S&D Trust to leave Washford

[Tim V]

I see announced in I think it was "Steam" that the trust have been asked to leave the Washford site.

 

The reason given in the magazine was the need for extra siding space by the WSR.

 

Not quite what it said in the WSR news, which was that the Trust had agreed to staff Washford Station on a more regular basis. Well, on my trip today, as usual, Washford was the only station (as opposed to a halt) not to be staffed.

 

They have to leave by 2020.

[Kris]

Here is the info on the S & D trusts site. http://sdrt.org.uk/news/article.php?article=105

At least they have 8 years notice in which to sort out a new location for their base. I suspect that this will not have come as a surprise to the trusties especially given some of the longer term plans coming out of the WSR.

[Neal Ball]

........ I suspect that this will not have come as a surprise to the trusties especially given some of the longer term plans coming out of the WSR.

 

Will this see a passing loop installed here?

[Ozexpatriate]

Washford is one of my favourite stops on the WSR, partly because it houses the S&DRT and partly because it's adjacent to a pub.

 

Yes, it will be sad if the S&DRT has to move. Hopefully eight years won't be too long for the S&DRT to find a suitable new home.

 

I know that generally speaking, heritage organizations can be a bit clannish* and have quite different agendas (please, I'm not making any observations about S&DJR groups, I don't know them) but from a starry eyed enthusiast perspective it would be nice to see if between various interests like the S&DRT and S&DRHT a greater entity can emerge closer to the S&DJR ancestral home than the ex-GWR Minehead branch. Perhaps this is an opportunity?

 

* As evidenced by the WHHR and F&WHR.

[Kris]

 

Will this see a passing loop installed here?

 

From memory no, but there is talk of reinstating loops that are not at stations to allow an increased frequency which would put even more pressure on existing stock storage areas.

[Ian J.]

Well, on reading this, the first obvious thought is that they could try and get a base somewhere on the S&DJR route. Not necessarily either Midsomer Norton or Shillingstone. There are other places they could look at but of course none are rail connected and they wouldn't get anything like the same publicity. I wonder if somewhere along the old Somerset Central branch could be 'woken up'?

[Neal Ball]

 

From memory no, but there is talk of reinstating loops that are not at stations to allow an increased frequency which would put even more pressure on existing stock storage areas.

 

I too recall a report last year(?) that a loop in the middle of no-where was proposed, but ruled out on the basis of cost.

 

I have always thought that the section from Blue Anchor through to Williton is too long and a loop at Washford would see that put right. Either way, it will be a shame to see the S&D trust go.

[Boris]

This is happening quite a lot on a number of preserved railways at the moment and its not really a huge amount to do with politics, there are a good number of vehicles stored on some preservation sites, many of which are seeing no progress towards restoration for years. I can think of several who have had to turn down vehicles that are operational, or very close to, because of a lack of siding space taken up by these vehicles in storage. Some sites are now asking for ground rent which is a bit of a double edged sword, it makes money and clears sidings, but also takes away money that would be used in restoration. One society I can think of has 304 items of stock on site (includings locos), roughly 1/3 of which are operational or likely to be so within 5 years, which is why they have now undertaken a complete survey listing stock by such things as rarity, relevance to the area and likelihood of serious restoration effort. The owners of the items which score poorly are now having discussions with the society in question about restoration or storage off site.

 

Besides, when passengers pay a good amount to travel on the train, do they really want to see lines and lines of tatty stock?

[Fay Singpoint]

I have always thought that the section from Blue Anchor through to Williton is too long and a loop at Washford would see that put right.

 

For interest the railway did have two intermediate passing loops that were installed by the GWR in 1933 to cope with the increased summer holiday traffic. These were at Kentsford between Watchet and Washford, and Leigh Bridge between Stogumber and Crowcombe.

 

F

[Kris]

I believe it's the Kentsford one that "may" be under consideration.

