http://www.mineheadraillink.org.uk


At yesterday's RailFuture meeting at Yatton, this was on the agenda with a presentation by Alex de Mendoza and David Latimer, and to hear of a serious effort being made (with some positive results) in getting the operational and business cases analysed.  There are parallels to draw looking back to the very start of this decade to the TransWilts - at the point that it moved from campaigning to putting all the jigsaw pieces into place.  Whether the pieces all fit for the Taunton to Minehead line is an interesting question; my personal thought is that there's a high probability that they should / could.

 
I'm intrigued by the comment that the speed limit has been increased above 25mph on heritage lines elsewhere. I can't think of any where it has been increased for passenger services.

But other than that, a very positive move, and I hope it is successful.

 

Great Central?   From Wikipedia:


And I think those 45 m.p.h. trains are public, passenger carrying. 

On the West Somerset, 25 to 45 m.p.h. would make an enormous difference; not sure how much going up to 60 m.p.h. would add as it's not exactly straight!

 
Speed is probably the limiting factor, but I hope it doesn't defeat the idea. Even a very limited through service, such as two trains daily, timed at weekends to match Butlins' kicking out times, would be a great asset.

The one-third of Butlins inmates who come from South Wales would probably be better served by a ferry. I read that a through service will benefit those with children and bulky luggage. Presumably, the same goes for those with luggage and bulky children?

 

I believe that refers to the demonstration mail trains, no passenger carrying services operate above 25mph on the GCR and I'm not aware of any plans to change that.

 

Would it really? I suspect that the limiting factors just as much as the track geometry are the signalling system (as far as I know the remaining distant signals are all "fixed") and the presence of several unbarriered (at least one without even warning lights) public road crossings. An "express" train would also need either a clear run, or timing to coincide with an opposite "express"; otherwise it would just end up waiting at the end of the single-track sections.

A regular year-round service would not be possible unless GWR/Network Rail between them organise (or pay WSR for) the manning of the signal boxes at the time they would normally be closed, and undertake overnight track maintenance to replace the current out-of-season maintenance. Therefore any regular through trains would be limited to the summer season, and here the suggestion that spare capacity can be guaranteed is very questionable. On any of the "gala" weekends the line is operated at , or very close to, maximum capacity, and on other weekends any spare paths are regularly taken up by visiting charters. Away from weekends there are often stock/training/maintenance trains to fit in.

I believe that Mr Mendoza and others in his group should be concentrating solely on the one aim that seems to me to have a realistic chance of success, which is the extension of some Taunton-bound trains to Bishops Lydeard, possibly to an independent GWR platform. Transfer from there to a WSR service would hardly be onerous, and once this aspiration is realised, then by all means start pursuing grander plans.

A Bishops Lydeard service could also, at different hours, serve a completely different market, namely as a park-and-ride for West Somerset commuters to Bristol and beyond.

At the same time (apologies for straying into "bus" territory, but relevant to this subject, particularly as the bus belong to First Group), we really do need buses that are adequate for holidaymakers. Struggling past the suitcases and pushchairs on a summer Friday-afternoon Minehead-bound bus is a bit of a nightmare. And can not at least some of the services be scheduled to miss out the lengthy detours to Lydeard and Watchet? Perhaps someone who cares to step into the shoes of the late-unlamented Webber Buses could offer such an "express" service?

 
Thanks for posting those thought-provoking comments and suggestions, Puffing Billy. 

For the benefit of our readers, there is a previous topic on the Coffee Shop forum which contains a lot of background information relating to the West Somerset Railway, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2688.0 

 
Having refreshed my memory of what has been discussed before (see my previous post), may I offer the following comments and suggestions?

If I were running a business in Minehead, I would much prefer a rail service that brought people direct to me by train from Taunton, from morning commuter time through to early evening.

If I were a home owner in Minehead, I would welcome the 15% increase in property value resulting from a decently served local railway station.

If I were a resident of Minehead, I would welcome the work, business and pleasure opportunities provided by a decent local railway service, offering through links to the national rail network.

If I ran a heritage railway, I would welcome it running to a vibrant seaside resort, rather than to an inaccessible and relatively rundown backwater.  At present, I have to drive down the M5 from Nailsea and then turn off at Taunton onto the A39 to Bishops Lydeard to have any realistic expectation of enjoying a worthwhile amount of quality time in my day out on the West Somerset Railway.

A decent local rail service isn't one that requires a change, 4 miles short of the county town, with a first service getting there just before midday, and the last leaving just before 4 pm, with no service at all off season. 

