West Somerset Railway General Discussion

You realise you are telling a truth a lot of people won't want to know!

PH

 

Foxcote Manor to spend 2018 on the West Somerset Railway

Dave Horton, WSR's Head of Mechanical Engineering, is pleased to announce:

The WSR is very pleased to announce that we and the 7822 Foxcote Manor Society have signed a deal for the locomotive to operate on the WSR for the whole of the 2018 season. This and the S160 will significantly help to bolster our fleet for next year. We welcome 7822 and its members and supporters to the West Somerset Railway.

31 October 2017
Details from wsr.org.uk

 

I knew there would be someone far more knowledgeable than me , I only have my memory , I was 6 in 1960 so I don't think I did too bad .

 

This is excellant news.

Robin

 

Bit surprised no-one has pointed out - I think I am correct- that the Dunster 'box' was re-located to Minehead during the early days of the line's restoration. Jacked up and delivered by rail I think, must have been rather a nail-biting experience.

 

I suspect the crossing gates were removed because there's no one available to open & close them, unlike BA where there's a manned signal box.

 

Now that is excellent news.

 

West Somerset Railway - Then and Now #112

Dunster 1929 / 2017

Dunster from the level crossing, looking east. The period between the economies of the 1920's and the enhancements of the 1930's. The former saw the original signal box at the east end of the station taken out of use whereas in this shot the later location of the box provided when the line to Minehead was doubled is occupied by a ground frame hut.

1929


2017

 

With a need to avoid employing crossing keepers, the gates at Dunster West were removed as part of the WSR Company's modernisation investment ahead of opening the line for its planned regular diesel service between Minehead and Taunton. The crossing at Sea Lane was dealt with in a similar way. A few years later, the gates at Roebuck Gate and Leighwood were also removed and, like Sea Lane, the crossings converted to modern designs. Complete with modern signs. Now forty odd years old. Clearly there are many many "heritage" epochs

Steve

 

And there is the dilemma, "Heritage" or "Modernisation", can the two sit comfortably side by side? Given the recent discussions over signage, it seems many do not think so. It will be interesting to see how this question is resolved... If ever.

 

There's no 'right answer'. How a railway decides to resolve the tension between heritage and other concerns like safety and commercial needs will always be a matter of judgement. To me the most important thing is to recognise the tension, take a considered decision about how your railway is going to resolve heritage issues, and express it in a widely-shared policy.

If this is done, then anyone in the 'family' taking a decision (about signage for example) has a guide to follow, and can be held accountable if they fail to do so. Where there's no policy, two things happen. Simple decisions throughout the railway become opportunities for conflict, with no simple means of resolution, because people have different opinions about the importance of heritage relative to other concerns.

Also, the end result is a confusing mish-mash of styles: heritage from one era/company, heritage from another, pastiche, and modern. The most satisfying railways from a heritage point of view are those which are consistent. The Bluebell's approach of a single era for each station is a good example. We rode on the Brecon Mountain Railway last week. It's pure pastiche, and it works really well because a consistent style is pursued across the whole line.

Does the WSR have a heritage policy and if so, do people know about it?

 

I'd suggest that the point about styles goes to buildings as well - though I rate and am a member of Bluebell, I struggle with the combination of LBSCR in the station buildings & platforms and late 20th century commercial/industrial on many of the other buildings. Interestingly, the carriage workshops at Horsted Keynes (or, elsewhere, Pickering NYMR) do not jar for me in the same way.

That doesn't remove the need to focus on the little things, and how they affect the feel - I well remember seeing a beautifully restored GWR Pannier (9466?) and the use of what looked like a modern powder coated finish on the (not particularly visible) steam pipes jarring the impression of originality

 

I think the Bluebell is gradually getting better: to my eyes, given the scale of the building, the way the carriage shed at Sheffield Park is cloaked from the platforms by LBSCR pattern canopies and museum buildings (done mid 2000s) is better than the Bessemer Arms (done in the 1990s I think). There are still improvements we could make, though they throw up other questions. For example, I'd like to see the platform fencing at Sheffield Park replaced with something more in keeping with the 1880s period, but that would mean discarding genuine (but worn out) Southern railway concrete fences for modern replica 19th century fences! Which throws up a whole host of interesting questions about preservation, that I suspect you won't get unanimous agreement on.

What it does show, though, is just how sensitive infrastructure, and in particular the built environment, is. Ultimately, a duff livery on a carriage or loco might last a few years, but new buildings typically have a design life of 100+ years, so mistakes will either be very expensive to rectify, or with you beyond the lifetime of anyone involved in their construction. It's the reason that it was worth fighting to get the Broadway building on the GWSR right, or as near right as possible, first time.

Tom

 

Agreed wholeheartedly. And, given your comments about fencing, perhaps also choosing the representative period carefully and with the extant infrastructure in mind. After all, the fencing wouldn't be an issue if SP were in BR or SR garb...

 

Indeed not. Though I'm not personally much of a fan of shabby chic ...

It does though flag up the point made above by @Bill Drewett about starting with an agreed policy. If you have a policy for how the railway will be presented (either consistent in era, or varying station by station) then at least you can have a sensible discussion about both the style of new infrastructure and replacement of anachronistic features. Whereas without a policy, you don't even have a starting point for discussion.

Tom

 

It seems that the the WSR has developed piecemeal and that I believe is due to its length. The length seems to be, in some respects, its Achilles heel and as a result there are so many groupings, each with their own focus. I am sure there are policies in place but they, it seems, are in the plural rather than a singular overall railway policy.

 

I don't think there is a problem with the WSR's length or that there are station groups. Each station group is doing a fine job restoring their station to a particular heritage era. What's wrong with that? And the Plc has overall control on what is done at the stations anyway which prevents anything radically different being done. Of course, having absolute sovereignty, the Plc can do (and does) whatever it wants. As we have seen.

Steve

 

I have to disagree with the view that it is a problem. The WSR is long enough to allow passengers to feel they are actually going somewhere as opposed to just an extended shunt. Don't forget that we are the best value in terms of pence per mile. The stations each have their own distinct feel which is a bonus. The alternative would be the same place with a different name. The stations also have unique and interesting features to keep the passengers happy while they wait for the next service.

The freedom of the line tickets allow passengers to really make a day of it e.g. have lunch in the pub at Washford, go for a wander on the beach at Blue Anchor, stop for a pint in Watchet or a scone at Stogumber with a cross country walk beside the line to Crowcombe.

 

In the interests of balance, I believe it's also possible to get a pint at both Crowcombe and Stogumber.