West Somerset Railway's future in doubt after £800k loss

[ikcdab]

13 hours ago, fezza said:

would be possible to build a station south of the B3227 at Norton where the North end of the triangle sits. The railway owns the land already. It might actually ease pressure on traffic and parking at BL. 

I can't begin to think why you would do that when you have Bishops Lydeard fully developed. Any station at NF would be on a green field site and would need everything provided new. The current Norton platform is a start but inadequate for a regular service. Access to the site would be through Norton village which is a horrendous bottleneck, or at least would be until a relief road is built. It might then be possible to avoid the village, but the relief road would be the wrong side of the tracks.

Bishops Lydeard on the other hand is far more easily accessed, being directly adjacent to the A358.

Ian

[PenrithBeacon]

Just now, ikcdab said:

... It was cheaply built in 1862 to 1874 and we are now reaping the rewards of that. It is that which is now hampering us and will cost a fair amount to fix.

It was built to a standard that was appropriate to a country branch line of the period and it's survival as a working railway is a monument to those who designed and built it.

The WSR, like most preserved railways, has unsustainable aspirations that were bound to cause its failure. Just let it be what it is, a branch line railway to the seaside, and build a reputation on that.

[ikcdab]

16 hours ago, RedgateModels said:

 

No beach though, just mud. Lovely though BA is, it's not a beach holiday destination .

In that case, I guess you've never been there...admittedly it is on the Bristol channel with all that that entails, but it is a decent beach and has a lot of variety. 

[fezza]

1 hour ago, ikcdab said:

That's totally wrong. The railway has always looked after the track. Daily line walking, a full-time and qualified track gang supported by a thriving volunteer gang has seen to that. Winter relays of various sections on an annual basis. During 2017 a six figure sum was spent on rail renewal along the whole line. 2019/2020 saw a lengthy relay at Alcombe.  Subsequent assessments under modern criteria have shown that the underlying infrastructure does not allow heavy engines to run regularly on the line. It was cheaply built in 1862 to 1874 and we are now reaping the rewards of that. It is that which is now hampering us and will cost a fair amount to fix.

That's not the understanding of many volunteers or the ORR - the people that matter.   The reality was a massive maintenence backlog, as has been very well documented and admitted by the management. 

 

Bridges and infrastructure are indeed an issue - that's why a while ago WSR members (one a very experienced rail engineer) queried whether it was sensible to use large locomotives when nothing bigger than a mogul or large prairie was used in steam days. Management said  heavier locos could be used because of the 25mph line speed - total nonsense of course (even before you address the issue of speed limit breaches...) 

[RedgateModels]

1 hour ago, ikcdab said:

In that case, I guess you've never been there...admittedly it is on the Bristol channel with all that that entails, but it is a decent beach and has a lot of variety. 

on the contrary, spent two holidays in the caravan at the park there. Both times we only stayed 5 days then moved down to Padstien for the beaches

 

#1 son did win a photo competition at school with a shot he took of the metal railings on the front against the setting sun. Don't get me wrong, we had a fab time, love the area with Wiliton close by too, but can't take young boys onto a muddy beach - SWMBO would have had a fit in minutes LOL

[ikcdab]

1 minute ago, fezza said:

That's not the understanding of many volunteers or the ORR - the people that matter.   The reality was a massive maintenence backlog, as has been very well documented and admitted by the management. 

 

Bridges and infrastructure are indeed an issue - that's why a while ago WSR members (one a very experienced rail engineer) queried whether it was sensible to use large locomotives when nothing bigger than a mogul or large prairie was used in steam days. Management said  heavier locos could be used because of the 25mph line speed - total nonsense of course (even before you address the issue of speed limit breaches...) 

Well that's more appropriate. In your original post you cited "neglect of track maintenance". Sheer neglect is totally different to a backlog. Track maintenance has not been neglected, it has clearly been going on. Clearly there is a backlog. That in itself is not necessarily a problem depending on what is outstanding. 

