West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Indeed and don't forget that if those late passengers then choose to not travel (especially when the next train is an hour or so away) this is ticket fare that the railway will never see. I'm a fan of a published T/T that has such 'commercial allowances' built in to maximise the fare take, and for all the staff to be aware of this important factor.

 

Which brings us back full circle to part of the reasons for enhancing the facilities at BL so that there is way more than an hour of things to do there, so no problem about waiting for the next train if you turn up just as one is leaving.....

Robin

 

Though, on a line as long as the WSR, I would also want to be a little careful about making the end to end journey time too long, and thus either deterring visitors or persuading them to do part journeys.

The last trip I did on the WSR was on the way back from holiday in Cornwall, one way from Blue Anchor to Bishops Lydeard with the kids while my wife drove. She was, shall I say, uncomplimentary about how long she had to wait for us - and would have been even less complimentary about being asked to spend that time on train!

 

Viewed from the parents' eyes, however, having the loo close to the train when you alight is all important with under 5s. For those children that won't go on train, or when it's not practical to take multiple kids to the loo on the train, a well positioned loo is a godsend. Having to use a bridge is not ideal.

 

An interesting debate.

Timetables, yes it is good sense to have Public departure times 2 or 3 minutes ahead of the WTT.

If you have recovery times (I was never a fan when BR introduced them in the Fifties, they encouraged the "it's ok if we drop a couple of minutes" approach.) then they should be before crossing points e.g. between WD and BA in the Down direction. What has always seemed strange to me ( I have commented !) is in the Up direction 12 or 13 minutes WN depart to SR depart, 8 minutes SR dep CH arrival. Much better I suggest 10 & 10 which represents a recovery time of (2).

(I know recovery times were always in square brackets, the limitations of being lazy and using an iPad.)

"It's ok to lose five minutes" A reprehensible statement even if tongue in cheek. Apart from the fact that the Public Timetable is effectively a contract with our passengers, the lost five minutes, on a single track Railway with passing places is difficult to recover, particularly on our peak timetables.

(Our service interval is restricted by long block sections, the limitation due to the WN-BA section. If the intermediate passing place at Kentsford was restored then the BA-MD section becomes the limiting section, particularly now the WN bottleneck has been eased.)

A completely new BL station layout, but no loos on the platform ? !!

All of this is splendid (or not as the case may be) but it does not alter the opinion of many that the Southern Gateway project is not a priority. We are no where near returning our pax numbers to the pre recession figures. We have many other financial requirements.

We could offer our passengers some protection at BL by installing a Brunel type overall shed over an 80 metre length of platforms 1 & 2. But even that will be expensive.

When we have shown our ability to restore our pax numbers we can consider the various proposals to have a new Southern Terminus, (as per Andy's suggestion, or at NF north of Allerford Jct etc.)

Meanwhile let's bury the Southern Gateway project as a grand ten year irrelevancy, it has all the hall marks of gigantic deck chairs on the Titannic,

Michael Rowe

 

It is - an important one for our Railway.

If your interest has been sparked, do make sure that your thoughts are sent in.

I might agree with you, if your comments were backed with alternative proposals for enhancing the visitor offering and increasing numbers. Southern Gateway is an opportunity to do that. It plainly wont be delivered all at once, but to 'up' the customer offering in this way has to be the right thing to do, and as we can afford to invest (covered accommodation and the like) at least we will know that we are investing in the right place.

There is a lot right and wrong with the proposals as put out for consultation, but a few inspiring projects like this will help transform our railway over 10, 20 40 years ahead.

I hope to see some of that.

Robin

 

Surely this project should be seen as a target to be achieved over the coming years, as resources become available. Once the plans can be agreed, then at least any work which can be afforded will not be against the general plan, and no work would be done and then have to be undone. (In the same way that various works have been carried out on KESR in recent years, in line with the plans for the longer term connection through to Robertsbridge, having an agreed long term plan means that nothing needs to be undone later)

Michael

 

I should start this reply by making it clear that I broadly agree with what Michael R has said above, particularly in the short term, but there is also much to commend suggestions made by several others re the comparative wisdom of a new site for a "gateway" project when and only IF it can be afforded and justified..

Robin's suggestions regarding BL have much ingenuity combined with operating practicality, but when considering the costs involved surely it is better to start with a relatively blank piece of paper. A "Southern Gateway" (what awful nomenclature) may be seen as a necessity by some, but is it worth the costs in terms of both capital expenditure and, far more significantly when considering a 40 year future, running costs.

Obviously for any development loos, disabled access, child-friendly facilities are all essential. The cost effective solution for all these requirements was reached by the Great Central in the late 19th century, the one-platform station. I'm not suggesting an island arrangement (which would still require lifts) but a simple straightforward platform with loos, level access to all areas & facilities. Exactly what size of catering outlet, shop, waiting area are all questions better addressed by experts in those departments. The level access would extend to the car park, also on one level and not requiring further passenger lifts. I wonder if those suggesting such modern technology have any idea of how much even a basic maintenance contract with a left company charges annually, or what that cost might be over the next 40 years?

If such a station was provided nearer to Taunton & the M5 then the railway already owns land at Norton Fitzwarren. Yes, I know there are flood risks associated with the site, but there are problems of some kind at virtually every possible location. At least at NF you are nearer Taunton and the rest of the country, no purchase costs, are nearer the existing triangle (turntables don't come cheap), in sight of the main line etc.

In common with every other local authority Taunton are desperate to reduce traffic volumes. It would be relatively inexpensive to extend the Park and Ride service from Silk Mills to such a station? (Again I'm aware it doesn't run Sundays at the moment, but it is perfectly possible to provide a seasonal shuttle to/from Taunton BR).

