West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I think the loco sheds will need to stay where they are. The pits, canopy and water settlement tanks would be very expensive to relocate. There is also the question of the road/rail area which is a vital facility. We do however need some sort of coaling facility at BL.

Thinking about the beginning of a running day, Robin's diagram shows that having extracted the stock from the storage sheds, the moves are to back out into the long headshunt off the foot of the page (or across into the down main), propel the stock into platform 2 and then use the new platform 3 as the run-round loop to place the loco on the front of the train. It makes sense to me.

 

Meaning no disrespect to what is a well worked out operational plan, and not having read the consultation papers, how does that preserve the atmosphere of a branch line station?

My particular concern at face value is the mixture of footbridge, lift tower, and then cafe/museum. My fear is that the end result will be that Bishops Lydeard will end up a bit like Sheffield Park, so heavily developed that the authentic kernel of what it was is lost amidst the operational and commercial development.

 

Luckily the WSR has other stations along the line which are like BA which doesn't looked to have been altered at all from its GWR days, with Dunster only changed with the goods yard been used as a PW depot and CH just loosing the siding. Stogumber has lost its goods shed but looks in keeping and Watchet is still good even though the good shed isn't part of the railway. The Bluebell has only got Kingcote which is undeveloped as far as the railway goes.

The end/s station on any heritage will be a problem as they were never built for the number of passengers they handle, and in the (good) old days just a basic toilet for the men and some cases open topped and for the ladies and a ticket office/waiting room would have done, but you will never make the railway work without good toilets with a shop, cafe etc as well.

BL will always be a problem due to the layout of it all and yes it will lose its few charms it has, but without building another station in the up direction (Paddington) the purposed development will be a problem for the idea which has been proposed due to the platform which is normally used on one side of the running line and the new development on the other side.

 

Point taken - but my question is not about whether development is needed (a brief visit to BL last year confirmed that it is), but how it can be done in a sympathetic way that doesn't destroy the charm of the station.

 

This a key theme in the feedback.

 

Well as far as im thoughts on all this goes is to build a new station on the triangle site at Norton, you could build a bigger car park and carriage sidings there as well as a suitable park n ride station for the FGW services to turn on possibly a dedicated bay platform so it wouldn't interfere with any WSR services and build it level/step free access for wheelchair users, having been down the road you could build a access road off the main road onto the site from the town side, although obviously there is a lot of work involved but then there is whatever option you take. But altering LYD to the level so far put forward im not sure would be a good thing

 

Sadly any desired chance of retaining Lydeard as a preserved country station was first lost over thirty years ago. Subsequent and much needed developments have only served to lessen any likelihood of that desired dream. Even in the late 1970s and early 1980s when I served time as a booking office clerk at Lydeard it was clear that Lydeard's little old station was under pressure from a number of passengers vastly increased from its "glory days". Doing nothing at Lydeard (quite a nice option!) would not make it a fine example of a period country station, either. It's too late already. So, let's do our best to protect and preserve what is left and to ensure any further developments are done as sympathetically as possible.

Steve

 

My paper explicitly does not seek to answer the BL/NFW question. Rather it deals with the question of how best to develop BL if we are to.

It suggests a means of providing appropriate terminal facilities but respecting the really important heritage buildings.

There are, undoubtedly, other solutions. We must pick one for the right reasons and go with it.

The first move of the day would be likely to be loco off shed to the north end of a train in platform 3 and away. Just as the last move would be a train arriving in platform 3 and loco to shed. Very, very easy.

Robin

 

As an interested observer who knows the WSR reasonably well, I'd agree that BL is vastly different already to what it was in GWR/BR days. However, the alterations such as the platform extension and bay have been done sympathetically so the character is not lost. I'm not sure that much more can be done before this character is compromised.
Surely a better bet must be to look at NF? The 'Southern Gateway' could be purpose built (think Kidderminster Town Stn on the SVR) and on the outskirts of the county town rather than in a quiet village. It'd quite possibly attract a larger audience and would be more convenient for any potential service trains from the national network. Plus, with a blank canvas, there's no character to preserve, although one would hope, an accepted style to aim for.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

I assume that the comment about providing a "Signal" should actually read "Signal Box"?
Are the lift towers on the footbridge in place to get around the alternative excessive ramp lengths as seen in some Network schemes?

 

The trouble i see with having lifts is then you have to have a lift maintenance company and contract and how much is that gonna be? cant there still be use of the barrow crossing for those that need it

 

Errr. True about maintenance costs for lifts. But your alternative suggestion depends on where the barrow crossing is. If it is the current one (Ok at the moment as all the facilities are on the same side as the car park) then that'd be a quarter of a mile (extra) to get to the Station Farm area. And then another quarter mile back to the platform. Hardly the sort of distances appropriate for the people involved. We should avoid causing additional unwarranted pain, effort and time for these folks. Sufficient and suitable parking on the Station Farm side (as close as poss to the facilities) would help but there'd still be a quarter mile to the train.

On the subject of facilities, for those who are submitting comments to the project team, I would be extremely grateful for suggestions that a Changing Place be installed. It really does help build the case for a installing a much needed facility. Thanks.

Steve

 

Precisely my concern. At what point does BL stop being a 'stretched' village station and become something entirely different? Compare Grosmont with Sheffield Park for two examples, one that retains a historic character despite massive change; the other...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

build new station on triangle and loco shed, could call it Barnstaple junction.

 

Agreed. BL as the operational terminus (with occasional trains beyond to NF and the national network) now serves a totally different function from the former one of a village wayside station. We have to accept that this new function requires new buildings and other development that is not in keeping with the old village station ethos. But who wants to stunt the development (and in practice, survival) of the WSR? It was always rather a 'senior' branch line in the past, compared with the bucolic delights of ,say, Hemyock, and nearly survived as a BR line - if it had never closed I doubt whether BR would have left much character following the usual rationalisation.

Fortunately, there are several other stations on the WSR, which do retain that wayside station character.

John

 

Even a small operation such as BRC manage to operate a lift at one end of the 'new' footbridge. Of course they do have the option of using the original bridge at the station or even sending wheelchair users round over the road bridge.

 

I guess there are two trains of thought (i) Keep BL as the southern terminus and run most trains from there or (ii) make a new southern terminus nearer to Taunton at the NF site. There will be reasoned arguments on both sides.
My own view is that if BL is altered any further it will cease to be the very thing that the railway seeks to be - preserved.
I think a longer run from NF to MD, whilst more maintenance,fuel,upkeep etc offers further commercial possibilities as well as keeping the character of

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

I guess there are two trains of thought (i) Keep BL as the southern terminus and run most trains from there or (ii) make a new southern terminus nearer to Taunton at the NF site. There will be reasoned arguments on both sides.
My own view is that if BL is altered any further it will cease to be the very thing that the railway seeks to be - preserved.
I think a longer run from NF to MD, whilst more maintenance,fuel,upkeep etc offers further commercial possibilities as well as keeping the character of existing stations.
I assume the consultation is for WSRA members only, which I am not. (As I said earlier, i write as an interested observer with reasonable knowledge -and some volunteering experience - of the WSR.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

Yes

And yes.

Robin

 

Given the nature of the traffic on the WSR - ie I assume mostly starting at BL to go to Minehead what facilities are needed as it isn't - unlike say Bridgenorth/Kidderminster a 'destination'?