West Somerset Railway General Discussion

But where would the steam fayre go?

 

Robin , I thought of that years ago I must say. But as its now 6 years since i was in Minehead I seem to remember the platform road is a platform road, the next one to it is the run round road , so that leaves just the one road, well better than nothing i suppose.
n

 

what! plenty of places !

 

Hear Hear.

 

Unfortunately the BL Southern Gateway proposals at present appear to be turning into a bit of a mess, a bit like the well known committee who when asked to design a horse produced the camel.

The proposed design will never achieve what is expected of it, even if it does get built. Even worse it will make operation to run a railway very difficult. For example consider the difficulty of moving 100 passengers from platform 1 to platform 2 via the bridge, even worse in the rain. Car parking will still be a problem if the rail service to Taunton and beyond takes off, the two level car park will very quickly fill up early in the morning. How many will only come to wander around without travelling or buying a ticket?

If (a very big if) large sums of money are available it might be better to leave BL alone (except perhaps for museum and shed for the steam trust) start with a clean sheet of paper and produce a modern interchange station elsewhere incorporating:- a park and ride facilities for Taunton trains, cross platform exchange of trains, a covered terminus for WSR trains that also serves as a carriage shed without the need for shunting, proper facilities for those who arrived by car such as toilets and dry covered reception hall, offices, booking hall, tourist information and catering. This station might be only a short way out south of BL with road access coming off the roundabout feeding Cotford St Luke. Properly done this could be Gateway to the West Somerset & Coast, and the first station on the route would be a wonderful heritage BL, quiet, unhurried and worth exploring.

Andy.

 

As often before on this site Steven has brought a sense of realism into the debate.

Many of us have our individual "loves", many of these will not be shared by the majority of our passengers. We, I submit have to assume pragmatic positions, My affection for steam locomotives is fairly well known but I recognise that the operating costs of such are very high and increasing at an alarming rate. Steam has to, simplistically, show that it is either a 'crowd puller' or failing that attracts donations that mitigate against these high costs,

The WSR, as with most Heritage Railways, whilst clearly in passenger terms a thriving Railway, is financially hard pressed to maintain and improve the existing basic infrastructure (rail, bridges, stations etc), and then there is the cost of locomotive repairs let alone carriage stock etc,.

Applying Steven's three maxims and recognising the apparent current WSR priorities it is difficult to reconcile the relevance of the Southern Gateway Project. Is this really the best way to invest £20 million ( that conveniently ignores the question as to where this money is coming from) on the WSR over the next ten years ? I suspect not !

Michael Rowe

 

Can I remind all lovers of the WSR who have been contributing to the Southern Gateway debate in this thread to send your written responses to the WSRA here:

southerngateway@wsra.org.uk

I urge you to do this so that the WSRA can keep a permanent record of your responses, include your concerns in it's own response to the consultation and make sure your responses are taken account of by the project board. If you read the documentation carefully you will note that formal responses are required. While Nat Pres is a brilliant resource for the Heritage Rail Movement it may not count as a formal response.
If you have already sent a formal response to the plc directly then you can ignore my plea.

 

Does the impending closure of Norton Manor Camp (http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/norto...ce-secretary/story-29875492-detail/story.html) provide an opportunity for the WSR?

If the camp is developed for large numbers of houses, as one would expect, there may be a possibilities of the infrastructure required for a new "southern gateway" station being delivered by a developer through S106/CIL monies rather than from the WSR purse.

 

Actually the report suggests closure of Norton Camp in 2028 so that is some way off and of course given current insecurities could be delayed.

 

If you can extract any significant S106/CIL money from a developer you will be doing really well. I've sat in too many public enquiries and watched appeals for any S106 money let alone a CIL get rejected out of hand. Even on the odd occasion when S106 is used the normal policy of a developer is to build first and then ask to be released from S106 requirements or even to refuse to honour them. CIL is an excellent idea but until it is imposed automatically on every new development in the UK it's never going to happen. The reason is simple, there are two conflicting pressures and politically new houses always wins.

 

This is my take on this, but moving it down to near the B3227 bridge. The train shed will hold about 20 coaches in the operating season and 30 out of the operating season. The QB will always be under cover and Jo Public will see it every time they go onto the platform. Also having the "Paddington Gateway Station" this far down is if a TOC do decide to operate a regular service it will be closer to Taunton and means it will be most likely to work with their timetable and also it will be more easy for the WSR to turn the Engines as well using the Norton Triangle because the TOC trains will clear within about two minuets from leaving the station.

If more money became available it could be made wider and include the broad gauge museum and a platform road for the vintage coaches as well.

Once I have completed this including maps and more drawings etc I will be sending it into them.

 

Agreed, and the WSR is far from alone in these kinds of debates. Where it gets problematic is when there is a conflict between the aims, which is often the case between the aim of "improving preservation" and "securing the financial security" and "securing the physical long term". Examples include:

- Erecting storage facilities - undoubtedly good for reducing costs, i.e. ensuring the long term financial security; but the preservation impact - while certainly good for the vehicles concerned, can conflict with the branch line ambience to have big sheds popping up in visually intrusive areas
- Flat bottom rail and concrete sleepers - again, tends to be good financially, as it is more widely available, cheaper, and can be more easily tamped mechanically, which helps you keep on top of the task of maintaining the p/way with limited resources. But clearly it is not brilliant at maintaining the pre-preservation atmosphere.

These aren't simple problems! Probably the best that can be achieved is to at least be aware that the questions exist, so that they can guide solutions in an intelligent way with everyone's eyes open - policy may also help; for example I suspect many railways have a policy of allowing flat bottom rail on the plain line between stations, while requiring replacements to be bullhead / wooden sleepers within station limits.

It's also where a thriving fund-raising capacity through the charitable arm can add real value by bridging the difference in cost between "the minimum we need to do to maintain an operational railway" and "what we would like to do to maintain the heritage ambience". If you frame the question in that way, it makes it easier to formulate the limits by which the charity can fund activity of the plc without crossing a line of just providing direct financial support to operating activities.

Tom

 

Was the railway ever used for military purpose at Norton camp?

 

That's a secret.

 

I am sure they have a few tank engines in their workshops. And possibly a few land rover engines too.

 

WSR Southern Gateway Consultation

Herewith my submission. I am sure it can be improved. Comments, thoughts, suggestions?

Robin

 

Very good !

I would like to see room for a future turntable as the triangle is impractical for routine operations. A platform water crane at the down end on 2\3 would make sense. We do however need to ensure access for road delivered locos (and Pullman coaches) to the existing shed roads.

 

Any idea on today's movement from BL to Williton? I would really love to see the carriage out on the line

 

ETD BL 10:00

Robin

 

Impressive. And mildly radical. This project needs a bit of radical mixed with sympathy and common sense. With just a few words and a sketch map, your proposed plan looks like a good place to start. It retains and enhances heritage, it improves the visitor experience and it makes operation and maintenance much better (if the loco area could be moved to the Station Farm site then even better ) The existing proposals cover many important things and they are clearly the result of a lot of hard work - the key objectives are fair, clear and much-needed - but the proposed options seem very muddled.

Steve