West Somerset Railway General Discussion

And yet you are the one who started with the name calling. It is ironic for you to accuse others of hypocrisy while being hypocritical.

You aren't engaging because your original comparison was a nonsense and you know it. Moreover, I am the wrong person to accuse of being the authenticity police since it is not something that I care about (cf GSN, Swanage and their electronic information screens, etc etc).

So again, why was ditching the agreed design a good and sensible decision given the delays that it has caused and the other priorities such as the trackwork, financial situation etc etc?

Just out of interest - how long did the arguments about Broadway delay the opening to Broadway? Was the GWSR unable to run there for two summers due to the arguments about the building or did it open on schedule?

 

There comes a time when a project has progressed too far for major changes to be made without substantial cost implications. However, all a project manager can do is to point out to the client these implications. It's the client's money and if that is how they wish to spend it then that is their business and no-one else's. That was the case at Broadway. However at Minehead, the WSR is not the client, it is simply the end user. They could ask for changes to be made, but the client, SCC, could always say no, as it transpired they did. The WSR management are not "being decried by certain posters for wanting something a bit more heritage if possible", they are being decried for letting that desire, the impossibility of which from the client's point of view could have been cleared up in a matter of days, delay a project by two and a half years and cost the company a large amount in unearned income.

 

I wouldn't go down that road if I were you, there's plenty of other subjects that we can play Nat Pres bingo with and other posters to put into the boxes.

 

Well it's all part of recreating the heritage scene. Admittedly steam-hauled specials on the main line show that there is a market for having old machinery in modern surroundings, but I think that most heritage railways realise the offer has to be wider than that. I think the new (at the time) WSR management were absolutely right to be asking the question, but not in letting the question derail the entire project.

 

The version of the story that I've heard also suggests that the proposed change not only involved visual changes*, but also changes to the ways of working that were likely to lead, if presented to ORR, to rejection of the scheme. If correct, and I stand to correction, then that is not only a question of visual priorities, but also fundamental principles.

* - On a point of principle, I strongly favour heritage signalling, whether signals or gates. My views of the signals at Pickering are unprintable, but I recognise why compromising authenticity may be necessary in some cases - and why Seaward Way may well be one such example.

 

Can I ask a question about signal systems as I don't fully understand the problem here ?
As semaphore signals can be activated by electrical currents through cabling in place of rodding, why couldn't the new signalling for the crossing have been cable-operated semaphores thus preserving the heritage appearance whilst avoiding the problem of the rodding over (or under) the level crossing ?
What am I missing ?

 

Let's face it, your Joe Public whose credit card is what keeps trains running doesn't give a fart about what kind of signalling is in place around a level crossing. A steam engine, a decent station cafe and clean lavatories are what matter. Purists are losing a whole season's bookings from Minehead - OK, there are people like me who are keen enough to not mind catching a bus to Dunster or Blue Anchor, but you can't beat having trains running into town near the beach and kids saying, "can we have a ride on that steam train?".

The endless excuses are getting boring - JFDI!

 

Generally the problem is more finding the motors for the signal arms than anything else. It is normally easier to find rocking horse poo!

 

Let's put some sort of perspective on this.

If the level crossing has been declared unfit for use and the WSR still want to run trains over it then the replacement is a legal and mandatory requirement which basically boils down to "If you don't do it you can't run trains over it"

This situation arose, as far as I can tell, as far back as 2018 (maybe during one of those ORR visits when "...nothing serious..." was found?). Now it really doesn't matter if they use semaphore signals, coloured lights or even the red arrows and coloured smoke, the fact of the matter is that, if you intend to run trains over it, the crossing has to be upgraded. Everything else is window dressing.

Now, I hear that one big sticking point was the use of coloured lights to control trains over the crossing because "it's not heritage." Well, if all the opponents of coloured lights will hold off a minute I'd like to point out that the WSR already has coloured lights on the crossing... white flashing ones. And before anyone starts on about how that is different as there is only one each side I'd like to ask how heritage is it use the rising barriers, traffic lights and warbling sirens currently on the crossing? I don't hear anyone complaining that we must have manually controlled gates across the road with red lamps on top. After all that is 'heritage'.

The long and the short of it is that, if you want to run trains across it, the crossing must be upgraded. You can all argue the toss about signalling once the trains are running again.

