West Somerset Railway General Discussion

How many times have the ORR been brought in only to find that it was a wild goose chase ? Is there now a credibility issue ?

 

As someone else on this forum has said, what we have to focus on now is getting trains working across the crossing. Ian was closer than most to some of the earlier negotiations (which is absolutely not to say that he was party to the various delays) but we now have a very amicable and constructive relationship with Somerset County Council who are doing everything they can to help us get this over the line. We meet on a frequent formal and informal basis with their officers, we have links in to the most senior level of officers and County Councillors and, without exception, they are being supportive and constructive.

As for the ORR, we understand and accept their position too. Their officers also have been helpful and constructive, and our Managing Consultant has frequent formal and informal contact. Yes, the inability to run passengers trains over the degraded crossing is a great disappointment. The plain fact, however, is that it would be illegal. There was a Level Crossing Order (legal framework) whilst the old crossing was in place, and there will be a new Level Crossing Order when the new one is commissioned. In the meantime, there is no Level Crossing Order, and without this it is illegal to run passenger trains over the crossing. The practical problem is the number of pedestrians that now pass over the crossing between the sea front and Butlins, on the one hand, and Macdonalds and the supermarkets on the other. Any unusual and temporary set up poses a higher risk. In any case, level crossings are some of the most dangerous places on railways for the general public. We cannot add to that risk.

Knowing what we know now, and if this had been the East Coast mainline, we would probably have delayed taking out the old equipment, but that would have been difficult because it had, effectively, stopped working reliably in the way it was designed to.

There is no doubt that if we had known in advance of the coming of the Pandemic (which has had various impacts including reducing availability of volunteer signal technicians, increased the amount of Network Rail take up of level crossing projects elsewhere so influencing the contractors timescale, impacted on supply lead time and so on) and the impact of other variables (such as a reorganisation within our main contractor), we might have modified our plans. But we are where we are and, as I said, must get on with it.

One other factual point. Someone here said we only have two new pedestals for barriers to fit. No, there are four - the old ones can't be used for the new barriers because they are in the wrong place. Hopefully the concrete base for the REB (switch room) will be in next week. Once the concrete has cured the REB can be put in place - and again to correct an earlier point on here, modifications within the pre-built REB have had to be made up until last week.

 

Thanks for the clarification Frank. So I was right in my assumption that two additional pedestal bases would be needed, but I had not been aware that the existing two needed to be replaced as well.

To make a point if I may, this is exactly the sort of detailed information about the LC work which sadly seems to be lacking at the moment in any WSR announcements. OK, it may not be of interest to all the wider readership, but it is to some of us

 

On your last point, RailWest, you may take it that what I am writing is correct! Some of the key points will be included in the forthcoming WSR newsletter but we do not have a team of 50 PR people - the figure is much closer to 1! Sadly there are simply not enough hours in the day to respond on here and in all other WSR media. Believe me, which I ever way I get this information out, those involved in some of the other media feel aggrieved they are reading it here rather than anywhere else. I don’t blame them for this - we are grateful for anyone getting the real message out there - but it is mighty difficult to get the balance right in these days of instant social media.

 

Yup, four new pedestals are needed, plus ducts for the control and power cables to each pedestal for the barrier workings . Hopefully these ducts will be able to be installed in the 'soft dig' in the ground behind the boxes (much cheaper and easier) rather than 'hard dig' which would be trenching in the pavement and then all the necessary hassle of reinstatement, tarmacking etc.

There is often much more needed doing than people realise, and we haven't even mentioned cable draw pits yet...

 

To misquote Einstein, the definition of futility is attempting the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

It really is lions led by donkeys at the WSR.

More enlightened of realistic management would have realised that the revised design was not going to be acceptable and pursuing it was going to cost time and money that the railway could ill afford to lose. I don't really see why the signalling for the crossing is so important that it is worth compromising the railway's ability to operate.