[10800]

there are a good number of vehicles stored on some preservation sites, many of which are seeing no progress towards restoration for years. I can think of several who have had to turn down vehicles that are operational, or very close to, because of a lack of siding space taken up by these vehicles in storage. Some sites are now asking for ground rent which is a bit of a double edged sword, it makes money and clears sidings, but also takes away money that would be used in restoration.

 

The only long term solution for sustainable restoration has to be covered storage. On the Bluebell, apart from the Woodpax site at Sheffield Park they now have planning permission to virtually double the size of the carriage shed and workshops at Horsted. Otherwise all the work done in restoration starts rotting away before your eyes as soon as it moves outside.

[Kris]

 

For interest the railway did have two intermediate passing loops that were installed by the GWR in 1933 to cope with the increased summer holiday traffic. These were at Kentsford between Watchet and Washford, and Leigh Bridge between Stogumber and Crowcombe.

 

F

 

There was also the doubling of the line out from Minehead to allow departing trains to leave before late running arrivals arrived saving precious minutes.

[bike2steam]

Well, on reading this, the first obvious thought is that they could try and get a base somewhere on the S&DJR route. Not necessarily either Midsomer Norton or Shillingstone. There are other places they could look at but of course none are rail connected and they wouldn't get anything like the same publicity. I wonder if somewhere along the old Somerset Central branch could be 'woken up'?

 

Unfortunately at Shillingstone there just isn't the space (it would be nearer for us), I would like to see the S&DRT & the S&DHRT merge at Midsomer Norton as one big 'theme park' (?) dedicated to the memory of the S&DJR, what an attraction that would be. I think you mean the old Somerset Central Main Line, that has mostly been returned to farm land or built on as central Somerset has become more developed. Let the WSR run a more pure GWR theme, let Washford return to a nice quiet(ish) single platform rural railway station, with a handy pub, similar to what Highley, on the SVR, used to be like in the good old days.

[Ian J.]

Looking at Google Maps in satellite view, the section from Bason Bridge eastwards to the Railway Inn might be viable? But it's very unlikely to even be considered. Perhaps setting up alongside David Shepherd on the East Somerset might be an option?

[Kris]

It would be interesting to see where space could be found at the East Somerset line, Ian. However if they were to extend (again it's been looked at) then a new station near the old S & D could be ideal.

[HSB]

Perhaps they should consider Radstock. The railway centre by the old GWR engine shed was abandoned a few years ago for some reason and the site was derelict last time I visited a couple or so years ago. It is only a few hundred yards from the former S&D route ( a lot nearer than the WSR)

HSB

[Kris]

I wonder if there really is enough potential support for the S & D trust to open a new site particularly at the northern end given how many other heritage railways there are within a relatively short drive.

[The Stationmaster]

I think the main reason they went to the West Somerset (apart from being offered a home there) was that they thought it would give them the best chance of running but more particularly running on a railway which was probably going to be viable and would survive. At the time of their move down there they looked at several other sites in various West Country locations but none were suitable. 'Politically' at that time they were not going to be welcome at Cranmore for a number of reasons (personalities coming into it as usual, but other things as well) and I don't know if things have changed sufficiently for them to be welcomed there now although I understand, and am sure, they have changed a lot since I had dealings with them at their original Radstock base; it depends as much on other people changing or moving on as them changing etc). But at least they've got a reasonable period of notice this time.

 

As far as Railways being cluttered with unwanted stock this must be a real problem for some as there are certainly some eyesores around which must be found off-putting by casual visitors. One railway I know of have got rid of all the surplus stock (and rollings stock etc groups) by either sale as found or to the scrappy in respect of wagons and sundry metalwork that nobody else wanted. As a result their main site is much more attractive and the essential car park is no longer overshadowed by superannuated wrecks right next to the coach parking area while management of the Railway has been much simplified and business has improved.

