West Somerset Railway General Discussion

The method of working I have set out assumes that the box has been moved adjacent to the crossing to deal with a new full barrier crossing.

As at the moment, the single line starts / ends at an advanced starter / outer home a long way east of the crossing.

The incoming loco would be carrying the token, so the signalman would have only a short walk to retrieve it.

The outgoing train would collect the token just after passing over the crossing.

Robin

 

Better, IMHO, to invest the trackwork and signalling involved in the 'arrival loop' alternative.

Robin

 

Whilst I can see the advantages of such a loop I think at the moment it should be placed in the "nice to have category"

For the Mid Hants running into a single platform at Alton I perceive their loop to be an operational imperative.

The current imperative for the WSR is to spend whatever financial/manpower resources are available on, 'wisely and thoughtfully', improving/replacing the existing route track work.

Michael Rowe

 

That's good that as it is a shorter loco it means both tender and loco fit on the same trailer thus reducing costs .
Paul

 

Unless the loco plus tender come in at less than about 30 tons, you can't put them both on the same trailer (and the only loco I know that fits that category is FR No.20); It's illegal. look closely and you'll se it is two trailers, back to back.

 

It is important to understand which improvements would add in useful extra line capacity (Leigh and Kentsford Loops, MD arrival loop, BL platform 3) and which will not (double track Dunster to Minehead) so that when developments occur, they can be built in, or at least not precluded by work done.

I expect (hope!) to be associated with the WSR for the next 20 years or so and if we are still only carrying a little under 200,000 visitors per year then, we will not have made the best of what we have nor arranged a suitable legacy for the third century of the WSR.

I also remember exactly this being said when it was proposed to resignal Crowcombe ('that loop capacity will never be needed') and Bishops Lydeard ('all we need to do there is run round and come back'). And I remember Chris van den Arend having to work hard to justify the signalling we now have at Minehead at a time when a normal WSR train was 4 coaches and 6 was exceptional.

Time will tell.

Robin

 

I can see the advantage of being able to shunt an incoming excursion out of the way whilst its passengers are enjoying the delights of Minehead. However, the use of such a loop in Gala timetables would need to be considered with care. There would be nothing more frustrating than to arrive in the loop at Minehead, watch the up train running past, and then have to wait for an hour until the next up train leaves. You would find a lot of people would swap services at Dunster instead. Would Dunster be able to comfortably handle the numbers?

The situation I've described occurs frequently during SVR Galas, and is one of the reasons why I keep clear of the Kidderminster to Bewdley section during such events.

Whilst I can understand the advantages of reinstating Kentsford Loop, I've always thought that Leigh Loop was too near the Crowcombe Heathfield end of the section to make a real difference.

DaveB

 

Easily - a nice wide 8 coach platform.

It works OK at Leigh. But whisper it quietly - my preferred option for splitting the WN - CE section would be a loop at the south end of Stogumber platform. A bit more central in the section, a location with power, road access and the like already sorted, and only 100 yards from home to the box!

Robin

 

And all the extra traffic these improvements will allow at the same time reduce what is left of the life expectancy in the track. I seem to recall all the angst over the track grinding a few years back was that the then Civil Engineer was trying to eek out what life was left in the rails and not much has been renewed since then.
So by all means invest in new capacity but make sure the main line gets investment at the same level as the NYMR have been and doing. ie renew completely Formation, Sleepers and put in CWR. I do not read anywhere that the WSR is doing this.

Brian
Shareholder and Ex WSRA member

 

I quite agree.

But it all has to go together. We need the turnover to pay for the renewals.

The trackbed at Minehead station throat was very significantly renewed this winter, in an area of very poor ground conditions,

Robin

 

The Minehead trackbed used to be the highest point in the surrounding area. With all of the development, it is now one of the lowest and as a result, the groundwater has risen. I'm not a civil engineer, nor even an uncivil one however I wonder if a long sump and a pump installed either side of the trackbed would help solve the problems.

