Project Wareham

I thought Dorset Council as is, owns the site, therefore Parenco would give up their lease and it would be Dorset's decision who they lease it to?

 

My understanding too but ....
One of the problems is that a lease condition currently forces Perenco to put the whole site back to what it was before it was developed - i.e. heath land. This might take some delicate negotiations.
Also, because it's in an SSSI area I believe, then the guarantee of no spillages/pollution/etc. would have to be provided by the railway if it was to be offered by Dorset Council.
Another aspect for the railway to consider would be noise nuisance. Perenco still occupy the Furzebrook office building and it's staff would not put up with that I suspect. Frequent shunting, noisy maintenance works, etc. are seemingly non-starters as things stand at present. So, as mentioned above, a lot of negotiations would appear to be required before Furzebrook could be considered for anything railway related.

 

What would be the justification for this service to receive a single penny more of public money?

 

In principle, adding a small amount of extra public money (relative to what has already been paid) to obtain significantly greater benefits (in relieving road congestion or whatever) could be justified. Whether it would be justified is arguable.

 

Has the project demonstrated that it reduces congestion? Could it achieve such a thing at the fares being charged? Could it represent value for money?

 

Think it depends on the report at the end of the trial? Hopefully there will be a case to run the service in 2024 with the USPs of tourism and encouraging more leisure mainline rail use, rather than cars.
Using a volunteer crew rather than WCR may reduce costs, if there is a shortfall for 2024 then the SR could still bid for unused DFT Restoring railways funds.
Getting commercial sponsorship is a possibility, but sometimes not easy to get.

 

There is the spectre of running to Wareham next year, as if I recall, DC said trail running for two Consecutive years. Hopefully they will not implement that.

 

I hope that there is a clear answer one way or other about the viability of continuing to run to Wareham. I would love to see the exercise bring additional revenue that considerably compensates for the cost and general management and operational downsides of running the service. If it just breaks even I don’t think that is good enough. If it makes a loss then it should be stopped. Subsidy is not the answer and will bring as many problems as it solves, and i cannot see how such an operating subsidy would be justified.

 

Here's the answer. What's your favourite traction? Steam? Push-pull diesel? Make it so in your head. Carriages gleaming. (Proper) Central door locking. Retention tanks. Bung a steam engine at each end if you like. Now do you want to run it?

 

That was proposed in 2016 with a DFT tourism grant
http://swanagemoguls.com/2016/05/25/n-class-31874-to-go-main-line/
"The full grant of £75,000 is part of a £100,000 project by Swanage Railway to produce a main line capable train consisting of 31874 and five MK1 coaches. Subject to track access agreements, pathing and regulatory items being in place, this will enable Swanage Railway to operate Steam over its main line connection to Wareham. Swanage Railway may also at its discretion consider approaches from other operators for use of the locomotive.

At BR power classification 4P 5FB its unlikely that the locomotive will be used for traditional style railtours that often have 10-13 coaches but it would be ideal for trains of 5 or 6 coaches around the local area. All that is in the future however as initial duties in 2017 will be on Swanage Railways normal services between Norden, Corfe Castle and Swanage. We plan to take things slowly and 31874’s mainline career is likely to start with a few runs to Wareham Station ‘top and tailed’ with Swanage Railway Resident mainline Class 33. This is likely to be in late 2017 or in 2018. Top & Tailing with a diesel avoids the various issues with running around in Wareham Station and provides and element of resilience whilst we become accustomed to mainline operations."
31806 got the mainline updates, but the grant and fundraising did not cover the cost of the carriage's central door locking and toilet retention tanks. Maybe if the DMU service continues in 2024, perhaps some future date?

 

But you are now referring to a press release from over 7 years ago, which I am sure was issued in good faith against the plan at the time. A lot has happened in that time, not least a small annoyance to many called Covid, a war in Europe fueling inflation and a cost of living crisis.
So what in 2023 or 2024 is available for the U and the 33 to top and tail that could run to Wareham without spending sheds loads of money I am sure the railway does not have kicking around.
As I remember it from an interview in the railway press from someone senior at the railway, the ORR wanted to see a couple of years of DMU operation working well before considering steam. I do not know what is happening this summer but from what I can see these are still WR operated trains not SR. So when would that two years even start?
Then as you have mentioned CDL, Retention tanks although locking out the toilets may work, I do not know.
Would operating steam in a 2024 or later environment mean extra requirements from NR over and above the DMU operation if SR do take it on?
Many unanswered questions, many that will cost a lot of money.
Do not fall into the trap that many seem to have done that just because X years ago something was an aim or doable the same applies today.
Plans need to be dynamic for a business to survive, which is why many HR's run fewer trains, or focus on pre booking.
It is why HS2 keeps looking different, or why when I retired the B747 had a life until 2025, but never made it past Covid.