[Ohmisterporter]

 

As far as Railways being cluttered with unwanted stock this must be a real problem for some as there are certainly some eyesores around which must be found off-putting by casual visitors. One railway I know of have got rid of all the surplus stock (and rollings stock etc groups) by either sale as found or to the scrappy in respect of wagons and sundry metalwork that nobody else wanted. As a result their main site is much more attractive and the essential car park is no longer overshadowed by superannuated wrecks right next to the coach parking area while management of the Railway has been much simplified and business has improved.

 

This has been a problem since the very early days of preservation, the desire to save 'everything' was as unrealistic then as it is now. I watched rows of wooden bodied wagons and vans literally rot away, until only the underframes were left, with zero railway value and selling them for scrap was at least a way of funding more worthwhile projects. The irony is that among the dross were items that really should have been saved, but we all have our favourites and one person's treasure is another's trash.

On a more positive note some of the restored carriages on preserved lines are a joy to behold, which is pleasing to me 'cos that is where my donations have gone. Don't get me started on throwing money at FS.

[bike2steam]

Not only is hiring out a loco a good way of making money, but also a good promotional tool. Many heritage lines have come to realize that the best way to raise funds for an overhaul is for their locos to spend part of their lives elsewhere.

[Tom Bayford]

What have they got in there collection that another railway will want to fill up sidings with, as the only major asset will be too big for daily use unless it is on a major line where 8 coaches are normal. Ie will they want No88 to be on another railway earning its keep when they are on another one. (please don't take this the wrong way)

 

But the trusts Wagons coaches crane and the Small Diesel and Kilermesdon could leave but 88 might stay although i notice on the S&D trust that 88's contract runs out in 2018

[Tim V]

According to the report in WSR news, there are only 600 odd members of the trust, not enough to keep going.

 

They may well be asset rich, but the bodies to maintain them are lacking.

[The Stationmaster]

According to the report in WSR news, there are only 600 odd members of the trust, not enough to keep going.

 

They may well be asset rich, but the bodies to maintain them are lacking.

I don't think that's anything new for them - back in their Radstock days they had, from what I saw & heard, no more than about a dozen - fifteen 'working' members and frequently far fewer than that onsite. But they had about half a dozen who were very strongly committed and were there just about every weekend plus they had useful skills so things could get done - their big problem in those days was managing the skills and making best use of them all but I'm sure that area has changed beyond all recognition from those far off times.

[RailWest]

Quite a number of separate issues here!

1. WSR loops. Many "nostalgic" members would like to see both Kentsford and Leigh Bridge loops re-instated, but we have to be realistic - that will be done only if it is [a] necessary and economic. There is simply no point in increasing the frequency of trains, and hence your running costs, if you do not have the staff and stock to sustain it, nor the increased passenger income to finance it. Also, traditional signal-boxes are unlikely, as that brings with it problems of staffing and potential vandalism in areas away from staffed stations. At the moment the 'bottle-neck' on the railway is the Williton - Blue Anchor section, in terms of length, station stops and running time, so Kentsford is more likely than L/Bridge.

2. Radstock. I think the ex-GWR engine shed is in danger of falling down! If you read the local press (as I do occasionally), the redevelopment of central Radstock seems to be a mess, and the ex-GWR station effectively has been consigned to the back end out of sight. None of the relevant 'public bodies' with the necessary clout seem to have any interest in having a railway there, despite the apparent success of Midsomer Norton only just down the road.

3. Washford. The basic situation is that the WSR need the space and therefore have exercised their right not to renew the lease in 2020. Whether that decision has been influenced in any way by the (in)ability of the SDRT to staff the station often enough etc is pure speculation. What the WSR will do with the space is unclear at present - I have heard at least 4 different suggestions, but the 'popular' one at the moment is that it will house their PW dept, allowing Dunster to be turned into a musuem-like "traditional branch line station and yard". How the latter is balanced against a need for more space is debatable....

