Project Wareham

But could be a worthwhile long term investment if the DoT and DC really want a daily service over the branch to Swanage. The foot crossing problem is not going to be resolved easily or quickly.

Let us not forget £3M has already been invested in bringing the Worgret Junction to Norden section up to the required standard and over £1M invested in "mainlining" the DMU.

 

Or long term would an extra track laid alongside the main line between Worgret Junction to Wareham and a new platform on the other side of the station be feasible?, SR and SWR services will be isolated from each other (some car park spaces will have to me moved).
But inter connections between SR and SWR would be easy, and running tourist steam trains to Wareham viable.

 

At £2m a mile or whatever it now costs to lay NR track, it will never be viable to add another line to Wareham

 

That’s the sunk costs fallacy. The fact you’ve already spent some money on a project doesn’t automatically justify that continuing to spend money will deliver value. You might just have to accept an idea isn’t viable.

(I saw it on our own railway, at a smaller scale. Money was poured into converting some carriages as sleeping accommodation and the justification was always “we’ve come this far, we can’t stop now”. Eventually a halt was called, but it could have happened so much sooner. Railways need not to be afraid to “fail fast”.

Tom

 

You need very very and very deep pockets for that to happen.....and if you did would not happen very soon either

 

The signalling at Wareham allows for passenger trains to run into either platforms.
PW5246 (the up direction signal on the down line ) has a feather signal for platform 1

 

Agreed. What I have often wondered is to what extent the presence of the foot crossing (and its consequent denial of access to the sidings) was taken into account when "Project Wareham" was first mooted. A considerable sum of money was spent on including Worgret Junction in the resignalling scheme (as opposed to removing the junction completely and thus severing the branch for ever) and yet the problem still exists that the mainline can delay services on the branch and vice versa. It may be an accounting exercise but if daily services did run I wonder at what point the cost of delay repay would have justified either reopening the up bay or providing access to the sidings.

 

Can you think of anything that would be involved in this trial that now costs less than it did six years ago?

 

Not having to hire the stock a driver and a guard from WCRC and associated subsistence and travel cost for them.

 

Didn't the signalling work, partly paid for by Dorset CC, include the provision of connections and signalling to the Down Sidings at Wareham? If so, then commissioning that part of the scheme should be fairly straightforward - unlike introducing a completely new scheme to reinstate a bay road.
Pat

 

In the original scoping, it was thought that having the use of both platforms, and having the ability to recess into the down sidings met all operational requirements. The signalling was designed for this, and on the basis of DCC agreeing an alternative solution for the crossing which was not included in the signalling scheme. When it was added in, it was done on the cheapest basis possible - interlocking only the main running signals and leaving everything else to be commissioned once the crossing issue had been resolved. Everything for the signalling to the sidings is provided for - just not commissioned yet.

Installation of the bay platform would have had a significant additional initial capital cost, and ongoing maintenance costs for which an asset protection agreement covering the costs would have been required. It also has the operational limitations of a significantly shorter operational platform length, and the removal of the option for same platform interchange in both directions (the preferred timetables modeled had the following sequence: SR train arrives in Up platform and runs to sidings, Up and Dn SWT trains arrive/depart, SR train runs to Dn platform and departs).

Setting the Up bay as the platform for branch trains would also have been a limitation should services have been extended beyond Wareham (thus future-proofing the service running further - possibly to expanded P&R facilities at Holton Heath or providing a more commercially viable service by running to, for example, Poole and removing the disincentive of having to change at Wareham).

Finally, the option of a segregated line has never been a practical proposition - the earthworks required would be well outside the capacity of SR to fund, and a B:C ratio would have been interesting! (it would require excavation of a deep cutting at Worgret (including rebuilding a substantial road overbridge), then building a significant embankment across nearly a mile of floodplain before building what would essentially be a new station on the site of the main car parking for the station for which there is no obvious replacement location.

 

It probably will cost £3million but I do wonder why anything N.R. does is the case. When the NYMR first decided that a second platform at Whitby would be a good idea, the plan was for it to be essentially a private siding with the NYMR effectively building it using a mix of own staff and contractors. It was schemed out at a budgeted cost of £750K. In the end, Network Rail decided that they'd prefer to be in control and they would do it at the NYMR's expense. The budget immediately jumped to £2.5M with project management charges of £700K. And this was for a connection into a single line controlled by a simple ground frame. No signalling involved, other than a TPWS mat, points indicator and an additional token instrument. Fortunately, the majority of this was met with grant funding, including a substantial contribution from N.R.

 

Recommissioning the bay platform would cost the Swanage Railway millions.

Waiting for DCC to build an accessible bridge to replace the crossing costs the SR nothing. At which point the existing signalling can be put into use to access the sidings.

 

Is a Smallbrook junction solution at Worgret an option? Would make operating a connecting DMU service easier than crossing onto the main line. No need to have a run round loop on the branch.

 

I seem to remember the original plans for the Swanage branch in the 19th century involved a completely separate line all the way to Wareham station. Protests about the destruction this would cause to the historic town walls meant the current arrangement of sharing the mainline was used instead.

How much easier life would be for the SR if the original plans had gone ahead!

 

Deleted - duplicate post on signalling layout.

 

Good luck with the earthworks!



(Not my photo - source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-pelican-railways/16545018183)

Tom

 

I think it has been covered before - but the curvature and (especially) gradients militate against this as an option (aside from the time penalty of an additional stop for mainline trains).

 

It was looked at a long time ago, I believe. The late Peter Pescod, Hon. Consultant Engineer to the MHR (and former South Western Divisional Civil Engineer at Wimbledon) mentioned to me that he had looked at it at the request of the SR. If memory serves (and it all to frequently doesn't) the idea he looked at was for a platform country side of the overbridge shown in @Jamessquared 's post. No idea what conclusions were reached.
Pat

 

When it was re-looked at about 15 years ago, and meeting the then 'blue book' requirements, the nearest compliant location for a platform for terminating trains was at the foot of the gradient (i.e. at the end of the curve that is beyond the bridge to the left of the picture). This would have been a good walk across open farmland from any mainline platforms - which could only be located out of sight to the right of the picture. But the possibility of platforms on the mainline were dismissed out of hand anyway! Incidentaly, there would also have been a requirement to re-equip East Holme Crossing (then an AHB) with a controlled crossing. The costs would have been astronomical, and the interchange mildly sub-optimal (even if there were platforms on the mainline)!