” At the same time, the analysis of the responses of the local community reflects its concern for the preservation of the heritage railway that has individualized Banat at a national level through various technical achievements, indicating at the same time an attachment to the historical province.

Beyond the aesthetic value of the Oraviţa–Anina line, the age of the line and the technological value, are elements that fuel the emotional attachment of the local community. Additionally, the feelings of pride and belonging of the local community are justified by the classification of the railway as a historical monument of national importance. The feelings of pride and belonging are also reflected by the involvement of the local population and tourists in promotion campaigns that reversed the closure of the line by the authorities. Thus, the local community assumes not only the role of beneficiary of the railway heritage, but also that of stakeholder—involved in its conservation and sustainable reuse to ensure it can be passed on to future generations.

From the conducted interviews, a clear sense emerged of the community’s perception of the dynamics of the socioeconomic context of the postindustrial period, which represented a catalyst for economic and sociocultural changes: initially, the line was a “coal road,” and currently it is used as a tourist railway route. Thus, the results of the study reflect the complexity of the socioeconomic framework: deindustrialization meant the perception of the past was reconstructed on the basis of old values, to give meaning to it, and to improve the quality of life, as reflected in other studies [73,95].

In this context, the voice of the local community has to be heard and its involvement in rebuilding the future is opportune. In various studies, it has been highlighted that community members are involved in the conservation of particular elements of places, including the patrimonialization process [11,12,14,46]. Touristic reuse of the historical Oraviţa–Anina railway has contributed to an increase in direct revenue, but, as was highlighted, so, in the absence of investment in tourism and culture, the economic impact was reduced. A comparative analysis of the results obtained in other studies focused on the economic sustainability of the tourist use of railway sites indicates that tourism is not an economic panacea [12,33,66,77]. However, tourism is a potential source of development in the current context, when services have mostly replaced industrial activities [12,25], and can partially cover the economic losses incurred by deindustrialization. In different traditional industrial areas, a socioeconomic context marked by deindustrialization has generated opportunities for superior monetization of the landscapes and created new social relationships. Culture, considered the fourth pillar of sustainable development [108], can be the support for a new economic base, especially as more and more industrial heritage sites are adaptively reused to attract tourists. Thus, cultural monetization on industrial sites is often an opportunity to obtain income from the marketing of a newly created tourist product [109]. Heritage and commercialization (e.g., catering services, cafes) are often considered to be at opposite ends of the tourism capitalization, especially since visiting heritage attractions is considered a significant activity, generating educational benefits, including in the case of railway heritage [25,53], while shopping is considered more mundane [12]. However, commercial activities have a complementary role in shaping the attractiveness of the tourist product, by satisfying the recreational needs of visitors [46,87,110], as well as economic utility by generating additional income [12].

Regarding the case study, a solution to improve the way of valorizing the heritage railway would be to strengthen its role for the local community. Thus, the implementation of the two project proposals, thought as solutions for superior valorization of the railway as a tourist attraction from the perspective of the local public administration, would ensure a revitalization of socio-cultural and economic life that would further motivate the community to get involved. At the same time, the effects that could be generated in economic terms would contribute to a better capitalization of the railway heritage assets, including those that are currently abandoned or in a state of poor conservation. Social benefits for the community can also be mentioned: the creation of new jobs, assuming the role of tourist host, having the opportunity to highlight the importance of the railway in the local history and culture. A superior exploitation of the heritage railway would also require the realization of some structural transformations such as the development of new sustainable infrastructures (e.g., bicycle and hiking trails that can be developed around the heritage railway route) and which would contribute to prolonging the stay of tourists. Railway tourism represents an alternative for future development, as a result of characteristics that place it in the category of sustainable tourism—especially as it can be linked to a better valorization of the heritage railway as mentioned above. Moreover, the tourist use of the Oraviţa–Anina railway line can be linked to visiting elements of cultural and industrial heritage from the terminus stations (Anina and Oraviţa). Additionally, a direct result of connecting railway tourism with cultural tourism would ensure social sustainability, taking into account the positive perception of community members regarding the tourist reuse of the Oraviţa–Anina railway.

5.2. Importance of Research

The importance of this study results from the use of a mixed methodology that combined quantitative and qualitative methods, with the aim of evaluating in depth the value of the railway heritage. As a rule, in most studies dedicated to the evaluation of railway heritage, either quantitative methods are used [12,59], based on the selection of a system of criteria and indicators, or qualitative ones are used, focused on evaluating the perceptions of the local community [95,97,111] and on the critical analysis of visitors’ behavior [44]. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was useful to understand the complexity of the historical Oraviţa–Anina railway as heritage attraction and as a tourist product.

The results of the study have provided relevant scientific information for the sustainable development of railway tourism in an area weakened due to the manifestation of the deindustrialization process by identifying solutions based on strengthening the role of the historical railway for the community: the reuse of several abandoned railway heritage buildings, etc.).

Moreover, the authors also used a qualitative method of ranking the values of the heritage railway which highlighted the need to include new indicators that contribute to the improvement of the ranking method. At the same time, the inclusion in the analysis of the new indicators draws attention to the possibility of more complexly evaluating the heritage railways values in future studies. Furthermore, an evaluation focused on a larger number of indicators will facilitate a better comparison of the heritage railways.

