Project Wareham

That is a very different situation: they are not proposing to operate national network trains on a 25 mph heritage line with labour-intensive Victorian p/way and signalling standards.

Ultimately you need to choose: do you want a heritage railway that brings 200k people per year into Swanage (but with a significant number of them likely coming by car as far as Norden); or do you want a commuter service that will likely be used by a handful of local people to get to Bournemouth. Because you can't have both; the infrastructure and business model are incompatible.

You'll excuse the cynicism, but I think the primary purpose of "Restoring your Railways" is to provide a ready supply of favourable headlines in local newspapers for MPs in marginal constituencies. It is nothing whatsoever to do with "restoring your railways", for which a sum orders of magnitude larger would be required. (Vide infra: "New Forest MP to meet Rail Minister re restoration of Hythe Branch. Hampshire Chronicle.").

Tom

 

But isn't the latest aim of Project Wareham for 2023 for the heritage DMUs to pick up day trippers from the mainline at Wareham (without cars) and take them to either Norden or Corfe, the daytrippers will have the choice if to stay local to Norden or Corfe, or catch the steam train to Swanage?

 

Our Canadian correspondent appears to be angling for a full-blown return to the national network, as far as I can tell.

Tom

 

What is more important is that agreements are honoured. DC or its predecessor bought the trackbed. Was that to enable the operation of a private steam railway? No,it was as the result of pressure by Swanage based activists who. rightly,felt that their community had been cut off from the national network. The history is there to be perused and personally, I used to stay with such people who were enthused about the progress being made .Everyone is cognisant of the great work done by the SR to be where it is at this moment in time,however, as pointed out in other posts.costs are rising,volunteer hours are dropping and so now to find the best way forward for everyone including non enthusiasts. What would you say is for the greater good? I do believe that the SR can co-operate with a national entity,was that not proven in the previous trials. Can a "Swanage" service be called that if a main line unit cannot reach the terminus. I do not think passengers can be asked to change trains on the branch to satisfy the needs of a private steam railway operating on(except for Swanage Station environs) a trackbed in the ownership of a County Council. What level of service is provided is up to the planners but if it is supplying full time employment and its ancilliaries is that a bad thing?

 

When is a Branch line service not a service? When it does not reach its terminus Station!

 

Tell that to folks in Dartmouth!

 

Okehampton. Is that a marginal consituency? good old Tory New Forest. Marginal? Reston Station Northumbria? Marginal? Perhaps there is more reality based thinking in the upper echelons than you give credit for.

 

But it does doesn't it. The Ferry,AFAIK is included in the price of the ticket and a darn sight cheaper than building a bridge!

 

The local Tory it seems is worried about his constituents being inconvenienced by level crossings! The pressure is reported as coming from the Liberal Democrat.

 

After Chesham and Amersham last year, and the council elections this year, many seats are moving towards "marginal" territory. New Forest and Okehampton - good old fashioned NIMBY territory, where Tory planning policies are deeply unpopular. Reston is slightly different, but it's noticeable that SNP (the relevant party of government) support is weak in the Borders.

But in none of those cases do you have a valid comparison to the situation in Swanage.

All of which is fine and dandy, but which does not allow for the effect of anno domini and the changing realities on the ground. The issue is not one of principle, but of practice - how the service you want can actually be delivered at an affordable cost. What is apparent from all that has been discussed is that, while the capital costs are largely covered through grant funding, the running costs of services on the extension are likely to exceed the additional income that it will deliver.

All heritage railways face significant challenges, but assuming that rising costs and falling volunteer hours right now equate to the imminent demise of heritage operation is extremely pessimistic. And the worst outcome will be to chase additional operations that will add costs without adding revenue (has anyone mentioned the free bus travel for OAPs?), which will be a good way to ensure that none of the work from the past 40 years is honoured, and nothing gets left.

 

Absolutely. Those most likely to use the service would be day trippers and possibly some locals as an alternative to the car or bus.

A commuter service would require a very significant amount of financial support and that is highly unlikely to happen.

If SRT SRC were able to operate the second year of the trial service it would at least provide a data set that could be used for analysis and thus some indication of whether it covered its costs or required a level of financial support. At the moment the only data set is the 2017 trial data set which as time passes becomes less valid.

Charities across all sectors are finding it more and more challenging to recruit and retain volunteers. Requiring more volunteers when the supply is diminishing will create service delivery issues which will impact the SR reputation.

I fear that SRT SRC will have to make some increasingly difficult decisions as time passes. Better to make those decisions now than as knee jerk reactions in the future.

