West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Staya Way?

(It works better in an Australian accent....)

 

I'd like to know why, if the various regulatory bodies are usually represented by the word "office" in their titles, that we have OFWAT and OFSTED but not OFRAIL?
(I'm asking for a friend, honest guv.)

 

No, the verticals aren't vertical, but I don't think it matters. I think it adds a bit of drama to both of them, but I think the lamp in the foreground of the sunset shot might look better vertical.

 

Young girl with suitcase: "Mum, is that really our Camping Coach?".

 

Sorry, Ian, doesn't stand a trip to the washing machine.

There is no logic to the placement of the (single) sign at MD box walkway (I see you have 'liked' Yorkshireman's post) option (2) was already in place at Stogumber and Crowcombe but was ignored, and at BL the signs are mounted on signal posts inside an area closed off the public by barriers when trains use the footpath crossing.

The use of galvanised posts as opposed to tradition lengths of rail (and we have no shortage of 'free' scrap rail) is another nonsensical decision.

The answer to the cross-examination question of the GM should be 'here's the risk assessment we carried out'. We do have that, don't we?

In this instance I know, because I have asked, that neither the Stogumber or Crowcombe station masters were consulted, nor our signalling Inspector or Head of Operations about MD box walkway sign. So it seems highly unlikely that whoever was responsible looked over the WSR fence when they didn't look within it.

Regrettably 'the Railway' did not take a 'virtuous decision'. Someone acted illogically and without consultation. Given what has appeared, I cannot believe a proper risk assessment has been carried out. MD proves that beyond doubt.

A solution?

Much better to present one rather than just moaning.

(1) A risk assessment of the crossings by a competent person taking into account the heritage options. (How about a lineside resident volunteer with considerable operations , legal and statutory experience who is an MCILT and MIRO?)

(2) Consult with the relevant folks before finalising those assessments.

(3) Sell some of the considerable quantities of scrap rail we have around the Railway to raise the necessary finance.

(4) Run the above process under the management of the revitalised heritage committee and establish a volunteer team to do the work, so using the 'head of steam' this has created for good not ill.

(5) Learn from this experience organisationally, so that we do not repeat the mistakes.

Now THAT would be a 'virtuous decision'. All it needs is a WSR plc Director with an interest in heritage and some operations background (where might we find one of those?) to 'champion' it, not to attempt to rationalise and defend the illogical and indefensible.

Simples!

Robin

Post script. A couple of snaps.

(1) Here's another one. A delightful set of surviving GWR 'kissing gates' at Roebuck Farm Footpath Crossing, now presided over by those things. I pass regularly on my morning run. Imagine them replaced by traditional signs on rail posts...

How was it the Prince of Wales described the extension to the National Portrait Gallery?

(2) The SVR solution from Highley. I know the pattern maker and we could borrow it. Broadway station are having original 'Beware of Trains' cast for their Board crossings, so someone has concluded that that is OK, presumably on the basis of a risk assessment.

 

West Somerset Railway - Then and Now #107

Dunster 1958 / 2017

Looking west from the east end of the platform.

1958


2017

 

What always impresses me when you look at old railway photo's is the immaculate state of the ballast - no weeds & the ballast edge neatly lined up

 

One day, one day, the present view will look like the old view. Hmmm - I'm dreaming again.

These two views are a strong reminder us that, perhaps, the whole shebang needs to be driven a different way. We seem to have a choice. Go on like this for the next forty odd years, or, persuade the powers-that-be to go into a cocoon and emerge as a charitable organisation with an operating company as its commercial arm. I know what I think.

Steve

 

And you would know that I agree with you.

Robin

 

The photo's are of two different places!

DJB.

 

Good to see another useful Mk1 brake being returned to use on a heritage railway.

If only we could find a use for our very own BCK W21174, the former QB brake vehicle 'Phoenix'. This fully operational WSRA-owned Mk1 very rarely turns a wheel in revenue earning service. It didn't even get an outing during our recent Autumn Steam Gala. It became effectively redundant when generator car 35408 replaced it within the QB consist four years ago.

Perhaps WSRA should now consider disposing of 21174, rather than let it slowly deteriorate at Minehead. I would rather it stayed with us but if there is no viable work for it then sale seems the only sensible option, sooner rather than later.

BCKs, as built, have everything except catering facilities: 1st class, 2nd class, 1st class WC, 2nd class WC, brake, cage. Perhaps an extremely useful vehicle on a smaller heritage line.

Any thoughts?

Barrie

 

Agreed. There are many places where broad gauge rail has been re-used and it adds that little extra something. Using scrap bullhead rail which I dare say is already about 100 years old, would have not taken much thought. It also has zero cost. I am amazed that nobody seems to have thought of this. Every penny we spend has to be taken from profits, not revenue.

 

Looking at the two photos of Dunster station and goods yard, signs are the last thing to worry about if you wanted to make Dunster look like a 'Heritage' station.

I'll get my coat...

 

Has the dock wall on the right been rebuilt?

 

This debate has been rumbling on for quite a few pages and, as far as I can see, has produced the following conclusions:
1. We need the modern signs because the public won't take any notice of heritage or "heritage" ones, thinking they are part of the scenery like the enamel advertisements.
2. We need the modern signs because having the heritage ones won't stand up in court if there were to be an accident.
3. The modern signs look out of place, especially when part of what the business is selling is an atmosphere.
While we have a lot of evidence for 3, very little, apart from personal opinions, has been produced to support conclusions 1 & 2.
It seems to me that the most likely reason for the appearance of the modern signs is that someone has been either lazy or overworked. It's a damn sight easier and quicker to order a gross of these signs complete with poles from a manufacturer who is producing them by the hundred than it is to go to the trouble of having replicas made of genuine heritage signs or bespoke signs made in a heritage style, as the SVR and the VR have done.

 

The Association did consider disposing of Phoenix, but the GM requested that it be kept.
Paul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm not going to directly comment on the recent discussions but I do have a suggestion.

Why don't we encourage a candidate to stand for the board at the next PLC AGM whose stated aim is to represent the view interests of the shareholders and volunteers? My partner and I are both shareholders and would vote for such a candidate.

This would give us a better voice and a degree of scrutiny at board level.

 

Now there's an idea....Hmm, not that busy...

Robin

 

Nobody else has commented on the VoR signs that ianh posted at message#7987. What is wrong with them ? They seem to stand out well and be clear in their meaning.

 

Perhaps the PLC should make an offer for it then.