In the quantitative evaluation, the selection of criteria and indicators involved a systematic review of the specialized literature, with a focus for evaluating the value of the heritage railway in an integrated manner through which to consolidate the knowledge about this subject. Qualitative methods placed more emphasis on the analysis of the liaising of the local community with the cultural heritage assets that ensures obtaining more information useful in the interpretation of the social value of the heritage related to its perception in the collective mind and the social relations mediated through it. Qualitative investigative techniques allowed the authors to evaluate the behavior of tourists and their level of appreciation of the heritage railway. Additionally, the manner of presentation of the mixed methodology allows it to be replicated in other studies.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

A limitation of this study is that it focused on the evaluation of the patrimonial value and tourist attractiveness of heritage railway using a single case study.

Another limitation of the study is that the assessment of locals’ perceptions and of the degree of appreciation of heritage railway were not carried out through in-depth interviews as a result of the mixed methodology. For a more in-depth evaluation of the local community’s perception of the railway heritage, the authors will use the contingent method to identify the community’s willingness to pay for the preservation of the railway heritage. Since the heritage railway is a complex resource that also includes the connected cultural landscape, the contingent method will also be applied to researchers from fields related to industrial heritage who live in the studied area in order to obtain the most relevant results (e.g., to estimate the interest that the population can have based on the willingness to pay for conservation to avoid the destruction of railway heritage assets) and to compensate for the limitations of the method.

As a result of the fact that the community is an active stakeholder, in the future research the utility of the community’s participation in the process of superior capitalization of the railway heritage located in the proximity of the heritage railway will be pursued, in order to identify the possible scenarios of their adaptive reuse. Therefore, future research will focus on an in-depth analysis of visitors’ perception of the tourist attractiveness of the Oraviţa–Anina linear railway site, using, for example, the cost transport method to evaluate the value and market potential of the railway site. The usefulness of these methods is also reflected in the recommendation by visitors of some proposals for the conservation of the heritage buildings along the railway route and for the improvement of tourist services, which will generate more economic and social benefits. Applying this method will also facilitate obtaining more data for tourists.

Another important element of the future research will be focused on the in-depth analysis of the effects generated by the political and economic changes registered by Romania after 1990, when it became a democratic republic, on the way of capitalizing cultural heritage resources. Special attention will be paid to the evolution of cultural policy and how it impacts the financing of the restoration and cultural reuse of industrial heritage.

6. Conclusions

The heritage Oraviţa–Anina railway is appreciated at a national level both by specialists in the field of railway transport and by tourists as an important technical achievement from the Industrial Revolution, whose functionality up to now justifies its value as a historical industrial monument and increases its degree of tourist attractiveness. The long evolution of the heritage railway (159 years) has been influenced by economic and political factors that imposed various uses: as a line used for the transport of coal for 149 years, it is currently the most attractive tourist railway line nationally.

The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was useful in order to fulfill the objectives of the study: (1) an in-depth evaluation of the valences of the Oraviţa-Anina heritage railway by relating the key attributes to a system of criteria and indicators followed by a ranking of the values carried out by experts; the highest scores were attributed to the technological, historical, social and political values, as well as the elements of authenticity that are appreciated by the local population and tourists; (2) the identification of the main stakeholders and the analysis of their degree of involvement in the management of the railway as a tourist attraction, a new economic function that it acquired in the current socio-economic context marked by the closure of the extractive industry that determined its construction. Thus, the quantitative methodology is related to the first research question that was formulated in relation to the identification of the heritage values of the historical railway. The results of combining quantitative and qualitative methodology provided the answer to the second research question focused on identifying a complex assessment of heritage railway values. At the same time, the identification of the stakeholders highlighted, through the quantitative methodology, their relatively large number. In order to answer the last research questions regarding the degree of community involvement in the action of reusing the heritage railway as a transport attraction, as well as quantifying the degree of appreciation of the tourists, the authors used the qualitative methodology. The Oraviţa–Anina railway line is well known and appreciated by Romanian tourists due to its age and manifold heritage value, which places it in the category of industrial sites of great complexity from a technological point of view.

It is important to note the degree of involvement of the local population in the preservation and continued existence of the historical railway; the community assumed the role of both beneficiary and active stakeholder in taking measures to prevent attempts to close the heritage railway as a result of low profitability. To the historical significance associated with the railway site is added its social significance, which refers to the way in which people engage with the heritage railway, classified as a historical monument of national importance that played an important economic role of the area, and to which gainful and social activities were linked. The information obtained following semistructured interviews with community members highlighted, on the one hand, feelings of pride and belonging towards the unique heritage railway, and, on the other hand, a feeling of nostalgia related to the industrial past.

The results of the study reflect that railway tourism in the study area represents a sustainable solution intended to strengthen the role of the heritage railway for the local community by contributing, through the identified proposals, to the generation of economic and social benefits. At the same time, assuming the role of tourist host of the local community will determine its involvement in local sustainable development scenarios: e.g., proposals for reuse projects of underused or abandoned railway heritage buildings as support elements to uphold the touristic function of the heritage railway. Railway tourism also will provide a window onto the dynamics of the social life of the community through tourists’ discovery of the historical railway as a valuable heritage resource as well as to the fulfillment of motivations for knowledge about what motivates tourist demand.