West Somerset Railway General Discussion

As below

Robin

 

Yuk!

 

Not only just''Yuk'' part of if not all of the station master house would have to be knocked down as well to make room for the extended platform.

PS the photo of the inside of the Pullman shows the true meaning of luxury first class, against the low grade first class in the MK1 coaches.

 

Well, double-Yuk indeed!

What I had failed to remember was how close the house is to the track. Despite that, there are several references in the SG Brief to the platform extension and several alternative uses for the house itself, but no mention of demolition or modification.

 

#Yuk from here too. The notion of extending southwards platform one is a real non-starter. Far better to plan to make the most of the remaining heritage at Lydeard - restore the station building internally to reflect a past age, same for the station master's house (if poss), rebuild the cattle dock and so on. So, platform extension? No way! Wrecking the very thing that folks come to see and experience is most definitely not the way forward.

Steve

 

It is important that people get involved in the consultation process for the Bishops Lydread Station development plan (the Southern Gateway Project)
The Heritage aspects of the Western side of the station need enhancing to tell the story of a period country station for future generations, the whole cattle dock, goods shed area could be stunning display showing freight movement before the advent of the fork lift, containerisation and the multi drop white van man.
The station buildings should be showing the way of working before the internet and 4 in 1 printers
Likewise Station House has its own contribution, the station masters garden, the "modern" kitchen, back room for everyday life and front front room it impress the Sunday visitors. The tin bath and outside earth closet always get the attention of the children.
Other heritage venues are rebuilding from scratch these features.

Why would anyone want to scrap this potential to convert it into a restaurant, remove/cover in the bay goods shed siding and as for Station House, for details of the options look at the soft focus drawings on http://www.wsra.org.uk/wp2016/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/BL-Masterplanning-Presentation-Generic.pdf See Pages 7 and 8

Would the HLF support such a scheme, who know but it is only going to happen if they do.

Please get involved, look at the proposals, engage with the consultation process.

Douglas Adams would have a view!

Jeff Price

 

Would that be:

'I have a terrible pain in the diodes down my left side'.

BTW, I think you mean removing / covering the Goods She'd siding, not the Bay, Jeff.

Robin

 

No

and thanks, have amended post

J

 

I couldn't agree more, Steve.
But the SG Briefing references the P1 extension to take 8 coaches in several places, along with continuing uses for the house.
The fuzzy fotos in the Master Planning Presentation seem to show a narrow pathway past the house (is there room?) & the Goods Shed replaced by allotments.
The text doesn't go to a sufficient level of detail that I can discern.

 

Lots of excellent Southern gateway comments here.
Please e-mail your thoughts to southerngateway@wsra.org.uk so that I can include them in the WSRA report to the project board if you have not already done so.

 

As someone who has taken an interest in the WSR since the early 80’s I feel that we should perhaps reflect on the results of major infrastructure projects when considering the proposals for the Southern Gateway project.

The Minehead Turntable.

This was undoubtedly an important development yet how often is it used? We are one of the few heritage railways with the ability to turn loco’s at each end of the line yet this USP is rarely used and many loco’s fail to run chimney first. This I feel is an important aspect as well as the failure to provide the spectacle for the visiting public of the Turntable being put to use.

The Norton Triangle

This again is a major infrastructure development that is virtually invisible to our paying visitors. On occasion it seems that the major beneficiary of this development are the railway operating company’s and training organisations. Whilst this undoubtedly brings in much needed income it fails to enhance the visitor’s experience.

The Bishop Lydeard Engine Shed.

Once again an undoubtedly much needed facility. However as far as our visitors experience is concerned it fails to add anything to their visit to BL. At least at Minehead Station one can view the loco’s being cleaned, prepared etc.

Whilst the operational aspect of any development on the railway is of course important, the primary concern should always be the visitor experience. No visitors=No railway.

 

One of the dangers for those heavily involved 'behind the scenes' with any preserved railway is that they focus on what would make their particular job easier when thinking of future developments, and when these are added together to form an overall plan, often any improvement to the passengers' experience of the line is not exactly coincidental but very much in the 'so we can run a more reliable, better quality service' category. Believe me, I once pulled together known ideas for future development and this very fact struck me like a house brick between the eyes!

I nearly made this point on the 'Are heritage railways becoming less welcoming?' thread.

This isn't to dismiss or decry projects to provide covered accommodation or other improved engineering or operating facilities, or the effect they can have on improving quality of service but is to point out that 'improving visitor experience' (apologies for the jargon!) is rather wider than that, and can be very difficult to achieve without risking 'dumbing down'! Improving the heritage aspects of part of BL sounds an excellent way of doing this, and quite small improvements to explaining why things are there and what they do (without swamping the 'things' with massive 'interpretation boards' that largely obscure the very thing they seek to enhance appreciation of!) can do much to improve quality of visitor experience.

I know others disagree with me on this, but my view is that railways should aim to encourage as many people as possible to enjoy the experience of the line, ensure they do enjoy it and that is the way to ensure long term survival, with traffic and other revenue and 'charitable' income all boosted by having large numbers of satisfied passengers who develop a 'love' of the line and are willing to support it when needed in various ways.

When looking at future developments, the yardsticks should perhaps be:

1. How does this secure the physical long term future of the line?
2. How will this develop business and secure the financial long term future of the line?
3. How does this improve the preservation and passenger experience of the line?

