SVR General Discussion

Much like the ELR and KWVR schemes of similar character, they're dead in the water if you think through the possible problems as brought up here. They sound nice and make the group proposing look all clued in but it would cheaper and easier to brand this as a bus shuttle to Kidderminster mainline.

 

Quite a lot to unpick here, but I think you are well and truly running away with what is being proposed. Nowhere is it being suggested that Kidderminster to Bewdley is adopted as part of the national network!
What is being proposed is that mainline service trains run to Bewdley on a (semi?) regular basis. This would be West Midlands Trains running on SVR infrastructure, they would abide by SVR rules, regulations and use the SVR station at Bewdley. No different to a mainline charter doing the same or the occasional GWR unit going to Bishops Lydeard & absolutely no need to alter SVR infrastructure.
What many people may not realise is the sheer number of mainline movements that already take place between the SVR and the mainline - this commercial traffic has been an area of growth for the line since new management came in. Most weeks (sometimes several times a week), something comes off the mainline.
The signal box at Kidderminster is already linked with the West Midlands Signalling Centre, handling transfers between the railways is quick & very simple.
I do think the economics of such a service are likely poor, but there is absolutely no physical reason why such a service could not happen if it could be resourced.

 

I guarantee ASLEF and the RMT would say no to that. It would mean learning an entirely new rule book for 3.5 miles, it would mean mixing rule books and operations, etc. It’s just a non starter.

 

Quite possibly, but we have seen mainline TOC units run to Bishops Lydeard, Swanage and Okehampton - these things aren't impossible. Do we have any SVR drivers who also drive for WMT?
As I said, I think a regular service is highly unlikely due to the economics, but people were ruling this out on physical grounds and ignoring what already occurs - this has happened elsewhere.
If someone were to come to the SVR with a sensible business case for running the odd WMT unit onto Bewdley on say summer Saturdays or Bank Holidays for example, the railway would be daft to ignore it. The novelty value and publicity would likely outweigh any negatives.
People are completely dismissing this outright, but this has obviously come up as idea in a passenger focus group somewhere. I would be interested to hear the reasoning.
If someone has a pro-rail idea that raises the profile of the railway industry as a whole, gets people talking, im all for it. At worse perhaps some new contacts and connections - something the SVR has drawn heavily on in recent years. A new, fresh and viable idea might just come of it. Dismissing it outright because the bridge at Bewdley will need converting to a lift and GSMR aerials will appear by Bewdley tunnel are equally outlandish as the likely economics.
Too often people look for reasons not to do things, thats why we have had a shrinking not expanding railway for so many years.

 

I agree, and "because the unions won't do it" is one of the worst reasons I've ever yet seen. I still file this in the same basket as similar ideas for Leek or Minehead, because the question ignores some of the really knotty issues that surround overlaying "mainline" services on a heritage railway.

What does interest me is why SLUG think this is so important that they're willing to campaign on it. If it isn't one person's hobby horse (and I'm well aware that it may well be), then it would be interesting to know what the issue is that such an extension might address.

 

The complications are just not worth it, cheaper and more efficient to run a connecting express bus service that could be made attractive if run with vintage vehicles. There are plenty of preserved Midland Red buses around.

 

If you want to attract commuter traffic, then the connecting bus needs to be much better than a superannuated scrapyard dodger. And that begs the question of where these travellers may be coming from. Bewdley itself? The Wyre Forest villages? Further up the Severn valley?

 

Another very strong point against

In those occasions, likely that the services are not regarded as regular timetabled and instead special services. A route conductor would need to be provided for the driver, and another for the guard. Yet more wages to have to pay for something of regularity.

 

“Because the unions won’t do it” is not a bad argument at all, they are doing the job their members pay for.

And actually if you want a better argument the ORR would strongly advise against it for mixing rule books!

 

If there is commuter traffic to be had then I’m sure the normal bus operators would be running the service already. Any Birmingham commuters will already be driving to Kidderminster and using the train from there, a lot quicker than messing around getting on and off the SVR by train

 

Theres 2 SVR drivers who sign work for WMR and SVR. So you’ve got 2 people, who when on their rest days want to drive steam or diesels/DMU. Not be at work. And when at work are in a rigid link structure so to remove them from that for special work would require another 2 drivers being trained up and brought in to the company to provide this service.

 

Quite likely - but sometimes new markets are found.

 

That latter makes more sense - though I still find the "it can't be done" deeply depressing

 

The simple solution would be for SVR crews to be passed out on whatever units are going to be used and for them to take over. As for changing over rule books, the NYMR do it with no problem so, if there's a will it could happen. Having said that, I do think the idea is a non-starter commercially and its only value is to give us something to discuss.

 

For some reason I am yet to fathom, going Heritage to Mainline (Ie NYMR) is somehow considered better practice than Mainline to Heritage (Ie WMR running a service on a heritage line), when infact both should be the same. It is proven mixing rule books can lead to incidents as the person can use the wrong rule in the wrong place.

One of the big reasons I detest the words “It’s not how we do it on the mainline” when working on the SVR. Two totally seperate entities

 

I also doubt you’re going to find a glut of SVR drivers and guards willing to train on a 172 or 196 if I’m honest!

 

A bit different as that’s the other way round, as soon as the NYMR crew go beyond Grosmont they are on there’s no mixing rulebooks, they are on the mainline rules only.

 

It's the same either way - one crew need to know two rulebooks for two different railways. I get the points about both best practice and confusion, but genuinely wonder what the actual level of risk is for trained staff.

 

A heritage line crew working on a limited length of mainline is nit the same as the other way round. It would need a conductor driver on the SVR. Leave heritage lines to do what they do best

 

@2857Harry has made some strong assertions about working across two rule books, so am curious as to the true level of risk for someone to work (checks notes) 3 miles at a 25mph maximum speed.

Otherwise, I regard this as pie in the sky and damaging to the local community through its failure to acknowledge the role that heritage railways play