Doesn't the museum own an easement over the trackbed (I hesitate to redundantly say "an easement over the right of way") northward from the end of the section owned in fee simple that ends in the middle of the cut, as far as the former crossing location at Head Tide Road? I'm pretty sure there have been forum posts or newsletter articles in the past so indicating, and reports of occasional work to keep the easement area clear of brush.
From observation, the Head Tide crossing location, where the road itself appears to have been lowered by about four feet following track removal, seems to be about as close as the railroad got, in terms of walking distance, to Head Tide village. Based on historical photos, the station itself was actually a fair distance further away. Food for thought, as it seems to confirm that Route 218 remains the major challenge to reaching Head Tide in a meaningful location, not the existence of some property boundary within the cut. On the other hand, the numerous physical and other impediments to going on further to the original station site could well take many years to overcome, if ever, and ironically result in apparently-poorer pedestrian access to the historic village. Making the nebulous possibility of one day gaining access all the way to the original station site the defining threshold for doing anything else is antithetical to the way planning, permitting, and fundraising processes all work - in effect, "we'll think about it someday."
However, I completely agree that the discussion of pros and cons of any extension in either direction is much more complicated than building more track just for the sake of doing so, in order to keep momentum and interest going. "We build track because we build track" is not a museum mission statement.