West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Ah yes, I remember it now. I can see why FS123 was glad it's gone. It would definitely be a contender for a "linear scrapyard/restoration sometime in future if we get round to it" rolling stock item. That said, such coaches are of great value if one has the time and money to restore them.

 

Signs and heritage. Oh dear. My reading is that you don't like the modern "beware of trains" signs of which you are very critical. So basically we have three options:
1. Use an appropriate real vintage sign. An original might not be available, but we might (at a cost) make some replicas. Cost is an issue and maybe finding a 'real' sign with appropriate wording.
2. Create new signs with modern wording but in heritage style. Personally I object to this as you are creating something which never existed in the past. A bit like painting modern rolling stock in GWR colours. In that case you're not preserving the past but creating a pastiche.
3. Use modern railway signs. These are indeed 100% authentic (you see the same things out on the mainline) but perhaps jar on the eye. But they are cost effective and they do mean that in the event of an incident we do not get criticised for inadequate signs. Imagine the cross examination question, "so Mr GM, what made you think that your old fashioned and outdated signs were better and safer than the approved modern versions?"
If you read any accident report about level crossings, the first thing looked at is the signs.
So the railway has taken the virtuous decision to go with option 3. Perhaps in due course we can get to option 1.
I note that noone objected to the HST at minehead painted in FGW livery. No one suggested it should be in chocolate and cream.....
We are about to restart the heritage committee. I could do with constructive and helpful support, not jibes and brickbats....we are all volunteers!!!
Ian Coleby

 

In the 1950s my family used to holiday at Dunster Beach, there was a quarry surrounded by trees about 200 yards on the LHS after entering the beach site. In Ian Colby's book position of the 'stone' siding suggests to me that the siding lead into the quarry. To my then young eyes the quarry looked very deep and full of water. When the river relief channel was constructed in the mid-60s the spoil was used to fill most of the quarry. I wonder if the siding was used to move red sandstone for the MD and DR buildings?

 

You will not please all the people all the time but you know that already. The modern sign that had the sore thumb appearance is the one by the Minehead signalman walkway. I may have missed it but AFAIK nobody without a PTS qualification should be anywhere near it. To a layman like me it seems superfluous. So far I have seen no explanation why it was deemed necessary. It would be nice to know the thinking behind the decision to plant it.

 

Hi Hugh, I don't know but suspect not. This is marshy land that was once under the sea. The red stone probably came from further inland, such as Triscombe or Capton. I think the quarry you refer to was used for gravel used as track ballast. It was referred to as 'ballasto field" which tends to suggest it's usage!
Ian Coleby

 

As far as option 1 is concerned, I suspect you'll get some open wallets if you ask for donations, and if you do a batch costs will of course be lower; even better if you club in with another railway.

For option 2 focusing on the pastiche of the signs but ignoring much bigger examples of pastiche such as choc n cream Mk1s on a branch line (of which I have no criticism, merely an example) seems a little out of proportion. Claiming that modern signs would be more authentic than something that looked more appropriately heritage seems a bit odd, yes the sign itself is authentic, but not in that setting in the slightest - no sign is an island!

As for the HST, I don't think that's really a fair comparison, it's hardly a regular. I bet if the railway regularly used stock too modern for the line in a modern livery there'd be some unhappy bunnies. As it is Mk1s are painted in choc n cream and blood and custard, hardly authentic to the line, but it fits in much better than a blue and grey DMU, even if the latter might be more authentic!

That said, I fully take your point about safety and I'm in no place to comment on that aspect of it, other than, as Yorkshireman says, the need for one in a staff only area.

As for constructive and helpful support, my first port of call is always "how does someone else do it?" Go on some fact finding missions to other railways, might even get a train ride out of it!

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Check out the Vale of Rheidol post on their Faceache page on the 20th - i believe this might link.

https://www.facebook.com/rheidolrailway/photos/pcb.1897374650278217/1897366430279039/?type=3

Four Pictures of new heritage signs replacing modern reflective signage.

