West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Whilst many of the items have obvious potential others like piles of rotting timber don’t. It creates a dreadful impression with public.

 

Even the items with obvious potential have been "stored" in an untidy manner. Whilst a good deal of time and effort would now be required to tidy up Dunster yard, very little would have been required to have kept it tidy in the first place. The whole area just reeks of laziness and lack of care.

 

Have you bought any 5 x 5 8ft treated timber posts recently not forgetting the 4ft Cedar boards and not screws but m12 x 150 nuts and bolts.

 

Indeed so. It was said to me decades ago that it cost £5 to put a pot of paint and a brush in someones hands.

PH

 

I could almost copy and paste my comment from yesterday. How come in forty years of "preservation", we have come to this?

I'm afraid these views confirm my long held belief that the railway really does need a few changes. I do hope the respective boards are willing to work together to be radical. Very radical.

(Edit: I should add I attach no blame to the folks using the yard - it's just that they have been given the wrong yard. Nor do I blame the company who have rightly prioritised running a safe railway rather than pursuing heritage above all else.)

Steve

 

Dunster contrasts

The comparison between Dunster station and Dunster Yard (and the lack of facilities for p.way staff as explained by Judi Hall ) gave rise to much comment yesterday here and on Facebook. I had a feeling they would prove controversial, which is why I left them towards the end of the 'Then and Now' series. In the light of that here is my comment.

I have been at the heart of railway heritage / preservation for almost 40 years now. And issues such as Dunster are not about money. They are about the vision. And quality of management. Dunster is far from alone in the wider heritage railway world in presenting a 'scrapyard' image to the public.

I doubt we would disagree with the propositions that:

1. Dunster would serve the Railway better as a heritage Goods yard - it could be achingly pretty.

2.The permanent way Department need to be in a more suitable location with the appropriate facilities.

3. Wherever the permanent way (or any other Department) are based their site should not look like this.

4. It is a litmus test of us (ALL of us, collectively) as a Railway if this position continues unsolved and unprogressed.

Now then. I'm off to (silver) serve Sunday lunch in a 1920's Pullman car hauled by a BR(W) built GWR design pannier.....

Robin

 

Oh dear! Leaving aside stock in the restoration queue, most of that timber looks recyclable only as ash, but most of the rest of that stuff without wheels would fit in a PMV (oops .... it's the GW ..... a Syphon then). The GW had it's range of small lineside buildings which could store much useful stuff too. A sympathetic contact at Network Rail could surely identify any such redundant structures in need of a good home.

Trouble is, how many folk would be interested in volunteering for a position which is effectively a cross between garbage man and traffic warden? And would anyone listen to them anyway? I think we're looking at detritus from at least three different departments, not that the public care who left that lot there.

I'd hope this subject attracts more practical and helpful comment, as it's an issue which affects all lines to a greater or lesser extent.

 

That needs to be the approach; practical, helpful, problem solving for the good of the Railway. No point moaning about how we got here, rather to work out how to get to where we want to be.

Robin

 

Plenty of people have commented about the situation "across the tracks" from Dunster station. Perhaps a glance at the passenger side might be of value?

Nothing wrong with the passenger side as such, save that it displays an almost universal problem with tourist railway stations, the temptation to "fussify" with barrows laden with "luggage" and so on. A well run country station in 1958 as Dunster obviously was, would be scrupulously tidy and with everything in its place which included keeping luggage under cover out of sight. This is something which is easier and certainly cheaper to sort out than any matters involving signage.

Whilst on the subject of luggage, it really deserves better than to endure ordeal by sun, rain and smokebox char. It is not unknown for tourist railways to acquire high grade pieces in the "one titled owner" category. Such things deserve a bit of care which poor old platform luggage displays never seem to get.

PH

 

Good pictures Robin to show the problems. Hard to believe that during the late 1930s, GWR horse boxes were off loaded at that very cattle dock which contained prize polo horses and staff of the Maharajas of India. They were competing in the World Polo Competition to be held at Dunster Castle, Maharajas travelled by train. I bet the GWR cleaned up the yard and station then.

 

Would logs for kindling or firewood sales be a possibility?