At the moment BL is an (almost) perfect pint-pot of a station. It will not accommodate a quart or a gallon.

 

Mr Maunsell,

You are perhaps unwittingly comparing apples and oranges. Previously, a family ticket was counted as 2 adults and 4 children. It was changed not so long ago to 2+2 so at the click of a mouse, many "passengers" have disappeared from the numbers as in all probability, they never existed. What would be more relevant is to compare the number of tickets sold which while being imperfect, would be a direct comparison of transactions at the till.

 

I am well aware of the change in family tickets, I am also aware that journeys by pass holders were often accounted as such rather than as now, they are given a ticket for the day. (I am after all a TTI.)

However we are no where near to our pre recession pax peak and it is not just attributable to less numbers at Galas. We may be the only major Heritage Railway that has not returned to its pre recession pax. We have in mitigation increased our revenue per pax significantly which is excellent, we are sweating our current assets BUT those assets need money spending on them, whether they be the infrastructure (particularly the permanent way) or rolling stock (both motive power and carriages)

Michael Rowe

 

There is some food for thought here, and in principle this could be a positive move. I think that you'd have to look at how good the road access would be to WSR land at NF. There may be enough land in WSR ownership at NF to accommodate a new station, with all the necessary facilities (not least plenty of car and coach parking) to provide a welcome to passengers (many of whom will be Joe Public and family on their first visit so that this would need to be a really top-notch job), and bluntly to get money out of them so that catering and shopping would have to be included. After all, you wouldn't build an airport with just a check in desk to issue the tickets. While I love little country stations, a preserved railway won't survive without an effective retail offering such as we do have now at BL with a brilliant shop and a cosy café that perhaps could do with more space. And then, how will such a site at NF be accessed by road - land may need to be acquired to enable a WSR controlled and preferably owned road to the NF station, and there could there be planning issues with this. And all the money that has been spent on providing facilities at BL might be written off, although the loco facilities and associated trackwork at BL would remain there. That said, problems are there to challenge us!

John

 

I would back Michael that solid and growing passenger figures are an absolute must to secure the long term future of any heritage railway, although obviously not achieved simply by making it so cheap anyone will have a go! This may sound so obvious that it doesn't need stating but actually not only is it not universally seen as the case but some judge reducing numbers while aiming to increase revenue as being the correct approach and seem to view growth in passengers numbers as almost underirable (and probably a sign the fares aren't high enough - a view I have have heard in other industries - if they aren't complaining about the price, it isn't high enough!)

Growing ridership, as long as Ops and other departments are up to handling it and ensuring the passengers have a good experience of the railway in question, creates a 'buzz' about a line, should provide an ever growing supply of satisfied customers and hence a receptive audience for appeals, be they for volunteers or cash.

Perhaps what the WSR needs to do is (hopefully) agree increasing visitor numbers is a major short and long term aim, and then judge what is needed of the 'Southern Gateway' project to support that aim. The same can then be done for the other key aspects I suggested earlier for ensuring a sustaining railway with a long term future, giving a set of criteria against which to judge the 'Southern Gateway' plans.

Steven

 

Just to inform thinking about platforms, canopies and the like, a couple of snaps from Taunton this afternoon....

Robin

 

That last one looks more like a 'canapé' !

Steven

 

This observation made me "groan aloud". You are running a tourist attraction and tourists expect to carry out this function without a route march before the arrival of the train, which may, or may not, have functioning sanitation. Very likely this will be the sort which cannot be used during station stops. It has taken some tourist railways far too long to provide facilities of the standard expected by visitors.

PH

 

If I go to a restaurant I don't expect toilets in the dining room.

Why, at a tourist Railway do they have to be 'on the platform' rather than nearby? Do take a look at my sketch on page 187. What is wrong with toilets in the facility blocks?

Are you planning toilets on Havenstreet platform?

Robin

 

While I think @paulhitch is being a little little harsh, and your comment about Havenstreet well aimed, I refer to my earlier post about accessibility of facilities from the point of view of one significant customer group - parents with small children.

Speaking from experience, when a busy train empties at the terminus, and a child NEEDS to go, having to filter through the crowd and then work up a bridge and into another building is just hard work. As a regular visitor with small children to the NYMR over the last 9 years, I commend the loos at Pickering and Grosmont for their positioning for arriving passengers, notwithstanding the constraints on their size imposed by the buildings that they've been inserted into. Given an either/or choice at (say) Pickering between the current location and a larger, more spacious, block the other side of the bridge, I know which I'd go for.

 

Right, here we go!
The comment in the first sentence above is, frankly rather silly. People expect to find them adjacent to the dining room.
Referring to the second sentence, these facilities "ought" to be on the platform as they are used both by the very young and the very old, both who need quick access to salvation. You are planning on re-building the station,. That is the time to remedy inadequacies
As for the last sentence, IMHO the lavatories on the IOWSR, although well maintained., are the least satisfactory aspect of a visitor experience which Visit England nevertheless rate highly. Havenstreet Station platform is too narrow for station seats, yet alone buildings.

PH

 

Some groan: I had to smile The second picture of Taunton (Platform 5 it seems) clearly shows signage for toilets and even a sitting lounge.
If this Gateway affair gets go ahead then I believe it will certainly need up to date type facilities for travellers. Those posters here with young children - or grandchildren - certainly see the need for them

 

That sounds more like a plea for a place of worship on the platform - and the start of an even more contentious debate about which variety should be chosen