Project Wareham

That, and the 'visual amenity' in Poole isn't what it was before someone slipped controlled substances into the planning committee's coffee (about the only excuse I can think of for what's occurred in the town centre over the past quarter century).

 

Yes but the debate about the crossing imho is a bit of a distraction.

The questions are

Q1) Does SRC need a bay platform or a siding to run into for the service to operate?

A1) No providing that a dmu or top and tailed formation is used (as the 2017 trial service demonstrated.)

Q2) Would the bay platform or sidings be useful?

A2) Yes of course it would as it would reduce the time on the mainline (ie the time stood at either the up or down platform blocking the mainline).

Q3) Which is the preferred choice?

A3) I do not know as I am not an ops person but imho the bay (rather than the sidings) would be more use as it is both off the mainline (doesnt block the up and down) AND the train can be boarded / disembarked from.

Q4) Which would be easier to resolve (the crossing or access to the bay)

A4) IMHO the bay as this is a NR / SRC / SWR issue whereas the crossing also involves DC WTC (Wareham Town Council) politicians and most of the population of the Wareham.

Not withstanding all the issues regarding the current financial situation SRC needs to run the second year trial. The longer this goes on the more challenging it is becoming and arguably the greater the risk to SRC from DC for failing to meet their obligations. Whilst DC may be understanding of the issues eventually a time will come when DC will say enough is enough.

 

Yes but in both local rags I have seen residents argue that is exactly what they want replicated, ie. full barriers controlled remotely and if Poole can have it with more trains then no reason why can't.

 

Cant have it as Poole is vehicular and Wareham is a footpath.
There are no approved barriered systems for footpath crossings in GB.
Councils and Wareham Town Trust have been told this on numerous occasions

 

But no one sees it as vehicular apart from NR and few enthusiasts. As you said yourself it is in a pedestrian area, and you could easily replicate that at Wareham as there would be room. (Not suggesting they do of course).

 

Why do you need a bay platform at Wareham anyway? The former down bay is occupied by a car park and an electric sub station for the electrification.
To re-instate the up bay platform would cost Hundreds of Thousands of pounds, so why would you need it and who would pay for it?
As for the down sidings, They have not been used to the best of my knowledge for at least 15 years and I would think in 2022 are no longer fit for purpose.
TBH I rather doubt if Network Rail can justify the cost or would even want to relay the sidings.

 

Poole is still classified as a vehicular roadway of which the relevant councils etc are aware

 

Without comment on the legal definitions or official awareness, this will always be an issue where a proposed change causes inconvenience to ordinary users. If I were a user of that crossing, whatever it's legal status, I'd be pretty hacked off to have a level 20 yard walk replaced by ramps/stairs and a bridge. This took some time to fix in Lincoln, where the now pedestrianised High Street crossing was far busier (trains and people), and the need to separate trains and pedestrians greater than Wareham (I can't comment on Poole)

 

I do not know why but it was my understanding that SRC wanted there to be a "refuge" where the DMU (or other traction etc) could go if there was a need to clear the mainline rather than having to go back to the branch, wait and then have to come back to Wareham Station.

There is also the issue that if the bay platform was used and the unit failed at Wareham it could stay there whereas if it failed on the mainline it would have to be removed quickly or delay penalties could be incurred. I do not know what the possibility of the DMU or any other unit failing at Wareham is but nevertheless it seems prudent to have somewhere at Wareham which wouldnt block the mainline.

 

There's a first time for everything. Is there any fundamental reason why there could never be an approved barriered system for a footpath crossing?

 

In principle, or in practice? As a layman, I can't see any good reason in principle for not being able to do this given that existing road LCs have to accommodate pedestrians. In practice, my hunch is that the key issue would be the expense of getting it signed off as safe for use on NR.

 

Soon we’ll all have to clip on to a safety line to use stairs…

 

I do find it strange that you can walk along the SW Coastal path (and many others in the UK) with sheer drops, no fences, yet in other areas you even need a risk assessment to sit at your desk in the office, or at home if you WFH.

 

Tom

 

I can not see any reason why a refuge siding would be required, as stated previously. if the down line is occupied then the up Swanage train is held on the branch at the home signal, I would hazard a guess that this would have been discussed in negotiations with the HMRI/OR&R anyway.

 

Strange but very easily explained.

If you walk along the SW Coast Path you are doing so at your own behest in your own free time. If you fall off it can be quite challenging to get a lawyer on a no win no fee to sue the landowner.

If you are at your desk and you fall off your chair you are at work in paid time working at the behest of an employer. You can quite easily sue your employer as there are thousands of no win no fee lawyers who will happily take a punt in your behalf alleging some defect in the chair, your desk, or that you were not properly trained in how to sit on a chair.

 

As I stated it was my understanding that SRC wanted a refuge. I was proposing a reason why but have not been informed of the reason. Perhaps @Rumpole who is a knowledgeable source could provide a definitive answer?

 

I thought that the rationale of the sidings was that they offered the opportunity to use either Up or Down Platforms. They also gave the ability to run-round in the yard, which could save top'n'tail working.
It's fortunate for NR that this intransigence is not universal, or we would never cut the number of level crossings.
Pat

 

I am not sure how much it is intransigence on the part of Network Rail and how much the strength of local opposition to the proposition.

SRC could of course tell DC that operating to / from Wareham requires access to the sidings and that until access is provided they would not progress plans to operate the service.

 

Is there not the space, or is the water table at Wareham too high for an underpass?