GWSR General Discussion and Operations

I would like to know what you know as I don't know. I can assume that RPL own the trackbed and are responsible for maintenance of the bridges. Is this what you know, for sure?
I'd also like to know what will happen if there is a major failure or potential failure detected on one of these bridges. AIUI RPL will (can?) only pay for limited maintenance so who assumes responsibility in this case? I have also been led to believe that Worcs CC or whomsoever are not permitted to infill the trackbed beneath the roadway following recent ministerial pronouncements. However, I do not know this for certain. Any enlightenment would be welcome.

 

Probably best to contact the GWSR Trust/Sustrans directly. Its unlikely that anyone on here is in a position to make a statement on such matters with any authority.

Nat-pres is not a direct Q&A link to any railway/group.

 

If you want to know about the highway responsibility, you'll need to ask and potentially FOI Gloucestershire County Council. As it is not owned by the GWSR, you'll probably get limited success asking us.

 

As some of you may have noticed the GWSR and GWR Trust websites have been refreshed. Some of your bookmarks may no longer work now. In particular, the widget that shows a list of latest blog updates no longer appears. Instead, you just get a list of the various blog sites, in alphabetical order:
https://www.gwsr.com/knowledge/blogs

So to find an update, you now have to trawl though each blog address in turn and see if they have posted, or not. Quite a few readers have expressed their dissatisfaction with this, and we have passed those comments on. In response we were told that the Plc website now serves principally to sell tickets, and that the blog update issue would be reviewed at the next IT meeting. Let's hope that something can be done.

In the meantime you can always bookmark your favourite blog directly:
https://haylesabbeyhalt.blogspot.com/
(if the Heritage Herald is your favourite )
and note that the Heritage Herald is posted every Wednesday evening.

 

Breva, have you experienced a drop off in page views as a result of these unhelpful changes?

 

@Biermeister was not making a bid for developing to Honeybourne now, he was simply asking if anyone knew who currently owned, and maintained, the bridges between Broadway and Honeybourne. A civil question which should have brought a civil answer. Why it elicited @Pete Thornhill to smugly reply "The GWSR do know and so do lots of us do too!!!" and you to preach about the current strains on heritage lines in general is unclear to say the least.
I recall that some years ago (10 ?) the then Chairman of the GWSR advised that they were negotiating with RPL over the Honeybourne link. I don't remember hearing the outcome but assumed that the situation remained unchanged with the trackbed still in the hands of RPL. Now, I have a personal interest in that area and follow proceedings as best I can, but I certainly cannot tell who owns and maintains the bridges, so I don't see anything wrong with Biermeister's question and will look forward to a sensible reply in due course.

 

Sooner or later one or more of those bridges will need serious repair. It seems reasonable that some of us wonder who will then do what about it. Do we know for sure that infill will not be allowed? The recent case where it was done without permission and has to be removed does not necessarily mean that permission will not be given for a bridge on a different closed line.

 

God forbid that any heritage railway has to suffer the overwhelming pressure that a discussion on this website brings.

 

National Highways have stated that any infilling will only take place where there is absolutely no alternative. As I understand it, disused railway structures are the responsibility of National Highways as part of their Historic Railways Estate. https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-work/historical-railways-estate/maintenance-and-assessment/

 

Certainly in the first few hours, I was quite surprised after there was virtually no movement after the first hour, when I have a quick check. I won't know per blogpost until a few more posts have gone up. And the current one is being boosted by all the correspondence about the complaints, which is not normal.

 

Try looking at the stats tab, second graph down. I think you might find it more reassuring than looking at numbers for individual blog posts.

 

I understand that work is underway to restore some of the some of the visibilty, on the blogspot page, as to whether there are new posts to view.
Ths is essential if readership is to be maintained and not fall off.
It would also be helpfull if the liability disclaimer did not occupy the whole of a screen and obscure the links below to the various posts.One has to scroll down to even find them.
I also understand the need for small print, but it needs to be in small print ( the clue is in the name).
The clever use of social media is essential if heritage railways are to keep in front of their customer base and engage with them.
These blogs, some of the best out there incidentally, are a major marketing tool in this respect and they cost the railway nothing. To first delete all access and then to obscure future acces to them is careless to say the least.
But we are where we are.

 

It has already been stated that the loss of part of the functionality was due to a widget being unsupported on the refreshed website. It's not a conspiracy to delete or 'obscure access'. All the blogs are still there and are still being updated.

 

"Absolutely no alternative" is a meaningless statement in this context. A dangerous bridge can be dismantled brick-by-brick (or stone-by-stone) and rebuilt. Would the NH do this? I doubt it!
How wide would the considerations of various repair techniques be i.e. a stainless steel structure grouted into the underneath of the bridge?

 

This has all emerged since the blogs disappeared without warning. Conspiracy or cockup were equally valid conclusions until the truth emerged. It was a cockup.

All the bloggers are now trying to put the bits back together to reconnect with their readers. The Drain Gang Blogmaster has put this together
https://acahl.org.uk/GWSRblogs.html .

While basic it has the functionality missing from the present page and so I append it to help all those out there who want to keep up to date with new posting in their favourite blogs.

 

Jo's post on Heritage Herald tonight confirms what most of us probably suspected- the Broadway P2 building and canopy has officially been given the go-ahead. Funding is in place, and a surprisingly large amount of the materials required have already been acquired ahead of price hikes.
Trebles all round, and congratulations for sheer perseverance:
http://haylesabbeyhalt.blogspot.com/

 

This is great news, and coming at a time when there is so many gloomy predictions, is a good splash of positivity. The railway are in a reasonable place and although I put a some of this down to minimal paid staff, we are looking forward to an exciting 2023. Discussion did take place about amending timetables but it was ultimately decided to stick with what we have for another season. This means two steam operation 5 days a week from late spring. See the new website at https://www.gwsr.com/

 

Congratulations to Jo and Neal and all the others on the Heritage Team.
Your constant work on the Broadway Project with the canopy extension and then the footbridge, with regular reports on the Heritage Herald blog, have kept this project alive for your many supporters and followers.
I look forward to watching the project continue to grow and look forward to contributing again to another fireplace fund!