Swanage Railway General Discussion

50.034 and 33.008? Surely not. <BJ>

 

This deserves an explanation, basically 50032 was the only NSE Vac to have a blue backed nameplate, 33008 had several repaints into BR Green, whilst under the care of Eastleigh Depot, the last one it had being very similar to 33012’s current livery, so as I say the photos shown (if you squint a bit) could be from the early 1990’s.

 

That is a spectacularly niche level or nerdiness!

Now, can I interest you in this framed photo of 31666, the very last ex-LCDR loco in traffic? No. Oh well ...

Tom

 

I’m wrong actually Tom, it was 50032, (Courageous) that had a blue backed nameplate, I think 33008 only carried red backed plates as well
(I thought everyone knew this, this is basic Modern Traction knowledge )

 

I thought it was "Glorious" as the plates were in a non-standard position so it read "Glorious Network South East"

 

50033 had red plates, but yes they positioned so it did read that, tbf their were so many little embellishments Laira did before they finished in 94 though.

 

For anyone interested I have managed to caption all my 2022 images from the railway (with the exception of the visit by FS)
These are viewable from the following link and then by choosing Swanage Railway and the four galleries for 2022.
https://garypacker.smugmug.com/
As I have mentioned before this is no sort of official record, just a record of what I have seen over around the railway, in this case a year where I was trying to avoid people to protect before my wife's operation in late April. Then my Covid followed by pneumonia and its after effects seriously impacting on the second half of the year meaning that many of the shots are taken from easily accessible areas, rather than some of the harder to get to locations, and hence they may all look a bit same.

 

On the webcam a lot of essential trackwork going on.
From FB seems the new carriage shed is still in "planning".

 

Looks like newly laid concrete pad has been laid outside the Goods shed for the lifting jacks, Hope there isn't a hard frost tonight.

 

I was sure I had seen an approved planning application, but looking the other day I cannot find anything about it at all on the Purbeck Planning website. The only recent planning application being for the two Lombardy Poplar trees by the Ops office removed last week.

 

Planning was approved some time ago wasn’t it? Contractors were booked in to build it during the 2020 winter shutdown. Then covid happened so that got postponed . Now for whatever reason work is still yet to start.

 

A nice writeup about a great railwayman whom I had the privilege to work with on the big railway. Happy retirement Alan.

https://www.swanage.news/swanage-railway-volunteer-signals-his-retirement-after-31-years/

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

 

Was the carriage shed on land not part of the railway before?

 

Met him a few times at Marchwood when I was doing MoD traffic. Sound bloke.
Pat

 

Always railway owned land I believe, but not really usable due to lineside embankments. A lot of work was done years ago excavating and building a retaining wall, to create a flat area suitable for building the shed on. Even so the completed shed will still be very close to the running line.

 

In which case I understand planning permission is not required.

 

That would be my understanding as well, but I wonder if that is somehow affected by DCC being the freeholder? Normally though a carriage shed would be permitted development.

 

I guess that would be down to what the lease says but this would be a matter for the council Estates department or whoever deals with it, not Planning. Some leases can be quite basic. I was once involved with a council lease that was just four pages. However, when it eventually came up for renewal the new one was well over 30 pages long.

 

I believe that there was a provision limiting the permitted development rights, other than a deviation of up to 0.5m vertically from the deposited plans. I am not sure what conditions. I cannot remember whether this was under the LRO, LR(E)O, preparatory planning process ahead of these or the lease. However, I do know that nearly 20 years ago this was tested with a legal opinion, and it was found that the permitted development rights could not be depended on.

 

An unusual situation possibly.