 

The exhaust events of a Swanage based tank engine has been changed from "I think I can,I think I can" to "It can't be done,it can't be done"

 

I remember reading the Little Red Engine to my kids. And I remember how in that childrens' tale it was both a near run thing, and almost a disaster.

This is the real world, and there needs to be thought to what may be lost as well as what may be gained. That seems to be being forgotten by some, especially those with very little appreciation of the constraints around railways in the UK.

 

I think you have totally managed to confuse me (and I suspect others) as to what you actually want now.
Is it a Heritage Line running a service to Wareham with the DMU's (and who knows maybe even steam once in a while at some stage in the future) to connect with the National Network for a part of the year that is seen as worthwhile, or is it for the branch to once again become part of the National Network and offer an all day service including times for commuters?
If it is the first then that is what the trial should give an insight into at a time the economic situation is hopefully well improved from where we are now. Also this would we all hope be able to be run by the SR with volunteers.
If it is the latter then you are not starting quite from scratch, but not too far from it as among other issues
The line speed would need upgrading
The signalling would probably need to be altered
Too many foot and farm crossings.
Level crossing at Norden to be upgraded.
PRM compliant stock would be needed.
Bournemouth depot have to service this new stock
Staff would probably need to be full time but even if volunteers would ASLEF/RMT accept that as would for them set a bad precedent.
If you ran it as a long one train in use branch what is the best frequency you can achieve?
If part of National Network would all the Swanage stock need to be mainline approved
Although I do not believe the two offerings could fit together, if they did what happens when a Swanage train delays a branch train, a large delay minutes payment?
What is the attraction of a Heritage Line that has a timetable that gets "junked" at a moment notice to protect the network branch train running to time?

I am sure there are many more that others can think of, and also you will accuse me as you always do of being negative or a Luddite, but please give us all some logical answers to these questions and issues I have raised.

 

Were the DMUs not provided for the SRC to effect some type of service Wareham to Swanage. Retrofitted for main line operation I believe.
Far to many molehills for me to address but that is what you have operations Managers and timetablers for,both national franchise and SR
There is obviously an element that will be happy if a fare paying passenger train(other than a charter)never comes down the branch
Equally,I believe that there are those who realise that operationally the SR will have to (and also in doing so address one of its founding tenets)change due to the factors we have discussed
So its a simple matter of
a) resuming the trial service including a Wareham to Swanage option. Results to be assessed
b) continuing to run a steam service to Norden only
The discussion on this forum has been exhaustive and one hopes that it will receive a complete airing at the next AGM. It is vital to the future of the SRC whatever side of the argument that you are on

 

Forgive me, I've never posted on the forum before, despite my longtime lurking. As a small thought experiment, what would you do if yourself and a group of like-minded people had published a prospectus in, say, 1810 with the intention of building a canal from A to B, and then raised money on the back of that. Given changing situations and circumstances, you find yourself in 1850, not yet having built the canal, but having managed to build a railway running part of the way between A and B. Do you press on regardless with your intention to build a canal, because there is a "commitment" that needs to be "honoured", or do you adjust your goals in the light of experience, facts, and the irrepressible march of time?

 

That post demonstrates that you have no idea of the real level of complexity involved in mainline running. These are issues that are fundamental to the ability of any railway operating on Network Rail infrastructure to resolve before betting the shop on making it work.

I find it bizarre that one item in the founding agenda of the SR should be taken as being the article of faith that all other features should be geared from, and be the lens by which the future of the railway is assessed. I find it particularly gob smackingly bizarre that this view should come from someone who is very free with his criticisms of the railway for not following through on heritage oriented projects that would not be on the agenda if it were operated as a public service railway.

It also disregards how heritage railways started out with aspirations to public service, and then stepped back to be heritage only operations as reality bit. Okehampton is the possible exception to that process, by going from a bit of heritage to fully public - and in the process demonstrates just how incompatible heritage and public operations are.

 

The 90 day trial is currently planned for next year.

Sent from my SM-A125F using Tapatalk

 

Do you anticipate that SR or indeed most HR will survive in their present form given the realities of fuel costs,dropping volunteer numbers etc. Also in the case of SR perhaps you should question the wisdom of DC investing money in the purchase and refurbishing of DMUs for the Branch.Climate change arwareness/Has that hit the preservation movement yet. Let us see the results of the 90 Day trial in 2023. Sorry 1850s canals have no parallel with the potential public amenity of an already in situ but dormant railway

 

My answer to your question, in a word, is "yes".