West Somerset Railway General Discussion

That is all true - but if you publish a timetable which turns out to be unworkable, at least some of your visitors will end up unhappy when you can't keep to the published times.

 

We ran an 'A' timetable today - our lightest. Two trains doing two trips each end-to-end. Even on this TT there are complaints from the loco that the turn rounds are too tight. If we add 3x more turns at 20 minutes into the TT that would mean in starting an hour earlier or finishing an hour later, or a combination of the two, making us that more unattractive to the public.

What would you do?

Robin

 

I think the important point is that the question has been asked, implications both for and against aired and participants can make up their own mind.

For what its worth having seen crew freezing on a Manor at Dunster by Candlight in pre Minehead Turntable days it seems to me that there may be a case for using the turntable where possible to improve crew comfort in adverse weather when there is sufficient time.............

 

I would not disagree with that, especially late evening services with plenty of time for serviceing.

Robin

 

I find that unlike the stuffy heat of the signal box in Winter I quite enjoy the bracing effects of driving rain running tender first..............

Happy to use a turntable at BL, plenty of room in the current car park when the new scheme and re-sited high level car park is created or some extra land on the station farm site.

A water tower next to the table as per Minehead in addition to another one on Platform 2/3 in the suggested 3 loop BL would provide maximum flexibility.

Jeff

 

Alternatively, just use more tank engines

(Ducks and runs for cover).

Tom

 

A large Prairie perhaps?

 

We are only allowed black tender locos on the WSR these days

Robin

 

Absolutely so but there are other tourist railways that suffer from "big- chufferitis" as well.

PH

 

Black locos were one fitted with tender cabs due to them not being able to turn at one location(Bath I think)

 

Thinking about it the smaller black tender engines also had tender cabs.......................

 

I hope somebody in charge is generating a list of ‘essentials’ for this plan along with a list of ‘desirable's’ to aid the process. For example, essentials:

Any footbridge (or underpass !) must be of GWR traditional design (even if it has to contain lifts within its pillars) and only between platforms not stretching halfway across the whole site (not prototypical as far as I know).

The line from NF has to be split into 2 at or before Darby’s crossing in order to allow BL/NF trains to operate separately from BL/MD Trains in order to avoid a current bottleneck and restrict future revenue for the WSR.

A turntable has to be planned in even if not fitted immediately along with a slightly bigger shed area for future expansion (for future mainline engine servicing for example).

Stock has to have covered accommodation which can be accessed easily ideally from both ends, plus a museum shed.

The heritage look of the station has to be retained even if it goes from being a small station to a larger station.

The operational flow of the track especially for end of day shunting has to be easy and ideally shunting should be able to be completed in one direction.

This list isn’t exhaustive just a start, equally a list for desirable's would be long. Each of these raises many challenges but I can think of answers to all of the above and better brains than mine will come up with more solutions. Regarding the Turntable, I feel it’s essential to have it planned in and in a perfect world fitted from day one because it would be a crime not to allow for it, whether we turn engines on routine service trains today or just galas, specials or days when we feel like is just detail. The whole plan must be future proof for all things we don’t do or know today.

Some of my other views are: I like people’s thoughts on expanding the triangle area but perhaps that should be a part of another project. The idea of an ‘exchange’ station or even a park and ride for the rest of the world is good and in fact the bare bones are already there, there is a platform now with a bay line going into it from BL, that could all be doubled in size and length easily with the space available. However due to the time taken from MD I don’t think it’s a replacement for the BL site for daily heritage trains but could be a part of future revenue streams for the WSR.

Platform 1 needs to stay as is along with the line into the goods shed, Jeff P stated I think correctly that the goods shed/station building area must be retained and improved as the heritage heart of the site, the goods shed and forecourt area is such a potential asset.

I like some of Robin’s plan but the cover over the Platform 3 line is not to my knowledge prototypical and would take away from the GWR look for the whole station.

