Weymouth Quay

[montyburns56]

Commercial road 1986 by Martyn Hilbert

 

 

[montyburns56]

1371 Weymouth 1955 by Geoff Dowling

 

[montyburns56]

1955 by Geoff Dowling

 

 

[4630]

Just an update on the present (final?) position as observed around the former Weymouth Quay station on 13th September 2021.

 

Whilst the track has now been lifted along Custom House Quay, a very short length of track and former pointwork still exists adjacent to the remains of the station platform.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't have the time to walk the full length of the former tramway, but I did see that there also appears to be a short length of track remaining along Commercial Road, close to the bus garage, where the road appears to be used solely for parking for the adjacent houses/flats. 

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by 4630
re-upload photos

[john new]

Yes, confirming there is still a bit left in the 1 hour/residents parking area near the Bus Depot (was there a few days ago getting a bus!). Also not lifted north beyond King Street, still used from time to time for railing road/rail engineering vehicles.

[Vanfit]

October 1984

 

[gwrrob]

I was in Weymouth last week and was disgusted but not surprised to see that most of the quay branch was tarmac filled now. Just bits like @4630photos shew remain.

[Gwiwer]

I know the tramway raises passionate feelings but with no worthwhile traffic at the quay these days what would have been the justification for retaining it?  

[phil-b259]

40 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

I was in Weymouth last week and was disgusted but not surprised to see that most of the quay branch was tarmac filled now. Just bits like @4630photos shew remain.

You miss the very valid point that railway tracks present a potentially lethal feature for cyclists (and motorcyclists) unless crossing them at 90 degrees.

 

The longer the disused ones at Weymouth Quay (which were laid out such that cyclists would traverse them at very shallow angles) were left place the grater the chance the owner would have found themselves in court facing  prosecution for allowing a known hazard to be left in the public highway - AND LOST on the basis that they did nothing to remove the hazzard.

 

Note - where inset tracks tracks on public highways are in frequent use such as urban tramway systems then the law would look upon the situation differently as it’s quite obvious that they exist as part of a transport system and not what amounts to an ‘ornamental feature’ 

Edited October 9, 2021 by phil-b259

[john new]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

You miss the very valid point that railway tracks present a potentially lethal feature for cyclists (and motorcyclists) unless crossing them at 90 degrees.

 

The longer the disused ones at Weymouth Quay (which were laid out such that cyclists would traverse them at very shallow angles) were left place the grater the chance the owner would have found themselves in court facing  prosecution for allowing a known hazard to be left in the public highway - AND WON!

 

Note - where the tracks are in frequent use such as urban tramway systems then the law would look upon the situation differently as it’s quite obvious that they exist as part of a transport system and not what amounts to an ‘ornamental feature’ 

As a local I can confirm a very definite traffic hazard that justified removal. The additional point not mentioned by @phil-b259 above is that if your 4 wheeled vehicle's tyres were on the track and you braked the adhesion was zilch.

 

As stated the risk assessment for a working railway or tramway is likely to produce a very different outcome to one where in essence the question is solely should these risky bits of smooth metal and deep, rigid slots be allowed to remain in the highway? For the Weymouth Tramway - Q1 - does the risk exist = yes. Q2 can it be eliminated = yes, hence opting for rails removal; for a working tram route Q2 must of necessity have no for an answer and other amelioration measures have to be brought in to reduce risks.  Unfortunately, even with safety measures in place, that is not always entirely successful as this RAIB item suggests.

 

Edited October 9, 2021 by john new
Typo correction

[lapford34102]

I've written enough on here about my connection with the Tram not to repeat it all here. Reading  negative comments about it's removal on here and elsewhere all I can say is that probably never had to live with it at any point.

 

Stu

[Zomboid]

The track was just a pointless liability with there being no traffic and no realistic prospect of there ever being any traffic.

 

It's never a happy time to see a railway removed, but what possible justification could there have been for keeping it?

Edited October 9, 2021 by Zomboid

[phil-b259]

20 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

The track was just a pointless liability with there being no traffic and no realistic prospect of there ever being any traffic.

 

It's never a happy time to see a railway removed, but what possible justification could there have been for keeping it?

 

A lot of enthusiasts seem to want it kept as what amounts to some sort of 'ornamental feature' to show future generations what such a tramway looked like. In essence they want to treat it as a listed building - but unlike a listed building which can be repurposed for an alterative use, redundant rail tracks simply cannot have any practical use once trains no longer use them.

 

In traffic free situations liker Folkestone Harbour then yes, you can retain them and fill in the gaps to create an attractive paving feature - but the situation is very different where vehicles / cycles are required to pass along them / over them at acute angles.

