Project Wareham

I believe that the Luddites had trouble with change also!

 

I have previously recommended that you read Modern Railways; I repeat that recommendation. You would find out a lot about how the railway industry is, and how demanding it is to achieve change.

As for coupling systems, I share your view that it ought not to be difficult. But the reality is different, and the combination of physical and electronic connections makes for significant challenges - to the extent that there are even restrictions on when and whether different classes of Hitachi class 80x unit can be attached to each other.

The SR is a small business, operating in an environment dominated by very large organisations. Those large organisations set the standards, and even simple change can be difficult and expensive to obtain. There’s a reason why VivaRail’s refurbished D stock is so slow to enter service - a small company will always struggle to get the required permissions. This is not like short line railroads in the US.

The challenge is not willpower, but resources to work around those constraints. I would love to see the SR operating all of its trains to Wareham, and some beyond. But in a world where being able to do that costs a lot, I praise the wisdom of the SR management for not betting the railway on that prospect, and instead focusing on what will strengthen the railway for a long future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So anyone who disagrees with you is a Luddite? I have nothing against anything on your wish if it doesn't threaten what has already been created by the efforts of those who have created what already exists, and I have nothing against the potential market being tested, but unlike you I'm prepared to wait until the railway is ready to give it its best possible shot, and I suggest that you acknowledge that as a sensible approach and then shut up till it happens - or move back to Dorset and take a job helping to make it happen!

 

Maybe there exists a chance for some middle ground here. Is it really 90 days or nothing? Can we not start thinking about 3 x 30 days? After all, the 90 days were never one after the other. No one in their right mind would continue with a trial after the first block of 30 days if the results were dire. It would be slightly more complex in the establishment phase but much less of a risk overall.

 

To do so would require agreement with DC (as successors to DCC) who are party to the 2014 agreement. SRT SRC would have to argue what makes operating now (2022 or 2023) so very different from the conditions of 2017 (when the 60 day trial ran) that justifies effectively running 3 mini trials.

One of the points advanced by SRT (or at least one member of the COM) was that a very large part of the costs were fixed and sunk (line upgrade, signalling, DMU, level crossing) and that the direct operating costs were very low (diesel, routine maintenance of the dmu, station access cost, track access cost) comparatively speaking.

If a thirty day trial was run (and the results were poor) then one argument which could be advanced was that the service had not had time to become known. Certainly in terms of marketing a 30 day service is challenging to promote if only a very small budget is allowed for.

There are a number of realities which SRT SRC have to face and decide the way forward:
1) costs are rising dramatically and there is considerable economic uncertainty
2) recruiting and retaining volunteers is becoming more challenging year on year
3) the input per volunteer (turns per year) on average is declining. There are fewer volunteers effectively doing a full time job on the railway unpaid.
4) the legal risk of not operating the trial service (2014 agreement with DC which effectively compels them to operate the trial service.)
5) the financial risk of operating the trial service.

SRT SRC could approach DC (indeed they may well have already done so) and put the dilemma before DC. To some extent what DC say dictates the course of action that SRT SRC will take. DC may "let them off the hook permanently or temporarily" in which case the legal threat may be removed, reduced or deferred. DC may offer some financial support in which case the financial risk may be reduced or DC may say the agreement is the agreement in which case SRT SRC have to decide whether to operate or not to operate (and see what action DC takes).

In many respects this issue feels like Millstone 2 (a rerun of the original Millstone). IMHO SRT SRC need to move heaven and earth to operate the trial service (and fund any shortfall) as at the very least (1) it removes the legal threat (2) it would provide a data set that demonstrates the demand and financial viability or lack of.

AFAIK the SRT has approx 4000 members. On the basis that the 90 day trial would lose say £140K (based on the 60 day trial multiplied by 1.5 - for 90 days - and adding for inflation) that works out at £35 per member. Why doesnt the SRT write to every member, outline the situation and ask for the £35? Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Perhaps true to the Victorian era when the Swanage Branch was built, the SRT SRC do seem to have adopted two of Mr Micawbers principles:

• "Something will turn up."
• "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."

 

As has previously been posted, there is always going to be a conflict between running a steam heritage railway and a regular passenger service on the same line. Trundling along at 25mph is not going to cut it, when regular travellers will want a quicker, more frequent service. Upgrading track and signalling to support faster running just introduces an extra level of complexity. I can completely understand why SR management have taken the decision that they have, rather than risk the future of the line. Other lines who have tried to do this (eg WSR) have ended up in the same place. Along the coast there are plans to reopen the Fawley branch as far as Hythe. Services every 30 minutes with 60mph running is what is envisaged. Difficult to see how this would work mixed in with steam hauled services.

Running services into Wareham is always going to be problematic as services would have to run 'wrong road'. Is a halt at Worgret Junction feasible, similar to what the IOWSR has at Smallbrook? At least that would provide a connection to SWR services.

 

Might be easier for all concerned to close Wareham station and move it to Worgret Junction. 1 mile to the town centre as opposed to half a mile just now, but there's easy access onto the A352, plenty of land nearby, and no problems building an accessible footbridge! And of course easy to separate Swanage operations from the main line.