I get the desire for authenticity but the crossing is the wrong heritage hill to die on, especially considering everything else going on and also at the railway. I find it ironic to emphasize the 1950s atmosphere and authenticity and then to paint a newly arrived engine in 1930s colours or to have a train pulled by 9351. Authenticity ends up like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland - meaning whatever Humpty chooses it to mean.

 

Thank you to all those who answered my question about the signalling. The signal setup was more complex than I had realised, something that would be obvious to those closely acquainted with the line but had not been spelt out before as I recall !

 

I think you will find that 5199 is a CONTRACT repainting, I:E the owner (s) of the locomotive are paying WSR to repaint 5199 in GWR green.
You may have also failed to notice that several Mk1 coaches belonging to other preservation societies have come and gone for contract repainting.
This has almost certainly helped to keep things running and helped prevent redundantcies.

 

That merely proves my point - authenticity as a reason is only a reason when you choose it to be. Just like Humpty Dumpty.

And guess what, perhaps if certain people hadn't been so keen on tossing out the original agreed design of the crossing in the name of some fantasy of authenticity then the railway wouldn't be in such financial straits that it needs contract repainting jobs to stave off redundancies and keep things running.

 

I think you are being unduly harsh.

Firstly, on your "Humpty Dumpty" point. You lose authenticity one item at a time, and you can regain it one item at a time. I'm not going to argue whether a semaphore signal over the crossing is the hill to die on or not, but the fact that a railway has some inauthenticities is not a reason to say authenticity doesn't matter at all. You might as well otherwise give up and go home.

As for "the railway wouldn't be in such financial straits that it needs contract repainting jobs to stave off redundancies and keep things running" - regardless of the financial picture, if the railway has the skills to do the painting and there is no opportunity cost deploying staff in that way, why wouldn't you take on such work? It only ceases to make sense if you take paid staff off an essential time-critical job on your own fleet in order to take on paid work from elsewhere. But unless you can prove that point ...

Tom

 

The WSR has it arsey versey. It goes for inauthentic repaints that don't go with the 1950s vibe to pay the bills because it has to because it insisted on an imagined authentic crossing which is why they don't have other money coming into pay the bills.

If you welcome inauthentic and vibe jarring repaints because it brings in money, then why is the railway dying on a hill over an inauthentic crossing design which is stopping it from bringing in money? That is just perverse.

'I'm not going to visit the WSR because of the modern level crossings' said no one ever.

Your last point is what it boils down to - all railways are a business and they need to make money and not do things that lose money. If you are making money doing inauthentic paint schemes, not delaying critical work then great, if you can do stuff to make things more authentic that will bring in more money then even better. An 'authentic' level crossing is not going to bring in more money, moreover, if you are in financial trouble because you insisted on a semaphore signal on a crossing because it is 'authentic' then you are doing things wrong.

 

Give it a bloody rest Paul.

 

I suppose the crux of the matter is whether 5199 is just on the WSR for a paint job, or whether it will be out and about hauling trains.
On the subject of heritage, the number of "nutters who count rivets" is very small. The vast majority of the WSR's customers, both passengers and others, are not going to find the 1950s atmosphere diminished by a steam loco in an earlier livery. It is rarely that passengers are wearing period costume, after all, not to mention the ubiquitous presence of the smartphone.

 

Frank - Good afternoon.

One change at the crossing site that might need attention before the weather breaks is that the 'temporary signal cabin' (TURDIS) within the fenced area is, this Sunday afternoon, now laying on its back with the door open. Might be an idea to have someone stand Richard the Third back up?

Robin

 

What are you on about anyway, 1950s? 8 of the 11 stations are in GWR era colours. Dunster and Washford are the only 1950s period stations (of which one is SR currently), and the 11th is just a platform at NF.

 

If you read before posting you would have seen this quoted below for you.

 

But 8 of the 11 stations are in no later than 1947 condition? A 9th is in different regions colour's currently. What most heritage railways portray is a blended authenticity of several time periods. The WSR is no different.