@FrankC :- Frank all I'll say is get on with it the best you can and if anyone (and I mean anyone) tries to poke their finger in and stir it up then send them away. The important thing is getting the trains back into Minehead not massaging some 'poor souls' bruised ego.

 

The crossing was installed in 1990 with a 25-year design life. I was closely involved in that work. By 2015 that time had passed and it was only maintained in safe operating condition by dedicated work by the Railway's S&T Department. But then it was then on borrowed time. The 'porridgey' nature of the ground there - ex sea marsh with a very high water table - hadn't helped. As I have said plans were laid to install the replacement in the winter of 2018/19.

 

Between £60 and £80K.

 

That made me chuckle. It’s amazing how many armchair expert project managers, civil engineers, S&T engineers and commercial managers there are on here! Carry on regardless Frank, 99% of railway visitors and road users aren’t going to be losing sleep over a level crossing. The important thing is to recognise the support of the County Council in getting the crossing upgraded and the need to reopen the line in full, as soon as is reasonably practicable. I’ve never quite understood why so much energy is expended in raking over (with the benefit of hindsight) what should or shouldn’t have happened several years ago.

 

There is one key difference between the use of semaphore or C/L signals for the Down Inner Home at MD. A semaphore 'stop' signal will show either a 'stop' (red) or 'go' (green) aspect. After the (IIRC) Moorgate disaster it became frowned upon to have a green aspect leading into a terminal platform, certainly for new work. That is why the C/L at MD shows only 'stop' (red) or 'caution' (yellow). With C/L signalling you use a yellow aspect where the next signal is at red, and in the case of a terminal platform the red lamp on the buffer-stop is treated as a red signal (and indeed the lamp is often proved 'lit' before a signal in rear can be cleared).

 

IIRC, at the time, there were plenty of people, myself included, asking why the level crossing couldn't have the full monte of gates and semaphore signals and, IIRC also, we were given the answer @Andy Moody gave above, which was that the ORR wouldn't allow them. There was also discussion about a bridge. I think everyone on here accepted that at the time and also that having a LC with lifting barriers and semaphore signals was a bit of a nonsense, however it appears that others on the WSR weren't taking no for an answer.

 

My understanding was that WSR were going to be in a position to run trains into Minehead from the 10th July (Red timetable).
So are they not in a position to be compensated if the crossing work is not completed in time?
IIRC There is I think still another track renewal job between the occupation crossing next to Seaward (Sorry, can't think of it's name) and Dunster.
Going to the business of the colour light inner home signal debacle, To replace it with a semaphore signal would require a three doll bracket, Two lower quadrant home signals plus fixed distant signals, two calling on subsidiary's underneath the main signals, plus a further subsidiary arm on the right hand
doll to take the route towards the engine shed loop and a "Dummy" for the bay loop,
All of these moves can be performed with the existing two aspect colour light signal so IMHO does not require replacing.
Before the Seaward way camera was switched off, 7828 delivered some items that were craned off by the atlas crane, this included what suspiciously looked like a GWR Signal post, SO, I ask, Will there possibly be an extra up semaphore starting signal protecting the new crossing?

 

With my Level Crossing Tester's hat on - has anyone considered the *legal* side of altering the crossing. There needs to be a Level Crossing Order in place before the crossing can be commissioned, and that particular bit of paper can hold up a job for *years* (experience talking there - we've had projects planned, materials ordered, worksites set up and the whole job pulled because one bit of paper was still waiting on the Secretary of State (or minion)'s signature). Don't necessarily blame malice or incompetence of the board, when it *could* be the government holding it up. There's no doubt that the Level Crossing Order for the current crossing will need to be replaced, as moving from an AHB to an MCB-CCTV is a massive change of crossing type.

John

 

>>>>>To replace it with a semaphore signal would require a three doll bracket, Two lower quadrant home signals plus fixed distant signals.......

Eh? Why the fixed distants please, not an arrangement that I have seen anywhere else.

>>>Will there possibly be an extra up semaphore starting signal protecting the new crossing?

AIUI that will indeed be the case, though I'm still waiting to read the details (long promised on the web, but yet to materialise) and how (say) LE moves out of the station from the platform roads will be signalled towards it without the barriers down.