May I offer a comparison with the situation on the Portishead Branch line, where local businesses and residents are fairly crying out for the line to be reopened.  Or indeed the various branch lines in Devon and Cornwall, which have seen spectacular success, in terms of passenger numbers and the associated boosts to their local economies.

Yes, there are logistical and therefore cost implications in such proposals for Minehead, but please let's take a more positive approach and try to achieve them! 

 

The Minehead line was a very late closure and along with some other lines (Oxford - Cambridge and Edinburgh - Carlisle via Hawick come to mind) is one of a group that seem to offer very real prospects of being a huge success  if they were to carry regular passenger traffic again - and by "regular passenger traffic" I mean people who's primary reason for being there is to get from one place to another along the way.  i.e. primary use being to get from "A" to "B" and not for the journey itself.

When we were looking at options for our own line - a service enhancement rather than a new service - we could have batted for something less than we have - i.e. what fitted with current stock and services.  We concluded that would have been unlikely to work and that we needed true peak commuter services to form the backbone.  Without a fully worked case - which the Minehead Chamber of Commerce based group now plans - I don't know how much of a parallel there is, but I would make an educated guess that this may not be the time to be timid, and to fulfill what the town's said to be crying out for there's need for a boldness beyond the minimum which whilst it might generate other traffic and uses wouldn't fulfil the town's / Chamber's stated goals.

 
As Operating Superintendent and for a while General Manager of the WSR from early in 1976 through to the winter of 1979 I had a hand in the re-opening of the line after 5+ years of closure.  Our intention was the re-opening of the line right into Taunton with a year-round service provided by DMUs, with income supplemented by the summer steam tourist trains.  The high price demanded by BR for the Running Powers Agreement for the couple of miles from MP 165 1/4 into the Bay Platform on the Up side at Taunton (along the former Up Relief line) plus the difficulty with the Western National bus drivers who were represented by the NUR for historic reasons and who saw the WSR as a threat to their members, made the attainment of the objective impossible for a cash-strapped company.  The situation was made worse when Somerset County Council withdrew their loan offer, once it was realised that the Taunton service would not be starting any time soon.

The 1975 Light Railway (Transfer) Order authorised the running of loco-hauled trains at 25 mph and DMU trains (subject to maintenance and inspection being done by approved people [ie BR]) to be run at up to 40 mph.  The AOCL and Open Crossing where laid out for 40 mph with speed restrictions across them varying between 5 mph and 25 mph according to the circumstances at each of them.

The speed limit for the whole branch in BR days was 55 mph.  The general condition of the trackwork is now far better than it was in BR days, I'd say.  But the curvy bits are still very much a limiting factor for speed.

My motivation was to show that my former employers BR(WR) Bristol Division (whom I had come to loathe for their short-sightedness in chopping out as much infrastructure as they possibly could) had been wrong in closing the line in the first place.  We started a year-round service over the sections of line that were re-opened, reaching Bishops Lydeard from Minehead by summer of 1979.  The Saturday DMU trains which connected with our own bus link running between Bishops Lydeard and Taunton BR Station were very well used, and showed what could be done.

The railway is now in the hands of a large group of supporters, who have given very freely of their time to turn it into a major tourist attraction.  I do not think many of them would support the loss of the "heritage" side of the railway to make way for a public service.  If the line had stayed in BR hands, I guess it would now look something like the Newquay line - pared right back to minimal track, maybe a passing loop at Williton, and a single track terminus.

As internal politicking and money shortages plus the problems I've already referred to took their toll, I became very demoralised about the whole project and my career went in very different directions. 

 
From This is the West Country

 
As a fairly local resident I would certainly support a regular through train service from Minehead to Taunton.

The bus 28 service is not just poor but is getting worse. Considerable housing development is underway in the general area, in the near term this adds to road congestion due to deliveries of building materials and utility works, in the longer term the cars driven by the occupants of all these new homes will add permanently to congestion.
There is of course no question of providing public transport to serve the new developments, so everyone will drive.

The most recent change to bus services has been the withdrawal of the 18 bus, that also ran between Minehead and Taunton but via a different and quicker route, and also served the hospital.

Through trains would help a lot. In reply to the usual cries that it will cost too much, I would observe that the TPTB seem able to find money for road schemes, but not for rail.

 
Perhaps The Powers That Be could be included in the LOA. (Sorry - List Of Abbreviations).

 
There's another abbreviation relevant - HotSW - Heart of the South West LEP, the quango that governs a lot of government economic spending, including transport in Devon and Somerset.