 

Hugh - I'd suggest the 'quarry' you remember was in fact the old course of the River Avill. See the map on the link I provided earlier. The small lake still there and called "The Hawn". The 'Ballasto Field' was between "The Hawn" and the railway and also shows up nicely on that map, complete with slope symbols. I was wrong to suggest "pebbles" were quarried there and Ian C is surely right to suggest gravels, given that most of the higher ground (Ker Moor) between Dunster Station and Blue Anchor (inc the "Ballasto Field") consists of gravels and clays washed down from the hills in times of great river flows. I'm sure the spoil from the flood relief channel that you mention was used to infill a good part of the old course of the Avill, leaving us with the rather attractive "Hawn" we see today. I could be quite wrong of course

Steve

 

I have only seen the new signs at Crowcombe and they do rather stick out like a sore thumb. Could the new signs not have been mounted on old black painted rail ? The round galvanised post look very "un heritage".
I was at Williton yesterday and could not see any of the new signs around the level crossing. Are they not required at WN or did I miss them ?
As regards the HST at MD it was only there for a short while so if you did not want to see it just stay away.
I do realise that we cannot stay in the past forever and that current HS rules etc cannot be ignored. I do think however that more of an effort could have been made with these new signs within station limits for a more heritage style.

 

I would like to know what the ORR have to say on the matter. Does anyone know?

 

I agree with @Flying Scotsman 123; I'm definitely an Option 1 supporter.
I've put my hand in my pocket regularly to help the Railway in any way I can, most recently making a small donation to acquire the Minehead signal box sign.
I would be delighted to make regular contributions to a fund aimed at replacing the new signs with something I would consider more appropriate. I say that in the knowledge that the Stogumber Station Gala Cake Fund may suffer!
I have to say that I find it strange that our railway can work so hard to create a wonderful 'turn the clock back' experience; beautifully maintained buildings, strategically placed baggage trolleys and milk churns, staff in appropriate attire and a wonderful assortment of locomotives and rolling stock.
Yet, in my opinion, the image is devalued by the new signage. We all know that current legislation makes it necessary for us to display warning signs everywhere; can we make them more sympathetic to the environment they enjoy?
Stef.

 

@Stefan Mlynek If only authentic period road traffic levels were achievable at Blue Anchor, eh? A few more modern eyesores could be done away with!

 

Hmmm, nor really sure. It's perhaps a bit different for the VoR as they are representing a self-contained railway with its own way of doing things (and I know they were taken over by the GWR). But that style of sign never existed in the past, and is in effect an imaginary thing. Is it right to do that...i mean to make things that never existed, rather than the more modern version which is, at least, authentic in its own way. I don't have an answer, by the way, I'm just saying that we need to be careful how we approach these things. Maybe we have already gone too far down that path.

 

I think it has been pointed out before on this thread that the signs in those pictures are all operating signs ie for train staff. The WSR signs in question are, in the main, for public crossings. Have the VoR replaced their public crossing signs? If so can we have some pictures? The VoR example is not quite like for like. As a general comment , not aimed at any railway in particular, when we look at other railways and how they do things, perhaps it might look "good" but they may not doing those things well or even safely. Clearly with the new signs the WSR is trying to ensure things are done properly - as long as the public is properly warned then maybe the new style of sign can be replaced in time with a suitable sign that rather better looks the part. How about the new sign objectors each sponsor a replacement sign - for £??? you can have your name on the back of the sign

Steve

 

I have criticised the new signs as in my opinion they do not enhance the heritage appeal to visitors to our railway. I do not know how much these signs cost but in would be interesting to know what the difference in cost would be for a heritage sign against the cost of these new signs which I sure were not cheap.

 

Its easy to see why the sign was changed; how many members of the public know that SW means "Passengers must not cross the line"

 

Absolutely, just blind copying is no good, but a good start, especially if you can have a chat with that railway's responsible person for such things.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Agreed. What makes you think the WSR doesn't talk to other railways?

Steve

 

Nothing at all, but it seemed like a better suggestion than folk here proclaiming that "it'll be fine" or conversely "it won't be fine!"

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Stop Walking?