West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Beyond a small subset (the track-bashers) of a subset (railway enthusiasts), is going to Norton Fitzwarren really that much of a draw? From memory, it's not the most scenic bit of the line, and you basically add 45 minutes (or whatever it would take) to go out and back to a place you can't get off in any case. Fair enough as a little bolt on to a gala, but I can hardly see the attraction of basing a timetable round it when the round trip to Watchet is already reasonably long, so I'm not really sure exactly who is clamouring to have "more of a trip"?

One thing I had wondered about in the planned operation to Watchet: is that going to require top-and-tailed locos? If so, would there actually be a benefit of going to Blue Anchor (even if you market it to Watchet for the public, and then run on to BA and back as an ECS move). It seems expensive to have two engines on every train if it is possible to avoid doing so - it would be interesting to understand how the timetable and loco diagrams interact with each other.

[Edit: @flying scotsman123 made my first point much more succinctly]

Tom

 

I expect the top and tail loco will be a diesel. A problem with running to Blue Anchor to run round is that Blue Anchor is not well signalled for turning round trains from Bishops Lydeard direction. It would have to be done with an amount of hand signalling. From the Minehead direction running round can be done under the current signals. When the signalling layout was designed many years ago, a requirement to turn trains back to Minehead was foreseen, eg Santa trains, but presumably no-one foresaw the need today.

I don't think there is room for another track between the platform and the former goods shed (now the Lifeboat Museum). so a loop would not be possible. I expect that it was thought that because there is a loop less than 2 miles away at Williton, it would not be necessary to have one at Watchet as well. Again, our predecessors did not foresee the need in 2021!

Edit - I've found a map of the layout at Watchet in 1880 and it shows a loop going through the goods shed!

Edit #2 - Ignore the previous edit! I was looking at the plan of Washford!

 

Please correct me if I am wrong but somewhere or the other, I seem to recall that there was to be engineering works at Blue Anchor, (renewal of London end points?) and replacement of (at least one or more?) of the level crossing gates. Hence I guess the reason for top and tailing Williton to Watchet , which would entail working by pilotman to the point of obstruction.

 

When the line west of WT was closed previously, trains were top&tailed between WN and WT. AIUI the EKT working between BA and WN was withdrawn, OES substituted between WN and WT, and the line from Wt to BA was under engineering possession. That at least avoids the need to man the box at BA simply to accept trains into the section from WN.

Previously there was never room at WT to put in a loop opposite the platform because of the goods yard, now of course the land has been sold off anyway. In theory perhaps there is no operational need for one there anyway if you could rebuild Kentsford loop. I am reminded however that there have been discussions in then past as to what might happen if further cliff falls east of WT severed the line there; trains could run from BL to WN and run-round there OK, but not from MD to WT and run-round, which is why I always say that some consideration ought to be given at least having the capability - if required - to build a loop in the wider formation in the Splash Point area (remnant of the old goods line spur).

 

Of course there used to be a loop at Watchet, albeit with only one platform. An childhood memory of Watchet station is not only of a prairie tank shunting the goods yard, but also of a DMU waiting in the platform whilst a Hymec hauled passenger train passed through the loop (possibly a Butlins special??) only briefly stopping to exchange tokens. But the loop didn't entirely line up with the platform, which might make terminating trains there more complicated given the length of trains.


Steve B

 

I think one has to be careful as to exactly what is meant by a 'loop'. The 'loop' at WT was simply a goods siding which happened to be connected to the main line at both end, much the same as was the case at WD. 'A passing loop' implies that the location was a block post, so that trains could approach in both directions at the same time - not the case at WT (but it was at WD until 1952). The presence of only one platform is not relevant, as the GWR was a great user of 'passing loops' where only one line was signalled for passenger traffic and the other was goods-only (eg Buckfastleigh, Hatch, Dunkerton etc).

Given that WT was not a block-post after about 1918, having two trains passing there would have meant two trains at once in the WN - Kentsford (or W|D) section - had perhaps the DMU broken down and the token been taken to WN by road for the Down train to use - seems very odd. Were you thinking perhaps about WD instead?

 

Bishops Lydeard to Blue Anchor, or Minehead to Williton, isn't the full length of the line?