4. SDRT. It is an inescapable fact that the, as well as membership numbers declining slowly, the membership is getting older, with a sizeable proportion already over 60 and that will increase by 2020. One has to ask therefore - if the Trust is going to move somewhere else and 'start again', who will they have in 8 years time with the energy and effort not only to do that but also to take it forward in the years afterwards? As for where to go - I doubt that the existing sites at MSN etc have the space for SDRT rolling-stock, so that would have to be provided and extra sidings installed etc. And if they go to somewhere 'new' on the S&D, then what will there be there in the first few years to attract visitors - after all, they do not get vast numbers at the moment, yet they have 88 and engines running past their front door!

5. Loco 88. This is the subject of a hire agreement totally separate to the lease of the Washford site, although both expire on the same date. There is nothing in theory to stop the WSR renewing the hire agreement after the Trust has left Washford, but of course that would depend upon the decisions of both parties. I believe that the boiler certificate expires before the end of the hire agreement (2014? or 2016?), but under the agreement the WSR has to return it to the Trust in full working order.

 

NOTE: whilst both a WSR and SDRT member, all my comments above are posted in a personal capacity ONLY and do not AFAIK reflect any 'official' viewpoint.

[Neal Ball]

Quite a number of separate issues here!

1. WSR loops. Many "nostalgic" members would like to see both Kentsford and Leigh Bridge loops re-instated, but we have to be realistic - that will be done only if it is [a] necessary and economic. There is simply no point in increasing the frequency of trains, and hence your running costs, if you do not have the staff and stock to sustain it, nor the increased passenger income to finance it. Also, traditional signal-boxes are unlikely, as that brings with it problems of staffing and potential vandalism in areas away from staffed stations. At the moment the 'bottle-neck' on the railway is the Williton - Blue Anchor section, in terms of length, station stops and running time, so Kentsford is more likely than L/Bridge.

2. Radstock. I think the ex-GWR engine shed is in danger of falling down! If you read the local press (as I do occasionally), the redevelopment of central Radstock seems to be a mess, and the ex-GWR station effectively has been consigned to the back end out of sight. None of the relevant 'public bodies' with the necessary clout seem to have any interest in having a railway there, despite the apparent success of Midsomer Norton only just down the road.

3. Washford. The basic situation is that the WSR need the space and therefore have exercised their right not to renew the lease in 2020. Whether that decision has been influenced in any way by the (in)ability of the SDRT to staff the station often enough etc is pure speculation. What the WSR will do with the space is unclear at present - I have heard at least 4 different suggestions, but the 'popular' one at the moment is that it will house their PW dept, allowing Dunster to be turned into a musuem-like "traditional branch line station and yard". How the latter is balanced against a need for more space is debatable....

4. SDRT. It is an inescapable fact that the, as well as membership numbers declining slowly, the membership is getting older, with a sizeable proportion already over 60 and that will increase by 2020. One has to ask therefore - if the Trust is going to move somewhere else and 'start again', who will they have in 8 years time with the energy and effort not only to do that but also to take it forward in the years afterwards? As for where to go - I doubt that the existing sites at MSN etc have the space for SDRT rolling-stock, so that would have to be provided and extra sidings installed etc. And if they go to somewhere 'new' on the S&D, then what will there be there in the first few years to attract visitors - after all, they do not get vast numbers at the moment, yet they have 88 and engines running past their front door!

5. Loco 88. This is the subject of a hire agreement totally separate to the lease of the Washford site, although both expire on the same date. There is nothing in theory to stop the WSR renewing the hire agreement after the Trust has left Washford, but of course that would depend upon the decisions of both parties. I believe that the boiler certificate expires before the end of the hire agreement (2014? or 2016?), but under the agreement the WSR has to return it to the Trust in full working order.

 

NOTE: whilst both a WSR and SDRT member, all my comments above are posted in a personal capacity ONLY and do not AFAIK reflect any 'official' viewpoint.

 

Thanks very much, some interesting thoughts there. I too am a WSR member and look forward to seeing how event evolve.