West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I hope the Bishops Lydeard to Watchet restriction doesn't apply to the Midland Pullman charter from the East Midlands on Tuesday. If it doesn't go to Minehead as it's supposed to, I think there will be a lot of annoyed passengers, myself and 2 family members amongst them.

Dave B

 

I understand that this train will be not be affected by the amended timetable.

 

The weekend services are running as normal.

 

The latest arrival at Bishops Lydeard, namely GWR 4-6-0 no 6880 'Betton Grange'. © George Thomas. Thanks to wsr.org. <BJ>

CC

 

Time for another visit! The diesel gala earlier this month was well run, and it will be good to see the new Grange being given a decent length run.

 

I note that Betton Grange is down for an enthusiasts ' weekend at the end of July, along with other big beasts. A long way from the days when the WSR became out of bounds for 'red' route availability locos. Betton Grange will apparently work before then, but Taunton is a long way to go if I don't know when it is rostered to work. I don't think the WSR website has rosters on it.

 

You could give them a call nearer the date. I'm sure that they would help you if possible. <BJ>

 

Wasn’t one of the leading lights of the WSR complaining long and hard on another thread about a different railway not posting rosters, noting “That does sound rather odd … dare I say disorganised. [snip] Most other railways seem to be able to do this …”

Tom

 

That information used to be published through @Steve Edge's excellent unofficial WSR site, https://www.wsr.org.uk/. Since he's stepped back from maintaining it at the same level of intensity, I've not seen "official" WSR channels filling the gap - but I stand to correction.

 

Subject to the usual caveats re availability/repairs 6880 is intended to be the BL loco from 6th July on the remaining July operating days until July 28th. That implies use on the 10.15 & 14.40 departures from Bishops Lydeard with corresponding Minehead times making 2 return trips each day.

Rosters are of course subject to change as circumstances evolve hence the use of the word "intended".

 

Many thanks for that info. Of course, nothing is certain in this world, and certainly not on the railways!

John

 

How has this happened? I thought £millions were required just to tackle the backlog of deferred maintenance on the track (according to the WSR itself when it launched that appeal)?

 

WSR management speak with forked tongue.

 

My (external) reading of the situation is as follows:

1. A description such as "red route" is a GWR invention but has little relevance to a heritage railway. In particular, a simple route availability relationship between locomotives and routes would have been massively useful when you were managing thousands of locomotives and thousands of route-miles of track. It is of limited value as a description of either locomotives or track when you have a 20 mile line and only a handful of locos at any one time that need to traverse it
2. Hammer blow varies with the square of the speed, which further reduces the usefulness of relying on route classifications designed when the line speed was 45-50mph relative to now when it is 25mph.
3. Ultimately it is down to the responsible person for infrastructure to define what can / can't run on the line, and whether there should be any particular restrictions (for example, further speed limits in certain sections, restrictions on double-heading etc).
4. That doesn't mean that all is rosy in the garden, but also doesn't mean that all is doom and gloom either. In practice, the railway will be monitoring and managing the situation of various parts of the line. That might include the need to impose temporary speed restrictions pending future work, but a speed restriction is not the same as a prohibition of traffic. In other words, the infrastructure is not perfect but it is also not in a state where the railway is imminently at risk of no longer being able to run a service. That is probably true for almost every heritage line in the country.
5. Having said all that, not for the first time the WSR is fumbling its stakeholder communications with confused messaging. I think it is probably simultaneously true that "we need to invest £500k per year ongoing in infrastructure" and "the line is safe and at the moment we can accept even the heaviest locomotives". Both statements can be true but it is hardly surprising if people are confused when they hear both. Even more confusing is that there was a big push on the need for investment, then seemingly investment not on that scale, and then it went quiet. Hardly surprising if most people don't know what to make of that - "So, did you raise the money, or did you find you didn't need it after all?"

As a final (I hope impartial) view, two comments.

Firstly, the WSR collectively needs to get much better at communications if it wants to be able to convey complex messages - such as the need for sustained investment in the railway.