If your going to put in a run round loop at Watchet, you would obviously want it on the platform. But the goods shed and the land around the goods shed limits where the run round loop can start, and the foot crossing at the other end restricts where the train can stop. Solutions I see could be either knock down the goods shed, stop the trains short and block the foot crossing, or build a run round loop at splash point. One's a clear no go, the other cause more issues than its worth. But if the WSR actually started to consider a run round loop at Watchet (which i've never seen mentioned officially) then it would need a bit of engagement from stakeholders outside the WSR.

 

Plenty of activity to be seen on the cameras at Seaward Way crossing. Good news?

 

I don't know enough about the WSR to comment about any proposals but a run round loop does not have to be in the station. The NYMR manages quite well at Goathland, which may have two platforms and can pass trains. but, due to the gradient, coaches are not permitted to be left unattached in a platform. Any train terminating there has to de-train then either run forward into the goods loop or set back into it, depending on where it has come from. The main is then used to run round. The loop is in station limits, though.

 

I doubt that the 'redesign' would consist of anything to do with the physical equipment to operate the crossing. Standardisation has been the name of the game for control systems for years now (engineer familiarity, common spares etc, etc.). I'd assume all the necessary designs for the cabinets are already available and all that has to be done is to slot the required options (eg. radar, cctv, additional pedestrian gates etc.) into the overall scheme and away the panel builders go...

What I think would take work is the operational strategy required to satisfy the ORR and how this would interface with the crossings mechanics.

But that still begs the question; if the replacement and upgrade of the crossing has been on the cards for such a long time why is it only now that people seem to be talking about how the railway will operate with the new crossing?

 

My thoughts on a loop at Watchet, based on 17 years of volunteering on the trains and stations.

From the Bishops Lydeard direction, the number of passengers who only travel as far as Watchet is very small, perhaps accounting for about 20 - 25% of passengers. The large majority combine their visit with Minehead, eg. travel down to Minehead in the morning, have lunch and come back to Watchet for an hour in the afternoon before returning to Bishops Lydeard. For this reason I would not think a down train terminating at Watchet would be worth running. In the other direction, however, passengers starting their journey at Minehead find Watchet a good destination, so in past timetables there have been mid-day trains running to here and returning to Minehead, but as there is a loop less than 2 miles away at Williton, they continue to there to run round. In that instance, there is no great need for a loop at Watchet. It also fits in nicely with the paths of other trains.

 

The obvious solution to this issue is to use the DMU and fit it between the 'all line' steam services so you have an hourly Minehead- Watchet service as used to be done in peak periods

 

Another case of posters getting totally carried away yet again!
Why on earth would the WSR need to build a run round loop at WT for? This is only going to be a temporary arrangement whilst engineering work takes place between Watchet and Blue anchor. There is no room and no need for a loop at Watchet.

 

In theory maybe, but.....

Firstly, there have now been two instances within the last few years when the existence of a run-round loop at WT would have proved useful - who knows what may happen in the future?

Secondly, as I mentioned previously, there remains the long-term concern about the possibility of a line breach caused by cliff subsidence. It may not happen for many years, if at all, but at face value it would seem inevitable as cliff erosion continues apace. It is all very way saying that such matters will be the local authority's responsibility, but how long will it take to sort out a remedy and what would the railway do in the meantime?

It remains my view that it would be prudent 'forward planning' to at least maintain (and acquire where necessary) the availability of a suitable amount of formation length and width, so that a run-round loop can be provided if/when it may prove necessary. I recognise that actually installing pointwork in advance would be unwise, given the maintenance costs for something which will be worn down by every passing train in the meantime.

 

It does seem strange how cramped Watchet Station is, given that it was once the terminus of the line.

 

But where is the biggest risk of a line breach?

It seems to me that its either on the Williton side of Watchet Station or at the Minehead end of Blue Anchor.

If there is a breach at the first location then thats where there might be space for a loop & if its at Blue Anchor then you have a loop in the station & if the station is washed away you dont have anywhere to call or a suitable location for a loop.

 

If there was a breach of the sea defences, around Blue Anchor, surely that would result in the loss of the entire section of railway from blue anchor, to Minehead, as it would in effect be cut off, and any disruption, that blocked the line, or washed it away at Watchet would sever the line, as nothing could get from end to end, You would then be faced with a decision of do we abandon the line from Watchet onward to Minehead?