 

It may be a source of conflict, problematic, challenging, financially ruinous...(insert synonym here) however:
(1) It is a stated aim of the SRT to run services between Swanage and Wareham
(2) the lease of the line agreed in 2014 with DC the Landlord includes the commitment to operate two trials - one of 60 days and one of 90 days
(3) C£1.4M of public money has been spent refurbishing the Class 117 and Class 121 DMU to mainline standards for the specific purpose of operating to / from Wareham
(4) C£3M of public money has been spent upgrading the line and connection to enable running to / from Wareham.
(5) Other moneys (donations and gifts) have been spent on furthering Project Wareham.
(6) Perenco and BP gave £500K towards the cost of the Norden Level Crossing.

SRT SRC is not in a position to rewrite history or ignore the current situation.

As I have posted above there are a number of ways to move forward. However challenging it may be standing still is only an option if DC agree to effectively "stopping the clock",
My fear is that if SRT SRC cede control of their own destiny then they may well find themselves in a far worse position than they are now.
However unlikely it may be GBR and DC may decide (and be able to fund and contract) an operator to run a service over SRT SRC leased metals. SRT SRC would then have to accommodate such an operation which could result in SRC playing second fiddle to the TOC operated Wareham service. Highly unlikely it may be nevertheless it is a possibility. If SRT SRC say it would be financially ruinous, non starter (insert synonym) then they may find themselves explaining why, if that is the case, they have continued to advance this project?

 

I thought the next trial will be a 3 or 4 shuttle between Wareham and Corfe, so only a small overlap between Norden and Corfe, where passengers can then catch a steam train to Swanage, so there should be no conflict?.

 

That was certainly postulated based on a) the 2017 trial experience when many passengers opted to disembark at norden / cc and change to steam b) the SWR Summer Saturday only service.

The advantage is that more services could be run between CC and Wareham and certainly less congestion than on the 2017 gold timetable when there were 3 trains in service between Swanage and Norden (2 X Steam 1 X Wareham Diesel).

This service offering though does have the "disadvantage" that it isnt offering what was "promoted" ie a service between Swanage and Wareham given it implies it is a through service and doesnt require a change en route.

We do get back to the reality (for all manner of reasons) that the most likely users of the service would be incoming day trippers using it as a tourist experience rather than locals using it as a local transport service.

 

But who would pick up the cost of that which would be vast. The new housing estate on the Worgret roundabout would probably find a new station equidistant, for everyone else it would be further away from the town's housing. The railway is in a cutting between the junction and the A352 so the new mainline station would need to be on farmland or where Worgret Farm is. Maybe not great PR to be suggesting removal of that at the moment. I suspect the engineering costs would be more than normal due to the fall of the land from the A352 towards the railway. It could also be argued it makes the crossing situation at Wareham worse as trains will now be moving faster. Google earth image below.
Based on the situation of Beam Park in Essex where the government will not allow the station to be built despite not having to fund the build (developers plus the GLA who had committed £42.3M) due to the costs of running it, little chance of them coughing up for this.

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/article...re-of-beam-park-station-in-east-london-50831/

 

Precisely - spend tens of millions of pounds to benefit a project whose appeal (passenger numbers) has not been quantified.

 

See the reasoned answers to the problem below. The efforts that counted initially were those that saved the trackbed from being paved over.A commitment was made ,so honour it. There is an element that is obviously quite happy for SR operations to virtually stop at Norden, If the trial services are unsuccessful then that experience can be noted. If it is successful will it have the full support of SR and those adherents who want a steam railway to Norden only? As far as moving back to Dorset from what I read in the Press getting off a bus at Poole Bus Station can be potentially harmful to a senior citizen's well being! Tory values at work again!!

 

But that is going back to who would use the service, some day trippers may just change a Wareham and go to Corfe, others may not mind another change to a steam train at Corfe onto Swanage, spending a bit of time in the town or beach before returning.

 

Atterntion Molehill constructors! New Forest MP to meet Rail Minister re restoration of Hythe Branch. Hampshire Chronicle. Informative!

 

Excellent news. Which is about full commercial restoration as part of the national network, in an area with significantly larger public transport needs.

You need to decide, within the context of the legal situation as it applies to railways in England, whether you want Swanage as a part of the national network, or to be the excellent restoration that has been achieved. The sums follow, rapidly, from that.

 

Restoring your Railways. Is that a completely different entity from the forthcoming GBR?

 

What I want does not matter. What does matter is looking to the original aims of the SRP and , as noted above, apparently confirmed in 2017. The answer to the first part of your question is, I think ,going to be decided by political bodies and if you were a politician which one would you choose?

 

There are threads in the general rail forum for this. Basically the Conservative plan is all main lines will come under an enlarged network rail organisation who will also sell tickets. Individual private companies will get contracts to run trains.

 

So I repeat my question. Do you believe that the right policy is for the SR to be made part of the nationalised railway, and subject to the vagaries of political prioritisation, or allowed to build on the successes of what the SR has achieved in the last 40 years?

The SR can run to Wareham, compliant with the 2014 agreement and the 1981 objectives, and yet still not be a full time passenger service of the sort you appear to be pressing for.

For me, the 1981 aspiration delivered as a "commuter" service needs to be killed off, as I do not believe it is compatible with what the SRT have achieved and would jeopardise much if not all of what has been achieved.