 

No

 

If there’s a small shortfall and the SR successfully bids for the tail end of a Government grant - what happens the next year? The shortfall still would exist but not the grant money. It’s not a sustainable proposition - rather it just looks like chasing a grant for the sake of it. You’d hope the DfT would turn it down and find a better recipient.

Tom

 

Could be hearsay (but NP thrives on it) as a volunteer but with no portfolio, I only pick up the local railway grapevine. With that caveat out of the way, word is SR are allowing for a £100K loss. So enjoy it while it lasts and I'm not just talking about the Wareham service.

 

That was similar to the number I had heard as well. As you say might be hearsay, but I do not think anyone is expecting it to be a money spinner.

 

The issue is does the cost of operating the service to Wareham out strip the revenue if the answer is yes, then, you have to protect your main operation, that of the Norton P&R to Swanage, heritage railways, are not public transport, they are private operations, and as such do not qualify for any government, or local funding to provide these services, other than as a one off grant, As far as Wareham is concerned, Can SR afford to run any part of its operation at a loss,? the answer has to be no, at best it can only continue if the council fund it, or make up the shortfall, I think the only realistic solution will be for the Swanage railway to decline to operate it, and for it to be run, as a Summer Sundays only SWR service from Salisbury to Corfe so tourists can visit Southampton, Bournemouth, wareham, and Corfe,

 

This. Main priority has to be protecting the core HR operation. Just making sure that this survives the downturn in good shape is not going to be easy for SR or for any other HR. Any service to Wareham next year is likely to be very limited as suggested.

 

I've no desire to see the main Swanage Railway operation fail. But it would indeed be an irony were the main railway to be dragged down by what is essentially a sideshow. No heritage railway can afford losses from a part of their operation on that sort of scale on a regular basis.

The logic has to be to get to the end of the mandated trial and then drop it. The Railway will still have got plenty of value from the operation: the £75k investment in carriages (even if they never go mainline); a £1m restoration of a DMU; and an interface with Network Rail to allow incoming charters and engineering trains. Be grateful for those investments, but then recognise that the management focus now has to be 100% on the core product - which is running a heritage service for 6 miles.

Tom

 

Before we have the upcoming addition of SWR drivers joining the ongoing strike scenario it seems fair to say that SWR are not having a good summer on the Weymouth line, although in no way is all of it down to their own making.
It does make me wonder what impact, if any, the poor level of service is having on the potential use of the Wareham service.
Things have not been great, but maybe acceptable, on the number of "meltdown days" coinciding with the branch service, but there have been in the month of June a fair few tight connections, which of course in the down direction means use of the footbridge as the DMU will be in the up platform. I find the bridge not great to use as the steps seem quite shallow and a number of times I have tripped up.
I know I can get stressed on down trains if it is getting tight to the bus connection to Swanage, but then I would not have paid £25 in advance for my ticket. I wonder if it imapcts repeat business.
This weekend was bad even by the standards of this summer, a meltdown of sorts both days, with multiple issues it seemed. For any locals using the service the connection to the last train (17:19) would not only have been missed from the 16:49 down service ( arrived 18:29 and terminated) but also the 16:28 as well which arrived at 17:28. OK this was down to a PHBT incident, but it does nothing to instill user confidence, especially as one of them was already 18 late when it set off from Waterloo.
Late Saturday afternoon it made be decide to bin my planned trip to the IOWSR Spring Gala (held in the midsummer's day, Spring must come later on that rock). Anyway an inspired decision as yet again major issues many cancelled or short turned trains. No down trains between 17:28 and 19:54 and even a couple of Lymington Branch trains were cancelled.
Shambles!

 

A good question but it also begs the question how many car users (from say 80 - 100 miles away) intent on visiting the Isle of Purbeck or Bournemouth check the road reports before they set off and then decide not to travel or decide to go elsewhere or change their minds en route? The very well known traffic jams leaving Swanage nearly every afternoon in the Summer do not seem to deter visitors to the Isle of Purbeck.
OR do we in our minds treat delays (potential or actual) on the different modes of transport very differently? Are we far more tolerate of traffic jams (because we consider it is no-ones fault) than say rail delays (because we consider it is the incompetence of the TOCS)?
Do we place a higher standard of performance requirement on any third party transport operator than we do ourselves when using our car. I rather think we do.
I think it was partly to try and accommodate the potential problems on the mainline that some individuals suggested to SRC that the Wareham <> Swanage dmu service should in fact be a higher frequency Wareham <> Norden / Corfe Castle service thus providing at least two down trains in the morning (to connect to arrive in Swanage before noon).