 

[fezza]

Just now, ikcdab said:

Well that's more appropriate. In your original post you cited "neglect of track maintenance". Sheer neglect is totally different to a backlog. Track maintenance has not been neglected, it has clearly been going on. Clearly there is a backlog. That in itself is not necessarily a problem depending on what is outstanding. 

 

I don't want to get into semantics, but surely a backlog of track maintenance is a form of neglect? There are certain things you cannot put off and just have to do in order to operate a railway safely - and the WSR management hasn't done them as the ORR pointed out. 

[woodenhead]

I feel this thread is drifting into the same standoff that the preservation forum has ended up in - @fezza is correct it's semantics - there is clearly an issue with the infrastructure which the current management team is working to resolve which was ORR directed and to me would suggest the previous management were not doing something they should have been.

[PenrithBeacon]

22 minutes ago, RedgateModels said:

on the contrary, spent two holidays in the caravan at the park there. Both times we only stayed 5 days then moved down to Padstien for the beaches

...

Can't find Padstien, did you mean Padstow but that seems to be a long way to go. 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, ikcdab said:

That's totally wrong. The railway has always looked after the track. Daily line walking, a full-time and qualified track gang supported by a thriving volunteer gang has seen to that. Winter relays of various sections on an annual basis. During 2017 a six figure sum was spent on rail renewal along the whole line. 2019/2020 saw a lengthy relay at Alcombe.  Subsequent assessments under modern criteria have shown that the underlying infrastructure does not allow heavy engines to run regularly on the line. It was cheaply built in 1862 to 1874 and we are now reaping the rewards of that. It is that which is now hampering us and will cost a fair amount to fix.

So why did the Inspectorate tell the WSR to get its track up to a suitable standard including renewing rail which had excessive wear?  If the track had been up to proper standards with accurate records reflecting its age and condition such 'advice'  would not have been needed would it?

 

As far as 'cheaply' built is concerned it might well have been however the basic fact is that the line was weight restricted  to a maximum axle load of 17t 12cwt throughout is life prior to the WSR taking over yet in WSR ownership it has seen use by engines far in excess of that weight limit.  In addition between Bishops Lydeard and Minhead 78XX and 38XX engines (although in that category) were barred from the line.   Plainly obvious that if you pound your infrastructure with heavier motive power than it was officially allowed to take something unfavourable to the overall condition of the substructure would eventually happen. irrespective of any nonsense about a maxiumum speed of 25 mph.  It is nothing to do with 'cheap construction' and a lot to do with ignoring common sense  and running locos which are too heavy for the line.

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Can't find Padstien, did you mean Padstow but that seems to be a long way to go. 

Think he is alluding to Rik Stein who owns restaurants there, aren't the old Padstow station buildings now one of them?

[johnofwessex]

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

So why did the Inspectorate tell the WSR to get its track up to a suitable standard including renewing rail which had excessive wear?  If the track had been up to proper standards with accurate records reflecting its age and condition such 'advice'  would not have been needed would it?

 

As far as 'cheaply' built is concerned it might well have been however the basic fact is that the line was weight restricted  to a maximum axle load of 17t 12cwt throughout is life prior to the WSR taking over yet in WSR ownership it has seen use by engines far in excess of that weight limit.  In addition between Bishops Lydeard and Minhead 78XX and 38XX engines (although in that category) were barred from the line.   Plainly obvious that if you pound your infrastructure with heavier motive power than it was officially allowed to take something unfavourable to the overall condition of the substructure would eventually happen. irrespective of any nonsense about a maxiumum speed of 25 mph.  It is nothing to do with 'cheap construction' and a lot to do with ignoring common sense  and running locos which are too heavy for the line.

 

A good few years ago Robin White was complaining about the state of the track with rotten sleepers and wet beds, as a former BR Manager she knew what she was looking at.

