West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Before we set any hares running, I don't think this has been one of the many proposed uses of Washford yard by the Plc, but merely a thought from, I think, @Barrie the Beer . Happy to be corrected if I've missed something.

 

Who owns the point connecting the WSR to Washford yard?

Keith

 

If it were Network Rail the entire full lead (crossover) would be their property, together with the associated signalling (a ground frame in this case). Whether one can use NR as a model for WSR is open to debate .
Pat

 

Yes, here.

It's the first suggested use (including those proposed by the PLC) that has even potentially made any kind of sense to me (albeit with the road access caveat of @Big Al above; the rail one I'm not too fussed about, as it doesn't seem like Shearing's has rail access either, and it could be added in the future), provided that the Shearing's rent is as high as has been reported. Although it's still not clear if it's good enough to make sense of dispossessing the SDRT (which, as the fantastic post from @John Palmer makes clear, will be very, very, disruptive and costly); in making the suggestion, Barrie himself indicated he'd prefer to retain the SDRT.

I do worry that the PLC 'faction' will seize on this and say 'good, now we've got a good reason; see, we were right all along'. I'm just trying to be very hard-headed, and look at this clear-eyed, in terms of what's best for the WSR as a whole. Would that the PLC faction is asking themselves the same thing of their tenure; if they're so great, why is this only coming to light now - after this hasty and ill-considered move has done enormous reputational damage to the WSR (as a whole)? As a previous poster observed, Leo Amery's famous speech may be applicable.

Noel

 

I was wondering if there could be 'issues' removing it if it belonged to the SDJRT. As you say I think it more likely that it belongs to the WSR

Keith

 

As far as I am aware, the point in the running line and the GF belong to the WSR. However I believe - but may be wrong - that the point in the yard belongs to the S&DRT.

The layout at WD in GWR and early BR days had facing connections at each end of the siding (originally worked from the signal-box, then from separate GFs), so it ought to be possible to reinstate such an arrangement if potential traffic demands warramted the cost of installation and additional maintenance.

 

That's my understanding, too. I believe the rent was quoted in the "Cuckoo" press release. I do recall, when I first read what the yard cost, many years before that, my reaction was "How much?" and a whistle of indrawn breath. I did ask many posts ago, who was responsible for signing that particular contract, but answer came there none. It might explain, however, why a company that is keen to rid itself of liabilities hasn't shown any signs of wanting to rid itself of that one.

 

Not sure how often you expect to hear, but there was a reasonable length article summarising the position in last month's The Platform newsletter, which is open to anyone who wishes to receive it, and is sent directly to those on the mailing list. PM me if your name is not on the mailing list and you want it to be, giving your email address.

 

Shearing's Yard rent was quoted as £17,000 pa in the 'Position Statement' published by our PLC on 1st May 2020.

No doubt there would be a significant cost to relocate the carriages that would have to be offset against any potential saving. The entity paying for the move might not be the one that foots the rent bill!

Don't expect a move anytime soon. This is merely an idea of mine, one that I've kept to myself until it became certain S&DRT were vacating.

 

Whilst I would welcome the savings that the suggested re-location would bring, I could never support it.

We already have one eye-sore adjacent to Dunster Station and don’t need another at Washford. (I make this observation having benefited from the images of Shearings Yard posted by @malcolm imps in post # 32001).

 

Just as a little process aside, is there a reason why the newsletter is uploaded as a JPG image, rather than text? It has the effect of being essentially unsearchable, i.e. anyone going to Google and searching for "Seaward Way Level Crossing" or similar won't find that explanation. I assume you are producing the newsletter as a PDF or similar, which would be discoverable by search engines; but it is then getting uploaded in a format that makes discovery impossible. (It also has accessibility issues for people with sight impairment; for example you can't enlarge the text without losing resolution).

Tom

 

*Dons tin hat* So sections can't be copied and pasted on NatPres and picked apart line by line?

 

I remember that article, and have just refreshed my memory. Leaving aside the accessibility issues* presented by putting it up in a picture format, it left me rather wondering how the railway could have operated this year given that the barriers were so unreliable as to prevent operation before they're replaced.

* - on accessibility, whoever published this may want to consider their legal position under the Equalities Act, as it certainly doesn't make reasonable accommodation for those with sight loss who might need either to magnify the text or use text reading software. I'm sure it's just an oversight on the part of whoever published it, possibly not having had to consider the issue before, but it would be a good thing to correct.

 

Sadly too many Roger

 

It also means that the hyperlinks don't work.
The way I read the article implied that potentially, whilst it was known the crossing was near life-expired and work had been in hand for a while to replace it, it hadn't become so life-expired such that it was unusable until after lockdown began and the railway closed? Just to give the board the benefit of the doubt just this once.

 

Well, you might say that. Though equally the benefit would be that if it were presented as text, people looking on Google could find an answer more readily from the horses mouth, so to speak, rather than on here!

Tom

 

I made a suggestion in an earlier post, subsequent to that by Barrie, about Shearings Yard contents being a home at Wahford. That was, of course, before I saw the photographs of the scrap yard - aka Shearings Yard. It would take a pretty big and convincing explanation why the delightful and well maintained current Washford site could become a new dumping ground for derelict railway carriages, especially as it sits along side the running line.

 

There is of course that possibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I had the exact same thought, looking at those pictures. However, the rent for Shearing's is very substantial - albeit not so large in the scale of what the WSR needs (e.g. for track-work). Paying that much for visuals may be an un-affordable luxury for the line at this point of time. I am surprised that those derelict carriages are worth spending that much money on, at a time when the railway is scratching for money; perhaps retaining them at all is another unaffordable item? And surely a fine-toothed comb should have already been thoroughly and uniformly applied to all expenditures? Probably a far better use of time and energy than rousting the SDRT.

Noel