 

I prefer to see them being OFF loaded!

(Good clear photo, BTW.)

Robin

 

That was my initial thought when looking at the first picture, which I don't think would be permitted for a 'special types' trailer/tractor unit. In fact, there are two trailers, parked back to back allowing the use of a single ramp as @Ploughman realised and referred to - ver nifty!

Steven

 

To be quite brutal, if we do not deal with some of the current infrastructure concerns there will not be a Railway as we know it in 20 years. Similarly if we do not grow our pax beyond 200,000 then Line expansion becomes an unproductive luxury.
These two issues are the strategic imperatives for the next five years.

Regarding Crossing loops: Kentsford was manned by the GWR and BR(W) throughout the year. Leigh on peak Saturdays only. I have always thought, apart from the fact there was HMG money available for line improvements in the 30s, that the key benefit of Leigh, was that non stopping TN-MD services could pass at Leigh rather than risk them being stopped at CE or WN leading to inevitable passenger confusion.

I am not sure that the WN-CE section represents number 2 bottleneck after WN-BA. Whilst running times are typically WN-CE 20mins vs BA-MD 14, simultaneous train entry is now feasible at both WN and CE. The BA-MD section at BA has the LC challenge plus the slow entry to MD (road crossing), token exchange at SB and the inevitable delays inherent in dispatching trains at 'open' Terminal stations feeding to a single track routeq.

However these are all luxuries. More passengers, maximum spend on upgrading existing infrastructure first please.

Michael Rowe

 

That post (2772) addressed the possibility of having a second track over the crossing and connected to the rest of the railway, with all the necessary crossing controls and signalling for both tracks, which evidently is not justified at present. But the suggestion was just to lay two tracks over the crossing, without connecting the second one to anything, as a bit of future-proofing. Depending on what else needs to be done when the crossing is being rebuilt, might that be cheap enough to be worth doing?

 

TBF I agree just putting the second track over the crossing itself just in case etc seams like a sensible move, if it never gets done the the extra amount wouldn't break the bank, whereas if you lay singly then decide down the road you do need it, that's many pounds

 

That is exactly my point. The expensive part of adding an extra road is all the work on the road carriageway. Just adding the track and provision for any signal rods or cables and leaving the ends extending a few feet out from the edge of the tarmac would cost very little if done at the time the road is replaced. That way if an extra road across the crossing is needed then it is simple to connect it all up without any disruption to the crossing. Simples!

 

I have to say in the great scheme of all things WSR Michael has this exactly right IMHO. I would also venture that there would be very few loco-men, train-crew or P-Way who would disagree with his assessment.

 

When the allies began to run out of steam in France in late summer 1944 there were two schools of thought about what to do next. 'Monty' wanted a monopoly of resources for a decisive thrust towards the heart of Germany. He was given his head and we all know how Operation 'Market Garden' ended. (Grandfather White was waiting with the main body of XXX Corps on the Dutch frontier for the follow-up strike that was never required.). Progress then settled into the less spectacular approach favoured by Eisenhower of 'bulling forward on all fronts'. It was an approach with difficulties such as when the Axis forces were able to concentrate their forces as in the Ardennes (Grandfather White awarded his MM there for an action on Xmas Day 1944.). But it got the allies to both sides of the river Elbe (and Grandfather to Lubeck) by May 1945....

Development of the Railway has, inevitably, to be more 'Eisenhower' than 'Monty'. It is, for example, no use leaping forward in motive power provision without carriages for them to pull or sections to allow trains to run or p.Way up to the demands placed on it.

We must all move forward together. No one area is the key.

Time for a quick Taylor Woodrow symbol.....

Robin

 

Could I make a plea.
Would it be possible to educate those of us not familiar with the WSR into what the Initials stand for.
I assume WN - BA Means something other than Willesden to Bishop Auckland.
The post 2 above has a fair collection of these sets of Initials some can be worked out MD I take it is Minehead but some of the rest mean nowt to me.