[PenrithBeacon]

The beach at Burnham is good, but that at Blue Anchor is a mix of sand and grit. Perhaps not the best for a beach holiday but it is a good base for a holiday in West Somerset. 

[ikcdab]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

.  It is nothing to do with 'cheap construction' and a lot to do with ignoring common sense  and running locos which are too heavy for the line.

Ok, point taken, let's not get into a ding-d0ng on here as that is the preserve of the Nat-Pres forum. By "cheaply built" I was referring to the steep sided cuttings (washford and Bilbrook), tough gradients (washford again and Crowcombe), flimsy bridges (Black Monkey) and a line basically built along a beach (Blue Anchor). Perhaps that last example brings us full circle back to the quality of the beach there! If you're prepared to walk a little, the sand is best between BA and Dunster. 

Ian

Edited June 4, 2021 by ikcdab
Edited as the word D.o.ng was disallowed!

[Northmoor]

29 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

Ok, point taken, let's not get into a ding-d0ng on here as that is the preserve of the Nat-Pres forum. By "cheaply built" I was referring to the steep sided cuttings (washford and Bilbrook), tough gradients (washford again and Crowcombe), flimsy bridges (Black Monkey) and a line basically built along a beach (Blue Anchor). Perhaps that last example brings us full circle back to the quality of the beach there! If you're prepared to walk a little, the sand is best between BA and Dunster. 

Ian

There is no avoiding the fact that most preserved railways are on branch lines with low weight restrictions, while most of the preserved locos are Class 4 and heavier.  Even one of the lines which was built to main line standards - the GWR - has had well-publicised infrastructure problems in recent years.

It has to be said that the WSR are far from the only "culprit" in operating locos well above their line's original weight restriction.  I've been a life-long supporter of the SVR but have concerns that they have been "boiling frogs" when it comes to operating heavier and heavier locos, more and more routinely.

[Bomag]

Weight limits could be due to the formation depth, earthworks or structures. In the latter case unless you have large span steel/concrete/iron bridge then the limiting factor is as likely to be fatigue / dynamic forces as anything else. Limiting speed over a weak bridge to 10mph from 40mph will reduce dynamic forces by a factor of 16 (as in most cases its a square of speed).

 

In terms of the distressed track, from the last time I was on the WSR, I just thought they were replicating the historic feel of the WR branch lines.

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I feel this thread is drifting into the same standoff that the preservation forum has ended up in - @fezza is correct it's semantics - there is clearly an issue with the infrastructure which the current management team is working to resolve which was ORR directed and to me would suggest the previous management were not doing something they should have been.

 

I don't normally bother with Nat Pres much. Plenty of well informed people, but more than it's fair share of numpties IMO.

 

But someone complaining that an on loan locomotive is being repainted as part of it's loan deal and will be the wrong colour to match the stations.  Really? I think that's the last of their worries.

 

If you want to run black engines that's fine with me, but I doubt the public will be very happy with something that looks like it's due to go back to Barry. 5199 has desperately needed a repaint for at least a couple of years. Even an ardent "paint it black" advocate such as myself can see that.

 

 

Jason

[PenrithBeacon]

https://www.west-somerset-railway.co.uk/events

http://www.wsr.org.uk/

Perhaps I'm misreading this but the impression I'm getting is that the railway is open. Which is odd.

Edited June 4, 2021 by PenrithBeacon

[woodenhead]

3 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

https://www.west-somerset-railway.co.uk/events

Perhaps I'm misreading this but the impression I'm getting is that the railway is open. Which is odd.

The railway is open, tickets on the events page to Minehead refer to September when they expect the work to be completed (rather than June).

