Swanage Railway General Discussion

Three roads, about 300' long looking at Google maps. Can't find anything about price, but it's not finished yet so maybe they'll announce it when it's done.

 

Looking at the Trust magazine the intention is to use the Fursebrook sidings for maintenance as well as storage,
Presumably the 4TC group will try and do as much work before the unit goes back to the Harmon's Cross sidings under tapaulin. If they had Fursebrook sidings could continue work there?.

The Bluebell website on the link seems to be much more informative than the various Swanage Railway websites and FB pages.
The main news source for the SR is the printed quarterly Magazine for trust members. Maybe an incentive to join the Trust?

This Carriage was used on the Weymouth line, so perhaps the Swanage Heritage Carriage Group might be interested rather than it being scrapped. But as you say is low capacity, so limited for use in running trains, also the group still has several unrestored carriages which have more historical importance.
From the srstock.co.uk 4366 is next in the queue.
"A fund to raise money towards it's eventual restoration work is open and it is planned that structural restoration may start in summer 2022 although more funds do
need to be raised. Once restored, 4366 will again run with 4365 which will be unique in railway preservation. An authentic 4 car set 298, using Corridor Composite 5761 and Restaurant Open Third 1457, is intended to be formed to recreate a typical matching Bulleid carriage formation."
Then the 2 Maunsell Push pull carriages in off site storage..

 

Most brake vehicles have low capacity, but one is needed per train. It could always provide a more interesting alternative to a Mk 1 brake! It isn't as though the SR has large numbers of carriages awaiting restoration.

 

The unwanted Maunsell 3724 at the Bluebell might be more cost effective to restore for the Push pull set than the stored 6699 carriage?. Wonder if
30053 with 2 Push pull carriages would get much use outside galas?. But will be a good representation of trains that used to run on the branch line

 

The London Underground 4TC did some summer excursions to Swanage with 2 class73 locos and seemed to fit in OK at Swanage.
The longer rail excursions with steam trains were out of the season peak so as not to cause problems.
[/QUOTE]
I did just fit in the bay being only 4 coaches and being T & T thus still allowing the two locos on the service trains the ability to run round.

 

I did just fit in the bay being only 4 coaches and being T & T thus still allowing the two locos on the service trains the ability to run round.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, Wonder if that was the day that I was the Swanage signalman?

 

One of the problems with Furzebrook is the fact that it is only the sidings that are unused. Perenco still use the office buildings for all non-wellhead staff [after a major blast in west Texas in 2014: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-blast-texas-idUSBREA4001820140501 all non-wellhead staff must be accommodated away from possible explosions for safety reasons]. Their staff can also nearly fill the small car park. Quite reasonably, Perenco do not want their office staff troubled by noisy railway operations (loose shunting and or maintenance work, etc.) going on a few feet from their windows. Currently, it appears Perenco will not vacate their buildings any time soon, as Wytch Farm Oil Field is still producing oil and gas profitably, so railway maintenance is a non-starter. Environmental issues [oil spills, etc.] raise even more potential problems as current deeds specify.
Regarding an earlier comment about creating a 'similar facility' elsewhere along the railway. This very point has been investigated ad nauseam over several decades to my knowledge. It was due to these various research investigations that came up with squeezing a 2-road carriage shed [lean-to arrangement] at Herston.
Unlike some heritage railways, the Swanage Branch is not blessed with copious amounts of 'spare' land upon which any useful development might be considered. It is bordered, in the main, by 'prime' farming land which - I suspect - would not be cheap to purchase. In a few areas there might be sufficient space between boundary fences to expand to a two track railway but no wider. The amount of traffic carried, however, would not warrant two tracks like the GCR.
Incidentally, four years ago, Knight Frank's farmland index showed the average value of agricultural land in the South West rose 0.4 per cent in the first quarter of 2018, signalling the average coming out between £7,000 and £12,000 per acre. Goodness knows how much it would cost now.

 

Land in Purbeck, is around £20,000 per acre for small farm plots. Development land, well its name your price really. I would estimate that to build say, the NYMR carriage barn, in Purbeck you would be talking £250-400k in land alone.
The problem is, most of the land in Purbeck is owned by the Scott, Rempstone or National Trust estates and it is extremely rare for land to become available. Also the railway is in an area which is EXTREMELY sensitive to development.

Things however are not insurmountable providing you have the cash to hand...Robertsbridge has shown that. If the SR had a wealthy backer, things would clearly progress. You can but hope!

