Swanage Railway General Discussion

Well perhaps playing Devils Advocate but do we know if it actually made money? Was there a statement from the railway linked to that service that confirmed that?

 

I am sorry but apart from the fact the goods shed is the only covered accommodation for restoration at the moment what would be attractive to most of the visitors in turning the goods shed into a pub? What is the yard you want to turn into a beer garden, the bus yard? or the back of the fire station?
Why would I want to sit there, even if I could see a train every 45 minutes when I could walk down the seafront in 5 minutes and have drink overlooking the bay?
At Corfe there is already a beer garden overlooking the railway (The Bankes Arms) so why would you want another one, even if you could get planning permission. You also have the Greyhound across the road and the Fox not far away and the Castle is not that far off either. To me it seems pretty well served at the moment. Remember you will need staff for all these "pubs" where are they going to come from

 

Turn the question around. Corfe Castle station has been described here as an asset, and a jewel in the SR's crown. Based on what you've written, I'm more inclined to see it as a liability. It costs money to maintain, delivers relatively little originating traffic (that's what Norden was explicitly for, plus it serves as a day out destination from Swanage).

Why wouldn't you try to find ways to increase income in those circumstances?

Alternatively, it rather reinforces what @Jamessquared has observed in other conversations, which is that the Swanage has a real challenge in that it serves two tourist destinations, both of which benefit from the presence of the railway while also limiting the railway's opportunity to earn secondary income.

 

There might not have been a statement from the railway, but I can assure you that those people involved directly, and that includes me in the roles of driver, guard, ticket collector, signalman and publicist, that there were more than enough tickets sold to justify the service making a contribution to the balance sheet, and that's not counting the travellers who were using tickets obtained earlier in the day. And it wasn't just me. There were plenty of other volunteers giving up their time to make it work. Shame those in the offices weren't interested.

 

I was talking about Corfe, not Swanage. In my mind, the Corfe goods shed, yard, and station forecourt should be working much harder for the railway. Events? There’s big money in weddings. Put a marquee on the loading dock. Living history on the forecourt - vehicles, etc. And as I’ve said previously, why not seek a slice of the Corfe beer garden market? I’m not pretending these suggestions will solve the railway’s problems, but I do think Corfe has unrecognised revenue earning potential.

 

So generally, it sounds like we all mostly agree that the railway NEEDS:
1)
A summer peak timetable with services at set intervals, 2 steam every 45 for example
(I'm sure 2 steam could be justified)

Plus an evening services on Friday/Saturday. Doesn't have to be 10pm, but at least last services at 8
2)
Bringing back longer term , forward planning for timetabling and thus, bringing back leaflets
3)
Maybe a further reduction of steam services mid week during low season, so prehaps only starting mid week from May half term to end of Summer instead of Easter.


It does sound like people are frustrated on here, and I am to. The financial state definitely didn't have to get this bad.

If the wareham service did operate , I think its best to keep it ONLY wareham to Corfe. Thus allowing an hour frequency during the morning and late afternoon

 

Four quick points, which explain why these ideas may not already have been pursued:
1. I would be almost certain that the planning restrictions that were a condition of the station being reopened would not allow the railway to undertake much in the way of commercial activity - the condition in place n 1995 was no retail or catering activity on the site (admittedly, there must have been some relaxation for the buffet coach to be able to operate). Having grown up with many of the families who ran (and still run) businesses in the village, these restrictions will not have been forgotten, and any attempt to overturn them would be strongly contested. (Aside from which, the railway made commitments about not seeking to be released from these planning conditions as part of the pre-application process for the LR(E)O - which saw a number of objections to the granting of the LR(E)O withdrawn - and may find that it was liable to legal action if it breached those commitments)
2. The lease held by the railway does not include the forecourt which belongs to DC and is used by them for residents' parking. Unless removed in subsequent leases (which I suspect DC would have been loathe to do!), there were also some restrictions on access and activity (both scale and type) in previous leases.
3. The station is in a conservation area - which brings with it a range of restrictions of building and activity.
4. As previously mentioned there is a right of way (though not a public one), that provides for unrestricted access across the site between Station Road and the old Diary for anyone with a legitimate need to access the properties on that side of the railway. Though this was originally from platform to platform at the Down end of the station, this was modified, by agreement, to run via the barrow crossing at the Up end of the station when the platforms were extended and the signalling commissioned to bring both platforms into use.
So, Corfe station is a gem - but sadly one with many constraints that limit monetisation of activities on the site.

 

The statements you make have been often said but no-one ever seems able to provide documentary proof of these restrictions / agreement. Can anyone on here provide them or at least state where they may be held? Thank you.

 

Try the Dorset County Council?