[lyneux]

Having lived in the Low Countries where there are both abundant bikes and trams I would hardly describe tram tracks as ‘potentially lethal’. If your wheel gets stuck in the tracks you put your feet out to stop yourself toppling over. It happened frequently.

 

What is wrong with this country? People just see lawsuits everywhere… same nonsense that stops you sticking your head out of a train window on a rail tour.

 

Guy

Edited October 9, 2021 by lyneux

[phil-b259]

10 hours ago, lyneux said:

Having lived in the Low Countries where there are both abundant bikes and trams I would hardly describe tram tracks as ‘potentially lethal’. If your wheel gets stuck in the tracks you put your feet out to stop yourself toppling over. It happened frequently.

 

What is wrong with this country? People just see lawsuits everywhere… same nonsense that stops you sticking your head out of a train window on a rail tour.

 

Guy

 

Regardless of whether you consider it 'wrong' or not, the law only deals with facts!

 

Now don't get me wrong I am no fan of the Americanisation of our legal setup, but in this particular situation its more about doing the right thing morally speaking.

 

Quite rightly UK law does not allow is a known hazard to remain in place when its not being used - because as with much H&S legislation, we have come to realise that letting people suffer death or serious injury is no way to run a just society. The attitudes prevalent in Victorian or 1930s society which was content to 'write off' peoples well being are not acceptable however many pairs of rose tinted glasses you wish to wear.

 

Quite clearly an 'in use' tram system like Croydon or Manchester, cannot avoid placing rails in a hazardous position (parallel to the direction of traffic) - and the law recognises this (with the caveat that the road layout should be designed so that things such as dedicated cycle lanes are arranged to cross at 90 degrees to the rails).

 

The Weymouth tramway on the other hand not only has no foreseeable use by trains in future, its general condition means wholesale renewal would be required if some for of tram setup was to ever come about. Consequently there is no good reason to retain it within the public highway*

 

 

* Note that where such lines do not form part of the public highway and are located in exclusively pedestrian areas then, as per the situation at Folkestone Harbour the law is content for them to stay (assuming any gaps are infilled to remove a tripping hazard).

 

Edited October 10, 2021 by phil-b259

[john new]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Regardless of whether you consider it 'wrong' or not, the law only deals with facts!

 

Now don't get me wrong I am no fan of the Americanisation of our legal setup, but in this particular situation its more about doing the right thing morally speaking.

 

Quite rightly UK law does not allow is a known hazard to remain in place when its not being used - because as with much H&S legislation, we have come to realise that letting people suffer death or serious injury is no way to run a just society. The attitudes prevalent in Victorian or 1930s society which was content to 'write off' peoples well being' are not acceptable however many pairs of rose tinted glasses you wish to wear.

 

Quite clearly an 'in use' tram system like Croydon or Manchester, cannot avoid placing rails in a hazardous position (parallel to the direction of traffic) - and the law recognises this (with the caveat that the road layout should be designed so that things such as dedicated cycle lanes are arranged to cross at 90 degrees to the rails).

 

The Weymouth tramway on the other hand not only has no foreseeable use by trains in future, its general condition means wholesale renewal would be required if some for of tram setup was to ever come about. Consequently there is no good reason to retain it within the public highway*

 

 

* Note that where such lines do not form part of the public highway and are located in exclusively pedestrian areas then, as per the situation at Folkestone Harbour the law is content for them to stay (assuming any gaps are infilled to remove a tripping hazard).

 

As has been done at Weymouth too. Rails removed on the heavily trafficked Custom Ho Quay and Commercial Rd, where it was (a) dangerous affecting braking and steering and (b) cost justified by traffic levels. Not removed, for example, in the car park by the bus depot/King St as no justification to do so. Other buildings knocked down at the ferry terminal end were either collapsing or redundant as seen from the perspective of the area’s overall redevelopment plan. You will probably find more local debate over the pros and cons of that, especially the proposed elimination of the large car park, than concern over the rails removal.

Edited October 10, 2021 by john new

[Vanfit]

A much delayed on route scheduled boat train in about the mid 1980s.  That day was a festival of some kind and the town and quay was packed, note the person with blonde hair who appears to be leaning on the carriage!

[john new]

Probably a Trawler Race day. Spring BH Monday IIRC, an event eventually abandoned after a mix of too much drunken mayhem and decline in the fishing fleet. 

[figworthy]

14 hours ago, Vanfit said:

A much delayed on route scheduled boat train in about the mid 1980s.  That day was a festival of some kind and the town and quay was packed, note the person with blonde hair who appears to be leaning on the carriage!

 

I'd be more worried about the one closer to the camera who has horns.

 

Adrian

[Mol_PMB]

I just spotted this on Flickr, from John Turner:

(embedded link)