Secondly, on infrastructure: I was a frequent visitor to the line in the 2000 - 2012 sort of time frame, but only sporadically since then. My most recent visit was about a year ago, summer 2023, which helps make clear incremental changes that you might not notice if you visit regularly and they creep up on you. From that visit I don't remember the journey being particularly punctuated by speed restrictions, except one on the BL - CH section where at the time there had been a huge run off of water from the farmers field that had swept away some of the ballast (Combe Florey). That was significant, but hardly evidence of poor standards in maintenance, it was the kind of major incident that from time to time could hit any railway.

What I did notice though were two more creeping things. One was that the line seemed to be fighting a losing battle against lineside vegetation, such that large sections (especially at the southern end) were the proverbial "green tunnel". Apart from the immediate impact on passenger views through the windows and the risk in extreme cases of scratched paintwork, that could be a bit of a "canary in the coal mine" indicator of stretched resources. The second point I noticed was about weeds growing in the four foot - quite visible from the board crossing at BL. That is potentially symptomatic of drainage issues. Drainage is a bit of a cinderella subject, but unless all your culverts and cesses are free flowing, you could be storing up problems for the future.

Tom

 

There is an additional point, which reinforces what you say about communications. The WSR, in about 2019, declared that it couldn't cope with the largest locomotives. As I recall, that affected one visit, while it helped make the case for another locomotive to go elsewhere on long term loan. This came with messages about a requirement for sustained high levels of investment, over and above routine maintenance.

When I see a "heavy" locomotive visit, be it 6880 or a class 50 diesel, I'm left confused about what's changed to permit these visitors, and what that says about the overall infrastructure.

 

Put two civil engineers to examine a structure and they are quite likely to have very different views of what it can bear. I think the difference is a different assessment, and now a less pessimistic viewpoint prevails. That is fair enough, and not the easiest message to communicate without blowback.

As to budget, I suspect that you could spend £100k just managing trees undergrowth and fences. On a line that long. A bridge inspection / minor repairs could easily cost £10k, and a culvert repair £25k. £50k a year for materials for spot sleepering, etc etc. £25k per mile per year is only going to hold the current condition. That’s ok if the starting point is sound, but inevitably some more will be needed for renewals in specific areas. That said a steady spend of that order should keep the place together for quite a long time.

The WSR would probably like to be spending £1m per year, and that would ensure bridges etc could be renewed as they fall due. They’re far from alone in not having that level of resources though.

 

If we take your £25k per mile per year figure to stand still, that is £500k per year for a 20 mile line. Which, in the absence of additional funding, has to paid for from an annual revenue of around £3m per year. That comes back to the point discussed earlier about the revenue position, and how it has flatlined, (which is a regression in real terms). My estimate of it being probably a million down on where it should be would make a huge difference to the infrastructure.

Tom

 

I agree with you. It is true of many (most?) railways that the fares and passenger numbers have not kept pace with inflation (either cpi or the real inflation felt by railways which have suffered from the higher inflation of being high energy users - coal, steel, heavy engineering equipment).

 

What’s changed is almost certainly people. I seem to recall that, around the time the WSR was urgently seeking significant funding for infrastructure the role of Civil Engineer became vacant and has subsequently been replaced. I’ve mentioned several times on here that speed restrictions disappeared overnight on the Network Rail Esk Valley line yet nothing had been done to warrant it. The reasons were almost certainly a different pair of eyes and opinion on what is generally a subjective subject. RA9 locos are also allowed on what is an RA7 line subject to the odd speed restriction over three bridges.
The WSR probably does need significant funding but it is not necessarily required today.

 

That was my point really. Perhaps a change in personnel has resulted in a change in opinion that means the heavy locomotives are allowed to run again. Oh well, the WSR clearly aren't going to tell us, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens. The appeal that was launched seems to have disappeared without a trace but given how poorly it seemed to be getting supported, I guess that's not really surprising.