Swanage Railway General Discussion

the point I'm making is if you have a loco and a rake of coaches, that are registered to run on NR, then that's an asset that in my view would be wasted if it was just used in the place of the DMU, just to Wareham, and no further, I'm not advocating regular usage but occational use fairly close to its base, and with a set destignation either Yeovil , or Salisbury maybe twice a year to test the market at a time when the railway can spare the rake and the engine, to attract further interest, then there is the DMU'S again much money has been spent , so you need to maximise income, again there may be a market for using the DMU'S in the same manner, only a couple of times, at least you would not have issues with fitting in 45 mph paths, and again suitable designations

 

It would involve a lot of digging, Worgret Junction is in a cutting....

 

It would involve a lot of digging, Worgret Junction is in a cutting....

 

Unless things have changed (or my memory is wrong) then most steam locos (and one of the 33s) restored for use at Swanage were restored to meet the mechanical standards for mainline running (with some actually registered and having run on the mainline (most notably the M7). However, this might best be described as 'passive' provision with only D6515 and the U fitted with the electronic equipment required. In the earlier stages of Project Wareham it was anticipated that pathing constraints would restrict any mainline running to Bournemouth in the east (using platform 4 for terminating, and reliant on a 45mph path in one direction). However, further east the New Forest makes pathing a challenge for even 60mph paths for much of the day, and Moreton a challenge the other way with timetables hardly robust with no additional paths in place.

I think that the business case for a westward facing spur, would be difficult to make. Even a cursory paper survey would indicate the construction of a significant bridge over the River Frome and its flood channel (with potential redirection of the river as well to avoid a further bridges/culverts), significant earth works and, with the junction being near to East Holme level crossing signalling works involving four point ends, and six new or revised signal heads. This is far in excess of the 'add-on' cost of including Worgret Junction within an existing re-signalling scheme and can have no prospect of a commercial return.

 

I think that the SR will have enough to worry about getting the Wareham extension to pay for itself without generating extra work running steam specials of limited capacity (and therefore dubious viability), if using the SR stock, on the main line. They should be focusing on keeping their on railway, the grass is not necessarily greener on the Network Rail side of the fence!

 

Must admit my thoughts re a western spur were based on a cursory glance at Google Earth rather than a site visit! Absolutely agree Swanage are right to focus on their core activities and expanding just as far as Wareham for the time being... not to mention a certain Adams 4-4-0 needing restoration (to the main line?!)...

 

No need for a western spur at Wogret Jn.
It is perfectly feasible to run round in Wareham Station. Crossover at Country end is used regularly, London end crossover is involved in the mess over the Wareham pedestrian level crossing; derr-brain decision to not allow commissioning of the London end crossover until LX closed.

 

As far as SR being a TOC, didn't I read somewhere that they are hoping to get limited liability as far as any penalties imposed for incurring delays to other mainline operations? While this may be possible while only operating (mainline) between Wareham and Worgret Junction it would be difficult make a case for this if operating routes to Yeovil.

 

Don't the main line steam TOCs also have limited liabilities?

 

Schedule 8 performance regime for Charter and other small operators has a mechanism whereby operators pay Network Rail an Access Charge Supplement (ACS) on top of the annual TOC licence fee.

The ACS is a sliding scale with inverse proportionality with incident payments due to NR.

So a high annual ACS results in a lower incident payment cap (per incident). And a low ACS means high incident cap.

For new TOCs, they have 12 months “grace” with a low ACS and low incident cap. Ongoing ACS after the first year is partly dependent on performance during the first year. Subsequent yearly ACS are also dependent on performance, so TOCs have an incentive to not cause delay.

 

I thought that the Maunsell Moguls were owned by Mr Bunch? Or has their ownership or custodianship or some other major responsibility been transferred to the railway?

 

Yes but I believe they are on a 25 year lease to the Swanage Railway

David R

 

yes that is right, but in that lease the Swanage railway have total control over them,as to their use where as with southern locomotives, the Swanage railway, does not have total control, as they are not the majority shareholder .

 

There are some great ideas here about how Swanage could use its mainline connection and mainline steam fleet. The enthusiast market would certainly fill a few trips a year but to really make it worth while services appealing to a wider makes it more attractive and sustainable for the railway. Regular repeat trips are easier to manage once up and running. Things like;

• Scenic Summer Evening Dining services off of Bournemouth, around Poole Harbor turning back at say Corfe Castle.
• Summer Sunday day trips from Swanage to Brockenhurst & vice versa.

Its fun to come up with these ideas but the truth is that until Swanage is successfully fulfilling its obligations to Wareham, has consolidated some Mainline experience and strengthened its fleet they will not be thinking of doing anything more adventurous on a regular basis. Currently we need to use a TOC like WCR and that takes a lot of the potential profit.

In the future I hope it will be possible to find a profitable niche operating steam beyond Wareham. There are large population centers within easy reach that have a ready tourist market. It would help to diversify the SR business and provide some additional revenue.

 

Talking of moguls is there any news on the N? it seems to be little on the way on news on the overhaul, which is over running badly by all accounts. The special website on the engines hasn't seen in recent news for awhile.

I'm guessing it's been over taken by 31806 for main line running now to...

 

its only a guess, but as this is the first proper Major overhaul the N has had, since its last BR major, I would guess there will have been some slippage and then there's the question of the boiler, this had a BR era patch on the side sheet and will have needed new copper sheet and a lot of re staying , all of which is very expensive .you have to remember even though it ran on the MHR, it was never fully dismantled and rebuilt.

 

Surely it is more cost effective to entice people to come to the Swanage Railway rather than taking the Swanage Railway to the people - at some considerable expense. As soon as you cross the Network Rail boundary your costs go up greatly - go beyond Wareham and they go through the roof! You have a great heritage railway at Swanage so why not concentrate on getting people to visit it. Leave excursions off the railway to charter operators who understand that market and the horrendous costs involved - but do not be surprised if they don't come knocking at your door.

Peter James

 

We'll see. NYMR clearly considers the Whitby operation worth their while considering they're pretty much running that whole line now! Swanage simply wants to emulate that success, I believe...

 

I believe the bottom end of 31874 was completed some time ago. It is the boiler that is causing delays. It’s at an outside contractor, and for whatever reason is taking much longer than expected.

 

The bottom 'half' has been 'finished' and gathering dust in Herston works for quite some time now and just awaits the boiler. The Boiler overhaul has been to put it mildly, disappointing. Estimates for completion have come and gone many many times. The schedule of work has changed at least once.

As noted on the Moguls website the Boiler went to Adam Dalgleish Engineering near Newcastle. A google search will tell you that this firm went in to liquidation a year ago and was bought out by another company. This has all been out of SRs control and you can imagine how complex and frustrating a saga this has been. Railways with their own ring fenced boiler overhaul capacity have been wise as this now seems to be the main bottleneck in the business and those without it are at the whim of the market.



The N was going to be the Mainline loco but this mantle was transferred to 806 when it became aparrant that we could not depend on the boiler returning any time soon. It could fairly easily be transferred back to the N at some point but if all goes well the goal will be to have more than one mainline capable loco. 806’s boiler ticket expires in a few years so unless it gets a boiler swap with say 625 to keep it running the mainline kit will certainly get moved then.