 

Hmmm, Wonder if that was the day that I was the Swanage signalman?[/QUOTE]
28 July 2019 if you keep records of your turns Andy.

 

I have been interested in buying land for horticulture many years ago.

I was advisd by a farmer that if you want to buy a small plot then you get into competition with the 'Horsey' market who are willing/able to pay much higher prices than a farmer can justify.

Worth pointing out that Jeremy Clarkson admits to buying his farm for the inheritance tax advantages which is pushing up prices

 

Land gets cheaper the more you want. But the days of £10k an acre, in Dorset at least are over. Small plots for agricultural or Equestrian use tend to be 1-10 acres and go for between 17-30k an acre in Dorset. You plan to develop that land and get permission to do so, just add 5 zeros onto the end of the 17-30k figure.
Purbeck in particular is blighted by large estates and wealthy land owners who have no intention of selling land as they simply don't need too. Small plots end up in bidding wars and the price is over inflated.
The National Trust are notorious for land grabbing in Purbeck which just exasperates the problem even further.
,
A comparison to a railway in Scotland vs the Swanage Railway is of really no use whatsoever. The Swanage Railway is both blessed and blighted by its location.

 

Thanks for the detailed explanation.
I notice that on the web that originally the Wytch Farm Oil Field was to be wound down in 2016, why BP sold it and made a £500,000 donation to the SR for the road crossing. But Perenco have managed to keep the oil field profitable with less production and intend to keep it open till 2036. As you say this makes getting a train maintenance operation at the sidings harder.

But the National Trust was founded to prevent developers on "public" land, so is doing it's job well.
But like the SR it is a non profit charitable trust with a business operation which has suffered over the last 2 years.
It is simpathic to heritage railways, so possible it might have land near the SR suitable for a carriage shed. But unless there is an existing building which can be used, will struggle to justify buildings in a public park area.
The new Bluebell railway shed sounds good, SR needs something like the Hornby Margate one collection warehouse where the observation carriage has been stored, but much nearer.

 

The NT has its own constituents to please, and a reputation for a very commercially robust estates team*. I would be extremely surprised, pleasantly so, if there were to be a mutual benefit for railway and NT that would allow industrial development by the railway and NT to compromise on economic return to help the railway.

* - I spent yesterday in a trustee training session; the ability of a charity to cut a deal for its assets in favour of another charity is uncomfortably limited and very much tied to the donor charity’s purposes. The training was in the context of how a diocese relates to its parishes (each being legally distinct bodies); it will be significantly more challenging when considering two wholly unrelated charities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's all very well saying the National Trust is doing its job and 'protecting land' but the reality is that their resources outstrip that of farmers, small holders, other charities and indeed Swanage Railway. It means they have an unfair advantage and become very powerful at the expense of everyone else. The National Trust are a good body overall, indeed I am a member, but their practices and power make them a problem when it comes to rural areas.
You cannot do anything without them objecting or as I put it land grabbing. They make rural development extremely difficult.

Its all very well people on here saying, just get on with building all these things without having any idea of the complexities of land ownership in Purbeck. I would say that upwards of 75% of the rural land in Purbeck is owned by three estates.
I have quite a bit of experience with them being an utter nightmare to deal with.

 

I’m saying nothing about whether I think the NT should or shouldn’t be acquiring land in Purbeck, or what constitutes appropriate land management within the AONB.

What I am saying is that they have a reputation as a tough landowner (see also their reputation in the Lakes with tenant sheep farmers), and more importantly that they are legally constrained in how they can act by the obligations that charity law puts on the trustees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well unless it has been sorted out by now the Swanage Railway is home to one of the grosser linear scrapyards. Tidy things up and landowners may be more sympathetic.

 

That’s fair enough.

 

I agree about the linear scrapyard which will get a higher profile if the Wareham service and charters start. I notice on the web am the DMU trading was continuing on Friday.
I was thinking about the National Trust's Railway Museum at Penrhyn Castle, and if the NT had any suitable sheds they could allow the SR to store, and maybe display on some days, some of the non operational rolling stock to help keep them from deteriating and provide an area where they could be worked on?

 

The area beyond Norden isn't as bad as it once was and much effort has been taken to clear redundant rolling stock in the last few years. These things however take time, getting rid of stock is an emotive subject, especially with the rolling stock owners. These negotiations take time.

 

Negotiations? Surely SRT has a written agreement with each of the rolling stock owners clearly and unambiguously laying down the obligations and rights of both parties? Central to that agreement would be the mechanism by which rolling stock owners would be given notice to remove their property should the SRT deem that in the interests of the SRT SRC>