The track layout in the main proposed plan doesn’t work, the track access into the new site cuts out half of the site for easily access for track (we would have to live with that forever) and the only current access to the new site is into platform 1 meaning shunting would be a nightmare and only possible if platform 1 is clear. The shunting flow is best served from the NF end into the new site, station and shed, it will stop crews forever running round trains to get to where they want to go.

 

Frome, Taunton (before rebuilding in 30's), etc., etc.....

Good to spark a real debate.

Robin

 

I know I might get lynched for this, and that without the volunteers, preserved railways seek to exists, but paying passengers are in the same category, so you can't arrange everything around one group and forget the other! I am sure you don't mean to, but you seem dangerously close to 'it doesn't matter if we don't run to time on a preserved railway', which I hope isn't intentional (even though I have had basically that said to me by somebody pretty senior in a railway in the not too distant past!) Print a timetable, and people have this old fashioned idea you have some intention to stick too it, as well as having other plans and perhaps public transport connections which do mean timings and punctuality matter, just perhaps not to the 'milli-second'' degree a network requires (which I suspect is the point you are making).

All matters need compromise and I am not sure that having to turn the loco at each end would seem an improvement to all crews at all times - you can get pretty wet and uncomfortable turning a locos, and it is an other task to do when running late which may seem avoidable!

'Tweaking the timetable a bit' can also be a slippy slope. Those not directly involved in setting timetables often seem to overlook that changing these is not as simple as everyone not responsible for doing so seems to see it - mainly because the geography of a railway (any railway) takes a lot of changing - stations, remain the same distance apart, as do passing places, and altering the time taken to get between them can be expensive and 'challenging' (that is a polite way of saying 'bl**dy difficult'!) Tweak things a bit to get more time at one end, and you make trains sit about at passing places, which is not popular for either crews or passengers. You end up with less work content in a day, again not popular with crews, needing more people and equipment to operate the service, perhaps having less departures in busy times of the day, increasing overcrowding etc.

'Never say never' to change - I have always been at the forefront of developments and have been accused of being a 'rampant expansionist' in the past, but over the years, the factors that need to be addressed in making changes become familiar 'travelling companions', and have to be acknowledged and treated with respect for a good plan that people can sign up to to emerge. Any aspirations need a reality check and before any costings are done, full 'pros' and 'cons' and whether one 'man's meat will be another's poison' considering.

Steven

 

Andy, please formalize these thoughts as a response to the consultation if you have not already done so.

Now the vexed question of footplate work.
The WSR is a branch line so tank engines would be the norm.
For any number of reasons we run tender engines and I am broadly in agreement with Robin.
There is not really enough time to turn them.
There is just about time for a comfort break at MD when you run in. If the fireman is not right on top of his or her game then it possible to incur a delay.
Minutes are regularly lost due to TSR's putting further pressure on timekeeping.
In my experience passengers do care that we run to time. They may have planned other activities in their day.

 

Interesting there are 15 preserved BR 4MT 2-6-4 T but only 3 running with 7 been overhauled and 5 stored including 2 in ex Barry condition, 10 preserved GWR Large Prairies 2 running 2 been overhauled and 5 stored including 2 in ex Barry condition (I have excluded the WSR one converted to a tender engine and the donor engine) and 14 preserved Small Prairies 3 running 7 been overhauled and 4 stored. This information was taken from Wikipedia so might be a bit out of date so there are 39 engines of this group listed here, but only 8 are running, 17 under overhaul and 14 stored.

So there are plenty of tank engines about which are suitable for working on the WSR.

 

Double headed Panniers , ....... Heaven , lol

(Ducks ditto ditto )

 

Hi Robin. I stand corrected, but were Taunton & Frome train sheds from platform to platform over twin running lines as apposed to over one line and down to the ground or were there these as well, either way I take your point that they could be built to look traditional.

 

Yes happy to but was going to take some time to think it through as I'm learning lots of new ideas both here and in conversations with others around the WSR so didn't want to go off half cocked (most unlike me I know !!)

 

Or Maiden Newton, or Whitham.

The way to approach this, I suggest, is to accept that we would want to have Platform 3 roofed and then say 'how would the Great Western have done this?'

Robin