 

So bearing in mind that the DfT would need to authorise any new service please tell me what you feel what the economic case would be for this that may make them vaguely interested. There are already two trains an hour west of Poole (except Sundays) that are not 100% full.
Where is the spare 159 coming from?
Where will it be serviced, Salisbury is the 159 depot, are you proposing they are ECS'd from there each day?
Who pays for all the route training as driver will not have route knowledge.
If you expect them to be based at Bournemouth you will need a consumable spares holding and maybe engineers training.
What is the attraction for anyone of a service terminating at Norden or are you assuming everyone goes to Swanage?

All for two months in the year?

 

Nothing wrong with trying to increase income, but I do not see yet more pubs in a place like Corfe being well received by those there or the council likely to give planning permission.
There are railways where food and drink will be a great benefit, Sheffield Park, Havenstreet to name but two as there is next or no competition. At both Swanage and Corfe there is much competition I just do not see the USP or the profitability.

 

Fair comment - but that has significant implications for the ability of the railway to trade out of its problems. As do the points made by @5914 about the restrictions on the Corfe Castle station site.

 

Yes to echo those remarks: If Swanage Railway isnt able to improve secondary spending income then that places greater reliance on "income" from other sources - donations, legacies and grants.

One of SRCs long term structural issues is it is beholden to third parties (landlord, loco owners) to function and this would effectively create an additional third party (donors).

However I very much doubt any agreement made between SRT SRC and local businesses in Corfe Castle would be enforceable .

 

There might be big money in weddings - but consider the practicalities. The normal scenario is that the guests arrive first to the venue, then the bride and groom arrive, the ceremony takes place, and you all go off for a train ride and some kind of drinks / food.

So the first issue is parking. Where is the parking at Corfe Castle? It's not really viable, IMHO, to say to 50+ guests "park at Norden (where you will have to pay) then walk half a mile to the venue along a busy road. (and repeat in reverse at the end of the day)."

Then catering - can the SR do catering to the necessary level at Corfe, or on a train? Because if not, you aren't offering much. Parties could get their own caterers in, but at which point you are forgoing the profit on probably the most profitable part of the whole service - instead you are back to being able to offer not much more than a venue.

I get the sense that the opportunity for the SR to run the kinds of events that encourage people to stay on the railway will always be constrained by space.

Tom

 

There's also financial risk. From disrupting normal operations, and from providing the facilities in the first place. And if you just go "but we'll provide the venue and then get the caterers/entertainers/etc. in and charge" (a model I've seen elsewhere), what are you offering that makes you better for the couple than the many other venues in the area? And how are you going to provide the service to make that work to potential clients - and at what cost? Having seen something elsewhere, it's an expensive business to break into, and the profits aren't guaranteed.

 

Plenty of other places make good money out of just hiring themselves out as a venue, with the wedding party getting outside caterers.

With the parking issue - get the guests to park at Swanage, with a train ride to the venue at Corfe as part of the package?

The possibilities of weddings are definitely something that should be explored by the SR.

 

Every charity, and every business, is beholden to third parties - it's those third parties that provide the income, and enable all sorts of other things to work. The question is not how to minimise that dependency, but how to develop the relationships effectively.

As for the neighbours, "enforceable" involves more than just legal rights - my comment on the restrictions on the site were about space, about access rights, and about relationships with neighbours.

 

Yes every business is to some extent beholden but SRT SRC is more beholden than most. It is easy to talk about developing effective relationships but when one party is overly dependent on another that relationship can easily be abused to the detriment of one of the parties. It can also be particularly difficult when the relationship is with a public body because the public body has to ensure that its treats everyone equally and without fear or favour.

 

Agreed - but in the context we're discussing, I don't see how there can be much scope for changing that relationship. At which point the relationships that can be developed start to matter - which may require cultivating donor relationships if the option of trading (more farebox income/lower running costs) isn't sufficient to close the gap.

Reading this thread, my suspicion is that a combination of trading and giving will be required to put the Swanage Railway on a sustainable footing; I see a number of ideas here for how income could be boosted but no silver bullets.

 

Yes agreed a combination of trading and giving is required but my fear is that there will be an over reliance placed on giving rather than a balanced approach because it is is easier to talk about giving than it is to tackle some of the challenges within the "trading arena". As has been proven on this forum mention any form of trading development at Corfe Castle than more road blocks are put in the way than there are around 10 Downing Street.

Relying on donations (because it has worked before) can be risky. At what point will donor fatigue set in? Will donors continue to give or will they decide to give elsewhere? At what point does the "bottomless pit" mind set take over? We know that donors have given very generously to the T3 appeal which is absolutely fantastic but cash is needed to pay for the far more mundane bills and projects such as "bridges and embankments"? When (and I take the positive view) the T9 is overhauled to running order, will one of the other locos be returned "off hire" to the owner?

Giving is all very well but at the very least the operating company needs to be able to cover its running (non capital ) costs from its operational activities. It has to return to that state of affairs or its long term existence becomes very much in doubt.