Swanage Railway General Discussion

There will be two 5-car sets and a 4 car set in service (along with the dining train on Friday and Saturday evening), which comprise all currently operational SR coaching stock (Car 14 is currently away undergoing repairs, so is not on the railway).

Also visible will be 1947 (the Birds Nest Buffet at Swanage) and 1457 (being used as a workshop at Corfe Castle), and, if you come down on Sunday for the brake van rides beyond Norden, three carriages currently stored (1865, 2768 and 6697).

 

Hello,
Any brake van rides still available ?


Nick

 

I believe so Nick, availability should be shown in the 'buy tickets' section of the website. Incidentally, we are trying to work out when the last time Queen Mary brakes S56284 and S56289 worked together giving brake van rides; we think it was most likely a Network South East/BR open day some years ago.

 

Further to Rumpole 's report - not sure if there have been changes but original roster was:
Set A - 4983+4899+9015+4945+4365
Set B - 4981+4842+35059+24127+4416
Set C - 35464+4349+5761+4961
Dining - 1937 [Kitchen Car]+4803+3090+4055+21205
Hope you manage to photograph any missing from your collection.

 

Thank you for the replies, there do appear to be a few "missing" coaches running.

 

I see on the SLL website that 80104 has been withdrawn for a "bottom end" overhaul. Will there be enough locos to cope with the peak season? 34072 and 31874 are progressing, but it seems like they won't be ready until the end of the year. By my reckoning, this only leaves 30053, 31806 and 34070 to shoulder the burden of the summer period.

 

Isn't 6695 due back soon?

 

6695 was under repair on the West Somerset Railway but it's boiler ticket was due to expire, so it is now under overhaul on the West Somerset Railway.

 

Swanage have won a £75,000 grant to fit mainline safety and communication equipment on N Class 31874 and for the overhaul of 5 carriages to mainline standard. This will mean 31874 will be able to operate a service between Swanage and Norden. It is hoped 31874 will return to service at the end of the year or early next year and run to Wareham late 2017 or early 2018. Full article https://www.facebook.com/swanagerailway/posts/991550800893484.

 

Is it known whether the N will be given a limited derogation, similar to the NYMR 's Whitby arrangement, or whether it will be given full main line certification? Just wondering whether it is likely to be seen further afield than Wareham on NR metals?

 

This is excellent news. Is there any update on the Wareham footcrossing situation as I understand that until that is resolved, the sidings required to run round a train can't be brought into use. At least there's still time.

 

Still unresolved, footbridge plan by Network rail for disabled people rejected by local council, due to the amount of time it would take to use the proposed bridge. Network rail still want to get rid of the crossing, as one of there national goals is to either upgrade or close foot and vehicle crossings for safety.

 

It sounds like full main line certification due to the fact it's a main line however I'm not certain. Swanage may also need to have the back carriage empty as a buffer vehicle (due to the structure of MK1s) and maybe a Class 33 as a backup locomotive in case of failure.

 

It will be a full mainline certification. Initial use to Wareham will need to be top & tail with a class 33 at least until the crossing and crossover is resolved. Running round in the station is also affected by 3rd rail electrification and pathing issues on a busy double track main line.

We expect to develop this very slowly taking baby steps as and when we are ready. The 2017 2018 DMU trial takes absolute priority over developing steam.

The loco is 4P 5FB so we don't expect to see much demand for charter operations. However if you needed a banker out of Weymouth & Parkstone.........

More info
http://swanagemoguls.com/2016/05/25/n-class-31874-to-go-main-line/

 

Could they use it to pull the coast express's to Romsey via Chandlers Ford where it would uncouple, the other engine could bank and it would remove the need for a diesel. Please!

 

No requirement for barrier vehicles with Mk1s, that went away years ago!

 

Purbeck District Council rejected the plans on the grounds that it would be too big (what DDA compliant bridge isn't?) and that it would not blend in with the near by station. It was also felt that the distance involved would be too much too.
NR national goals are to improve safety at crossing and sometimes this involves the upgrading or closing a crossing. With Wareham the set up is only a temporary measure and as the crossing is leased to the County Council, not Purbeck, NR are working with them to come up with a permanent set up.

 

Regarding the plan to get some of the Swanage Railway MK1s back on the main line, I have a few questions to ask about main line MK1 coaches please.

I know that the coaches would need to have manual secondary door locking bolts fitted, but do the regulations actually require the sealing up the centre doors. I know the NYMR and charter companies seal up the centre doors, but is that a requirement or just to avoid having to fit as many doors with bolts?

I know the practice started with FOs used as dining cars in the 1980s, but that was so that the vestibule area could be used for food serving tables and storage. I have never understood why other types had their centre doors sealed up, because after all the doors were provided as an extra means of escape. The diagram 92 TSOs and diagram 71 FOs were built in the early 1950s without centre vestibules, but after a few of each were built, the design was changed to incorporate a centre vestibule.

 

I can see the councils point. A couple of pedestrian crossings were removed on a line near me and the replacement new footbridges are truly enormous and massively overbuilt for the task due to the shallow ramp angles needed to be disability compliant.

 

But what hey missed is at when the lease for the crossing finishes it will close. Also it will be costing the County Council £120k per year (plus inflation) for the next 23 years. NR had offered to pay for the replacement of the footpath now rather than the local councils in 23 years time.
I hope that the councillor, on the planning committee, who proposed the rejection of the planning application gets asked certain questions.