 

In the meantime you can get trips from Bishops Lydeard to Blue Anchor & return

[Siberian Snooper]

10 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I think the WSR is too long as it is

 

The reason I mentioned it because the A358 is/was a terrible piece of road,  I regularly had to use it back  in the mid to late 70's because my sister worked at Bishops Lydeard and I got collared to pick her up or deliver her there, until she passed her test and got a car. Unless there has been a massive improvement in the road since then, then the more traffic you can take off of it the better and an extra 10 minutes on the train journey is neither here nor there. 

 

Promote Norton Fitzwarren as park and ride for Minehead and relieve some of the congestion on  the  A358 and if it took off, there's a slight possibility that the powers that be might look at building an interchange station on the mainline, especially with the way the Taunton is heading in that direction that station might take some of the Taunton and other destinations road traffic off the road to.

[PenrithBeacon]

1 hour ago, Siberian Snooper said:

 

The reason I mentioned it because the A358 is/was a terrible piece of road,  I regularly had to use it back  in the mid to late 70's because my sister worked at Bishops Lydeard and I got collared to pick her up or deliver her there, until she passed her test and got a car. Unless there has been a massive improvement in the road since then, then the more traffic you can take off of it the better and an extra 10 minutes on the train journey is neither here nor there. 

...

I've never had a problem with congestion on the A358, although my last two journeys which took place last September and a fortnight ago  were probably made easier by the Covid regulations. It's a perfectly adequate roadway and spending huge amounts on the railway just doesn't add up. A solution waiting for a problem. 

Public transport from Taunton to Minehead is well served by the bus.

Edited June 4, 2021 by PenrithBeacon

[fezza]

I think the best chance of trains to Taunton is if the Adonis plan / Reverse Beeching agenda gains traction in Whitehall. One could imagine a GWR commuter service and the odd through train on Summer Saturdays following track upgrades and a few signalling improvements. A limited Taunton service could fit around heritage operations - in fact if GWR Taunton trains returned  there might be case for limiting regular WSR steam trains to Minehead/ Williton as it was in the 80s for a while. 

 

Impossible? Well who would have thought the Waverley route would ever come back... and it looks like regular trains are coming back to Okehampton even though the station is in a very inconvenient position. There can be little doubt that had Minehead survived as a BR line into the 1980s it would be very busy today and at least as successful as the nearby Tarka line. 

[Railpassion]

The latest newsletter is here:

https://www.west-somerset-railway.co.uk/news/detail/platform-newsletter-june-2021

 

A not entirely honest explanation of the crossing situation. Also, direct criticism of the Plc by the WSRA. 

 

Others will be better placed to comment on the staffing changes. 

 

At least the WSR has some stunning views and there are some excellent pictures here and on the WSRA website. 

The 33 looks well, a credit to the guys at Williton.

[woodenhead]

9 hours ago, Railpassion said:

A not entirely honest explanation of the crossing situation. Also, direct criticism of the Plc by the WSRA. 

 

Would you care to elaborate?

[The Stationmaster]

The bit which amuses me in that newsletter is the comment about the Safety Management System. (which, according to what I have been told about it, was in reality far from suitable for purpose and had to be 'rewritten' in order to allow teh railway to continue operating.

 

The level crossing item does seem to be somewhat disingenuous in that it gives me the impression that somewhere the cart has got in front of the horse and the LCO was not agreed before design work was completed.  Quite how a new level crossing control system can comply with an LCO which didn't exist when system design was well underway strikes me as a rather odd.

 

Having had a good look at the crossing on Google Maps I'm surprised that an AHB was permitted in the first place with a road layout like and there are also shortcomings in the road layout and signage so I could quite understand the crossing being criticised should there be an inspection.  But that doesn't explain what has happened subsequently where basically it appears that the crossing itself is being converted to CCTV control with full barriers although I could foresee some possible signage problems.  The bit about controls on signals in the newsletter sounds rather odd to n me as both teh protecting signals are colour lights so will already have the necessary circuit controllers on the levers working them presumabiy including electric locks although obviously an additional control would need to be added when the crossing is converted to CCTV - but that is all standard circuitry.