 

I don't think anyone would disagree with what's being said about Dunster and agree with Robins sentiments above. Bear in mind:
1. The PW are probably quite happy there and certainly are quite busy maintaining the PW on a day to day basis. They have to keep a working railway operational on a limited budget and they do that very well. We should congratulate them on that.
2. Some of the kit at Dunster isn't PW, e.g. the oil tank
3. The PW gang (or any other paid staff) are not going to have the time to do anything here.
4. We need an operational PW base somewhere and that sort of thing tends to be untidy.
What it needs is for a volunteer to come forward who can carefully persuade the company and the infrastructure team that there is a problem, to sell a vision and to help with some easy first steps. That won't be an easy task as the railway is focussed on maintaining operational effectiveness and it will require a substantial hearts and minds approach to sell the idea. You will need to get people on board with you and take the staff with you. Everyone has their own map of the world and others won't see yours...
I agree that Dunster could be improved, but, as my granny used to say "fine words butter no parsnips". Shaming and criticism and using terms such as "Dunster Disgrace" or accusing people of laziness won't do it, is disrespectful and just serve to alienate. Put on the company's shoes and walk around in them for a bit, then come forward and help it happen! Talk to the right people, get some momentum going, find a bit of funding, get some willing volunteers, get approval and then let's see what happens.
Ian Coleby

 

I was thinking "railway art stand". Either depends on the timber containing no harmful chemicals.

There's much truth in these observations. I can't imagine a Distrct Manager back in the day being too impressed with random trolleys strewn around a platform. The question raised though has to be "what is being illustrated?". At small stations (such as Dunster), for the most part their contribution to ticket sales is a fraction of those at the terminals to/from which the vast majority travel, so I'd add the question "for whose benefit is the display?". The truth is that for much of the time, it'll be 'window dressing' for passengers on passing trains. Trolleys etc. would indeed have been neatly stowed 'back in the day', but if today's uninitiated traveller happened upon same, would that tell them more or less about their function?

We have to keep in mind that on a working railway, the educational brief, important as it is, has to take second place to safe operations, which is the overriding consideration. Photos of even minor stations in Edwardian days show many would have Station Master, Signalman, Head Porter, Assistant Porter(s) and a Company Sales Agent (and often some random local 'character' who always seemed to be around). With the best will in the world, this level of even volunteer staffing at every intermediate stopping place is beyond the means of nearly every line.

So we're left with the choice of having a heritage wayside stopping place as anodyne as Platform 5 at Three Bridges (or Platform 2 at New Pudsey, take your pick!) or accepting that an inability to provide the staffing levels of pre-grouping days is another of those areas where we simply can't reproduce the exact experience of passengers in 1910 (or whenever), but that what can be done is to provide that intangible 'ambience' which will hopefully serve the educational remit by firing up the imagination and curiosity of passengers, thereby encouraging them to ask questions (and staff to answer same!).

 

@ikcdab Aside from your point 2 sounding a wee bit 'Nuffin to do wiv us guv' (Sorry!), I can't see anything to argue with in your post [#8052]. It does illustrate that any solution absolutely has to take account of Dunster being the base of a vital department. Anyone working on some vision for the station will have to spend some time getting to grips with the realities of PW operating requirements ahead of submitting proposals lest everything gets bogged down in impractical suggestions, arguments and recriminations. Securing an allocation of ever scarce funding to implement a plan is always far easier if said plan works for everyone.

 

That's the whole point about the picture of 1958 Dunster. It has ambience by the bucketload which no amount of "fussification" can reproduce.

Paul H

 

Ian - I agree with your points 1-3 (and with part one of point four). However.

I rather see it the other way round. Perhaps what we see at Dunster, for example, is the company board's vision in practice. Are the company board happy with this particular scene? Let's suppose not - so what are the company board planning to do about it? And when? If on the other hand, the company are resigned to presenting the railway in this way then it is no wonder folks are not happy.

Steve

 

The 1958 shot was certainly not unduly encumbered by an over abundance of passengers either, which is rather the issue which led to the demise of the line. Forgive me if I remain unconvinced that's a facet worthy of overly accurate recreation.

 

Steve, my point is that the company have 101 things to do and rightly or wrongly things like this tend to slip down the priority list. I neither condone this or otherwise, merely state it as a fact. The paid staff are fully employed and the volunteers are volunteers....if someone new wants to come forward then fantastic.

 

We shall just have to agree to differ then, especially in view of the the similar non-abundance in the present day shot.

Paul H

 

I quite agree. If the company's strategy here is to wait for a volunteer then we could have a long wait. The company are indeed fully occupied with the serious task of running the railway. Then perhaps it really is time for the company to be left to run the railway - which they do well and safely - as the commercial wing of a charitable body with the latter providing the overall management and strategy. That 'cocoon' idea of creating a brand new organisation structure seems to provide a way to do that. But would the company be prepared to embrace that?

Steve