Project Wareham

An underpass will flood

 

I meant that the intransigence was on the part of the locals. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Pat

 

Thanks. I am not sure what the word is (if indeed there is a word) but the locals simply will not accept any alternative to the current crossing they perceive to be as inferior to the current crossing and the problem is there isnt an alternative that is as good as the current crossing arrangements.

 

It would also give much more operational flexibility. It would enable trains to be stabled at Wareham to return at a later time, rather than having to immediately return to Swanage to get out of the way of the next mainline train.

 

I have never bought the idea that an under pass will flood. Its higher than the underpass that is on the road just down the street and that doesn't flood.

 

Not a reply from Rumpole, but one that is hopefully as well informed. The desirability of having a means of refuge away from the running lines was a result of two elements:
- the desirability of providing same platform interchange (Up branch train runs into up platform and then sidings, followed by Up Weymouth to Waterloo service calling, after wait in sidings, Dn Weymouth service calls, followed by Dn branch service pulling in to down platform, collecting passengers and heading to Swanage). It was for this reason that the London end crossover was reversed in the re-signalling works.
- the increased flexibility if movements were to became out of course (most likely as a result of disrupted mainline services which would allow. This was a significant factor in factor in getting the project through the GRIP process and therefore gaining NR agreement to the operational robustness of the model timetable. (The worst case scenario that this modelled was the sequence where an up branch and mainline trains were on time, but the corresponding down service was late - if the branch train ran into the up platform it would block the path of the up Waterloo service until the down service had passed and the branch service could leave, if it ran into the down platform the up mainline service would be unimpeded, but the branch train would then be blocking the route required by the down mainline service - the risk of such routing issues increased with the two train per hour service).

Of other options (solutions) that have been mentioned at various points:
- running round in the sidings is not possible as they are all dead-end. Any running round would need to be done on the mainline (with third rail). Loco-hauled services would most likely need to go to Poole to run round in the carriage sidings there, use platform 4 at Bournemouth or go further still (including through the New Forest bottle-neck).
- the up bay was discounted (well before the cabinet was installed) due to the cost of each SEU that would be required (two point ends and three additional signalled moves for the most minimal installation) which, given that the same operational benefits were available by reversing the crossover at neutral cost, seemed a no-brainer to discount. Also, there is not sufficient length to provide a run round loop for more than (I think) three (or maybe four) coaches - which would in turn have increased the SEU by a further 5 units. I can't remember the cost per SEU at the time and have no idea what it might be now, but 10 SEU is more pocket money that could ever be justified for no significant operational benefit and the passenger dis-benefit of having trains in the furthest platform (Nonetheless, it is a shame the cabinet was put there...).

 

I don't know why they want a refuge but I can think of a good many reasons. The Whitby branch is a mere backwater but there have been plenty of occasions when NYMR trains could not return from Whitby, having arrived there. I've personally had a hot box occur, whistle fail, GSMR fail and TPWS fail, preventing the train from taking up its designated path. They are the ones I can immediately think of; there are probably more. If you haven't got somewhere to go and hide your train until rescue comes along, you, like Huston, have a problem, which could be an expensive one with repercussions that can affect the network. As a simple example, a points failure at Manchester Airport has affected NYMR trains before now.
The SR will have to have an emergency plan covering such problems, one that is agreed with Network Rail.

 

I remember walking to and from the station on the way to/from school and having to walk over the road because the underpass was flooded (despite it being bunded on the River Piddle side) - so experience indicates it is at least some risk (subsequent waterproofing might have further mitigate the risk of a somewhat rare occurrence to make this negligible). A bigger problem would be the scale of excavation needed to create the ramps to get down to a level where one could get below the tracks.

 

Depends on construction of course. The subway adjacent to the LC at Merstone on the IoW flooded so often that the IWCR gave up and filled it in. I think it's still there.

An underpass formed from an impermeable plastic extrusion, or even a concrete tube with suitable membrane, on the other hand, wouldn't flood. I'm not familiar with Wareham Station (merely the nearby traffic jams!), but haven't heard tell of the railway formation being inundated. I believe the technique is sufficiently well established to be an option .... if the space exists to bring the ends to the surface (preferably without steps).

 

All pure keyboard speculation! At the end of the day, The OR&R/ NR will determine (by granting the Train operating licence) how far the SR trains will be able to operate over Network Rail track, and I speculate, it will only be as far as the London end of the UP and down Platform's.
There is currently no run round options at Wareham, The new (Installed 2014) facing crossover at the London end has never been commissioned due to the close proximity of the foot crossing currently in dispute.
What Loco hauled services are you talking about? I very much doubt if there will be any provision made for running LH stock to/from Wareham, and I take it you mean hiring in stock and crews from West Coast Railway, and I am sure that you will all remember that this was done for the 60 day trials in 2017 which as a result ran at a loss!
So unless there is someone amongst you with extremely deeeep pockets to underwrite such an operation.....................?

