SVR General Discussion

Why would an extension into the Wyre Forest be desirable? Whilst the area itself is pleasant enough it has no place of special attraction to tourists/day trippers unlike Iron bridge.

 

You're saying the Tenbury line and Wyre Forest isn't worth seeing?

Not trying to put words into your mouth. But. The question, is rather puerile the more and more you think about it. Why safeguard anything? Why go anywhere? Why bother extending?

Let's all sit down watch football and moan about Brexit instead. But seriously, judge it by its own merits. The route could be a beautiful side attraction for little diesels and GWR auto coach journeys and ease congestion problems for the towns.

SVR after selling the Bridgnorth tunnel away have pretty much given up on the prospect of ever getting towards Ironbridge so there's still an option with the branchline.

 

I don't think the SVR has ever owned Bridgnorth Tunnel, although they have turned down an offer to buy it.

Personally I am still somewhat puzzled here: I asked yesterday why on Friday you thought that reopening the Wyre Forest line would be cheaper than going northwards from Bridgnorth; but yesterday you said that the Wyre Forest line should have its route protected but is far too expensive to restore. Today you seem to be saying that it should be restored and that it would ease congestion - where, exactly, I'm not entirely sure. Should it be restored, or is restoring it too expensive? Which of your previous irreconcilable opinions is the one you actually hold?

 

Having spent much time in the Telford area, and driven round Jackfield, I think the SVR are very wise in staying south of Bridgnorth. The geology is appalling, not helped by mining and the river. That extension, had it happened, would have been a good route to bankruptcy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is why I don't understand the obsession to get to Ironbridge. Attempting such a feat, when so much infrastructure has been long lost to modern development, would almost certainly lead to the society's total bankruptcy.

Tenbury would be absurdly expensive.... but.... unlike trying to go northwards, it is at least viable up to Newnham Bridge station, and its not as remote as the Yukon (though some individuals I've listened to years ago would argue otherwise, in their amusing spiral of denial).

@Forestpines, please tell me you understand the difference between safeguarding... and reopening? Judging by the exchange, I haven't already made it clear I am, in the present, in favor of the former, not the latter. Safeguarding means if ever that day ever arises where the society had the means and the money, they could announce bold plans to head that way.

If Sustrans sit on the route, you've screwed both ways. You got a snowball's chance in Hell of ever reopening any small section of the branch, ever. They would rather kiss a horse's backside than surrender any part of their "network". Even if you wanted to, you can't go that way again, which places pressure on the society in the future to keep calming down calls from the public and media to keep going to Ironbridge again and again (which I sympathize with them, because this is getting repetitive for them).

 

Very, very few people at the SVR are obsessed with getting to Ironbridge as they have more than enough to deal with on the present section.

 

[QUOTE If Sustrans sit on the route, you've screwed both ways. You got a snowball's chance in Hell of ever reopening any small section of the branch, ever. They would rather kiss a horse's backside than surrender any part of their "network". Even if you wanted to, you can't go that way again, which places pressure on the society in the future to keep calming down calls from the public and media to keep going to Ironbridge again and again (which I sympathize with them, because this is getting repetitive for them).[/QUOTE]

Why such antipathy towards Sustrans? Managements can change and at least by creating cycle paths they provide some level of protection for a route. This may increase the chances that if (and it is a very big if) there is ever genuine demand for a rail re-opening it is more possible than the historic approach of routes being sold off piecemeal with cuttings filled as rubbish tips and buildings on parts of the track bed.

Does anybody really think that hard pressed public bodies would be willing to protect disused railway routes, most of which are already in multiple ownership, unless use as cycle paths or similar occurs. 50 years ago it may have been wise for governments to protect route corridors but it didn't happen, heritage railways will never have the capacity to reverse all closures and at least organisations like Sustrans have opened up a number of closed routes for alternative use. Maybe not perfect but arguably better than complete disappearance.

 

The former trackbed west of Dowles already forms part of National Cycle Route 45. Also the area it runs through is a designated SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest). The snowball melted years ago...

 

Haven't the SVR got enough to contend with already? It must be the most civil engineering hungry line there is in terms of ongoing needs. As a certain other correspondent will tell you there is an optimum length of line that will give an acceptable overall journey time and the current SVR probably is already there. Unless the new destination is going to attract very significant visitor numbers its not worth jeopardising the rest of the railway for.

 

The problems we've had with them over Bodmin and Wenford Railway.
Refusing to relinquish the former Weedon to Leamington Spa line for freight.
Forever trying to delay and stall the return of the Anglesey Central Railway.
Acting as an effective roadblock for Pontypool and Blaenavon.

I refuse to be naive around them any longer. They are uncompromising and lobbying, they simply do not want to see a return of Britain's rail network at its peak.

@Robin, well, then, we're screwed in that regard...
...
...I love productive discussions.

 

I make no comment on the examples of Sustrans given above, other than they're not always so uncompromising, certainly in respect to the GWSR between Broadway and Honeybourne it is not dead in the water simply because it is owned by Sustrans.

As for any SVR extensions, this very much falls into the WIBN category. There's no *real* arguments for it other than it would be very nice indeed. It's certainly not going to ease congestion or provide a significant community service. I do agree that it would be nice, especially with a 14xx and autocoach, but equally, there are lots of things that are already very very nice about the SVR, and I'm unconvinced that such an outlay would gain sufficient return.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

As has been said the pressure to extend comes from outside the SVR. The logistics of running the current railway are enough. Today we had 4 steam hauled sets and a DMU out. Thats quite enough to find staff for

 

Were the SVR to want to extend then Ironbridge of the two is a destination or source of traffic, whereas Newnham Bridge isn't.

An argument for Ironbridge is defensive, in case someone else was to lay a line there from Buildwas and abstract coach and other traffic from the SVR. As @gwalkeriow and others have said, it is moot anyway.

Patrick

 

Wasn't Coalport West railway station up for sale this year?

Not that it matters, because again, National Cycle Route 45. But still, the owners have done a terrific job keeping the site pristine and the MK1 coaches outside are a nice addition.

 

The latest issue of Heritage Railway reports that Standard Tank 80072 will be visiting the SVR to help out with the Christmas and New Year services.

 

I see that the preview version of the 2018 timetable is now available:

http://www.svr.co.uk/NewsItem.aspx?a=814

The draft timetable is... interesting. The last train back from Bridgnorth on summer Saturdays is now at 5.40pm rather than 4.50pm, which feels like it should be a good thing in terms of letting people have a more relaxed day out. On the other hand, far fewer days have anything other than Timetable A. Even August Sundays are listed as A, which if confirmed seems extraordinary.

 

Not really, only in the past two years have summer sundays been anything other than B which the new A is pretty much, whilst the new B is similar to the old C (ignoring this year's timetables).

 

Presumably the Limited will go back to being diners-only, assuming it is still in the timetable. Having said that, squeezing in an extra train between an 80-minute service sounds a little tight. I will be intrigued to see the WTTs.

Moreover the key idea behind this year's timetables was that it started with a single "full capacity" 45-minute-frequency timetable from which trains were removed on quiet days but not rescheduled. This was in theory good for regular customers - on a busy day you would still have trains at the same times as on quieter days - but led to 90-minute gaps between trains. That concept has evidently disappeared.

Other things I've noticed: the 10-minute stop for Up trains at Bewdley has gone, and for the first time since 2015 or so you can run the public timetable A with only 6 signalmen (the full set of 7 will be needed if a Footplate Experience or other additional services are running I presume)

 

"Special timetable may be in operation and subject to change" midweek on 6/7 June but nothing yet in the special events.

Patrick