Steven

 

Of course. However, my experience is that for many volunteers, seeing trains nicely filed with happy passengers is a major part of what makes the 'experience' positive for them (too full can take the edge off it!). Enjoying a challenge and the satisfaction gained from delivering are great motivators. Perhaps crucially, you want volunteers to feel 'this is my railway; I am a part of it and it is part of me' and hence as long as you bring the majority of volunteers along with what is happening - indeed, ensure that they have the opportunity to not only input to the process but even set the agenda, then there is a good chance of this being the case, and you will be heading in the right direction in what you do. At the very least, ensure why things are being done is made clear to volunteers and members alike, although they should already have had the input to form what is being done.

What can be disastrous and divisive can be trying to ensure every volunteer is happy, or, if you like, setting the 'speed of the convoy to that of the slowest ship'. Some prefer a quiet life and hence don't want to see development or trains busy - and often they can be the most vocal in their views, so compromises have to be made but at the same time there can be a need almost to decide 'who are we going to upset by taking this decision?' rather than believing that no-one will be upset.

Volunteers and passengers both rely on each other in order for either to be able to enjoy the railway! Happy passengers are also an excellent source of volunteers!

Steven

 

The answer to the question about MD turntable is - probably much more often than you think! On normal running days, there is not enough time for a loco to be coaled, watered, have any servicing inspections done and turn the loco. Likewise, the loco would then also have to run to the triangle to turn. This requires up to an hour to achieve safely, without rushing, which again takes up more time than the timetable allows. In the timetables where the 1105 BL is loco hauled, it is usually used to demonstrate the turntable working, and usually gets a good audience. This can be done because the next working for the loco is the 1525 MD. However, it is mostly turned 360 degrees for operational reasons, plus the fact that it would have to run to NF at the end of the day (or start of the next) in both cases adding up to an hour to the footplate crews' time. The turntable is also used occasionally to turn stock.

 

Geoff,

Good observations. I was involved in the design of both the turntable and the shelter over the BL loco compound so can speak with some authority.

Minehead turntable. The site at Minehead only had one location where it would have been possible to fit the turntable without additional land, the space available was only sufficient for the original 55 foot size of the turntable and would have taken up the central location in the loco yard. In this location all other operations and shed building would not have been possible. In the outcome it was possible to install the turntable as part of the development of the old cattle market site, owned by the county council. Because of the extra space available the turntable could be extended to 65 foot in the same way that the GWR extended many of the 55 foot turntables as locomotives became larger. The GWR never built any 65 foot St Blazey type turntables, all 65 foot turntables were modifications of 55 foot. The turntable at Minehead is used daily to turn a locomotive during the peak season timetables, in addition most locomotives at galas and special workings are also turned. For all locomotives to run chimney first Minehead turntable could be used for every train as time is just available to do so but a means of turning would also be required at the other end of the line.

NF triangle. A wonderful facility which is used for a variety of operations but unfortunately it is not suitable for the turning of service locomotives during the regular timetables. This is because it takes approximately 50 minutes for a light engine to depart BL, run to NF, enter the triangle site via the ground frame operated pointwork, reverse twice on the triangle site with the fireman operating the ground frame/hand point, exit the site, reset the pointwork, and return to BL. The total distance is 7 miles, nearly 1.5 miles of which is subject to a severe speed restriction as the triangle is classified as a siding. With the development of Bishops Lydeard Southern Gateway if it was possible to include a turntable at BL then every service locomotive could be turned both ends of the line, a real bonus is many ways.

BL loco compound. At present this is a site that is not suited to allowing the public to roam free amongst the locomotives, as you point out this does not enhance the visitor experience. On the positive side only part of the site is fully developed in its permanent form, this being the actual track work, pits, oil interceptors and canopy. Yet to be done is the replacement of the temporary stores, mess rooms and offices which have existed for nearly 2 decades. It is feasible to include a safe means of public access to a viewing area as part of any development to the compound, and I hope that those who one day undertake any development include that facility.

Andy.

 

Jeff,
I have read the proposals several times and have tried to make sense of the diagrams etc. some of my thoughts have been conveyed to the WSRA Vice Chairman.
I deleted the comments I made as they were written rather crossly.

I find the whole proposal a muddle. Neither one thing nor the other. I find the name 'Southern Gateway ' distasteful.....sounds like a shopping centre.
The WSR needs a shed. Build a shed!

 

But providing covered accommodation for coaching stock certainly improves the visitor experience - though it may be a few years before the benefits are evident in the form of better maintained vehicles.

 

I must say that I don't find the Southern Gateway scheme very inspiring. It has the potential to ruin the ambiance of a rural station and turn it into a theme park. A signalling free interface with network rail could be achieved at NF (except for charters) and a TOC only has 1.5 miles to travel from Taunton instead of the 4 miles of mainly 25mph to BL, increasing the chance that this service could have a longterm future. Get the triangle certified to reduce time taken turning and make full use of this unique feature. Proposed bridge is hideous and would not look out of place up here in London. Ditto multi-storey car park. Agree that the WSR needs sheds, most of all at MH where most damage is done to the carriages. It is suggested that the scheme will take a minimum of 10 years to develop so save the money and start with a blank canvas at NF. (I hope I have not offended those who have obviously put a lot work into the plans so far but these are my gut reactions.)

 

I agree on both points - the Kidderminster Carriage Shed has proven how much it helps keep vehicles in good exterior condition, but I suspect many lines with decent sized fleets will be years using the time saved on reworking specific vehicles after a few years to clear the backlog overall, which is also limited by physical workshop capacity, funding (although many Mark 1 overhauls are largely labour, which is of course not necessarily free but also part of the capacity issue) and accelerating rates of deterioration with age and general existing vehicle condition.

Steven