 

Keep up at the back. The Swanage Railway have a very publicly stated aspiration to run loco hauled services to Wareham themselves. That’s the reason they certified 31806 for mainline use. Run round facilities would be the ideal, but the 33 could , and I believe is intended to be used to top and tail these trains in the interim.

The Swanage Railway has also mainline certified a set of 5 Mk1s for use in running to Wareham. They have already run on the mainline as part of 31806’s test run. More work is required to fit door locking before they are allowed to carry passengers.

 

Hmm. SRC have decided they wont run a Wareham service with the (low cost) DMU this year due to economic uncertainty but have aspirations to run a much higher cost steam and diesel top and tail at some unspecified time in the future when presumable economic conditions may be better.

 

I think conditions and knowledge are changing more rapidly than investment decisions can bear fruit in that light. AFAICS, the aspiration to run. mainline steam loco / set of carriages was made several years ago. They got a grant of £75k from the DfT in mid-2016 towards the work to make a locomotive and five carriages mainline-certified. Given the time scales for grant funding, that means the decision in principle to go down that route must be from before that - say 2014/15 at the latest.

So what has happened since 2014/15 that might affect the economic outlook? Oh, nothing much - just Brexit, a global pandemic, a war and a collapse of the coal supply chain, not to mention actual operational experience of a trial service that showed the economics was flaky even in the more prosperous times of 2017.

My point being - viewed through current eyes, a loco-hauled service looks like a complete non-starter. But rolling stock investment decisions made 8 - 10 years ago are still well in progress, and aren't necessarily easily - or even sensibly, given teh level of sunk investment - stopped. At least a mainline-certified loco and set of carriages can run perfectly well on a heritage line with no further investment needed.

Tom

 

And as the dates bear out, decisions to invest in mainline steam loco / set of carriages were taken even before the first trial year had run.

 

Not mere keyboard speculation, rather informed comment from someone involved in discussions at an earlier stage.

Sorry not to be clear. My broader point was that the sidings were a part of the GRIP process to verify timetables and paths for the DMU operation - and their lack has a natural impact on the robustness of the timetable, and therefore the viability of the existing DMU based proposal for operation. (Also, in complete agreement with you, that the sidings do not, per se, help any case for loco-hauled operation). I would assume that the licence will have slightly wider limits than you suggest - but only to access the sidings. Any workings beyond that (including whatever was envisaged in upgrading locos and hauled stock to mainline condition) would indeed be with at third party TOC - which I wouldn't discount, but need to be seen completely separately from an seasonal Wareham to Swanage service.

 

Guess it's also reducing risk, the DMUs have new bearings and multiple engines, so the risk of failure is reduced, also 30012 diesel will be near to pull any failed DMU.
But from the latest "Swanning Around" the insurance cost over 90 days will be £60k.
I notice DMU training/testing is continuing Fridays.
Hopefully if all goes well at the SR in 2022, the Wareham service will start 2023.

 

Jeepers!

So that is £650 per day of income you've got to make every day just to cover the insurance cost - before you start on any of the other costs. You've got to carry a lot of passengers to bring that down to a level where it isn't a reasonably sizeable part of the ticket price.

Ouch!

Tom

 

I suspect it is a higher premium as a "one off" risk, or it may be for a year that is not clear. However if it is for 90 days extrapolated that is north of £24K a year in insurance. Even at £30 a ticket (too much against an £9 bus trip?) that is around 8000 tickets just to cover the insurance.

I have no idea on this type of insurance but most folks go ouch when I tell them how much we have to pay here in Swanage for buildings and contents insurance (near Swan Brook), let alone what is was when we were having the extension built.

 

I wonder if that sum relates to certified stock, rather than service frequency over NR metals? You have to suppose the bulk of 'risk' attaches to swingeing penalties in the event mechanical woes occasion delays to other operators.

 

I think my point is, cash is cash. That's a lot of ticket sales to cover that insurance, if the reported figure is right.

(Let's say the DMU seats a hundred people, and you run 6 times per day for 90 days. You can carry 54,000 people, so even at 100% occupancy each one is paying over a pound a trip for insurance. In practice, the occupancy is likely to be lower, so the insurance premium on each ticket is quite high).

Tom