If a group sensibly wants to get trains running from Taunton to Minehead then this is the body it must win over. They are hard nosed and would have to be convinced of the transport, economic and tourism gains as well as modest cost (i.e not NR) but may be more reasonable than a County Council Roads Dept.

The obvious link along the mostly vacant track-bed of the former up relief (or is it slow) line to Taunton's  NW bay (ex platform eight), avoiding main line conflict, has been discussed over time, without result. The example of Eridge and the Spa Valley line comes to mind.

Whether the heritage line would entirely welcome the cost and bother of an ORR supervised interval service 24/7 is debatable. Perhaps if it had independent control of the entire route/service - and suitable rolling stock - it might be different.

Good luck to them all,

OTC

 
I have now been given permission by TPTB* to make amendments to the Acronyms/Abbreviations page, and as I agree with you, HotSW has been added, along with, of course, TPTB.

Our very own West of England LEP is not my favourite Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation (blast - I logged out of the A/A list before I realised that wasn't in there!) having started, albeit in its former guise, with the chance of a state-of-the-art tram system for Bristol and beyond, to rival Manchester, Birmingham, Blackpool, and Seaton, but delivering state-of-the-ark MetroBust, to rival Caracas, Harare, and Kabul. I know, though, that they should not all be tarred with the same brush.

It seems that the composition of the unelectable unaccountable oligarchy, other than the obligatory political appointments, is a major factor in deciding road or rail as the prime subject on the agenda. It is true that the government of the day's attitude is crucial too, but the LEP should be business, academe, and local government singing with one voice from one hymn sheet for local infrastructure projects. I believe HotSW does this better than the somewhat appropriately abbreviated WoE, where the Bristol LEPers, who bear the strong offender's cross* in the form of the traffic influx, are heavily outvoted by the others.

Always remember, though, that it takes two to QUANGO.

*Spot the link? I'm sure Red Squirrel will, and probably bnm too.

 
Thank you, Sir Humphrey Appleby. 

 
Ret'd, my dear fellow!

 
Minehead Rail Link Group meeting

Early diary notice ... "The meeting is at 7pm on 30th October 2018 at the Old Hospital." - I expect full details at http://www.mineheadraillinkgroup.org.uk and / or on social media in the next week or so.

 
Sounds a good idea.
Looks as though through trains from Minehead to the national network are back on the agenda. High time too !

 
I've always said the first target should be to extend the existing services to an Upside bay platform at Taunton.  The old Up Relief line formation is still free of obstruction, except for a signalling cable route and a few equipment cases that would need moving.

 
The up bay at the country end of Taunton station can't accommodate a steam/diesel loco and any more than two carriages if there is to be a run round loop. Otherwise it's WSR's heritage DMU only. Is that an attractive enough proposal to extend the WSR into Taunton?

I think WSR would do better to explore developing a station and transport hub at Norton Fitzwarren, utilising the land they have there around the rail triangle. With an extension of Great Western Way to this new station site.

 

"West Somerset's under utilized railway line could provide a new route for all it's residents to reconnect with the modern economy."

Apostrophe abuse notwithstanding, I'm glad to read that this aspiration hasn't been abandoned. There are various options to explore:

A summer weekend service à la Okehampton.
A summer through trains service à la Newquay.
A limited Minehead-Taunton commuters/shoppers/day-trippers service in addition to heritage operations
A Bishop's Lydeard-Taunton shuttle connecting with WSR services.

 

Not certain that I agree with the Norton Fitzwarren idea. This would still entail a change from rail onto a bus, or more likely into private cars. What should IMO be encouraged is use of rail throughout by provision of through trains to Taunton and further afield.
I also suspect that considerable local opposition would exist to this. When the WSR purchased and developed the Norton fitzwarren site there was a certain amount of opposition to "building an industrial site on greenfield land" and also concerns were voiced about the amount of extra traffic feared to result.
These concerns were addressed by reassurances that the Norton site was to be primarily accessed by RAIL with very limited parking and therefore little extra road traffic. "public train services will continue to operate between Minehead and Bishops Lydeard, with the Norton site being primarily for through trains to network rail, for stabling trains, and for turning via the triangle"
Turning the Norton site into a "transport hub" AKA a car park and bus stop, and road expansion to serve this car park transport hub would be strongly opposed.

It will be bad enough with "fire breathing, spark snorting iron monsters roaming the countryside at will ! crops will be destroyed by fire, horses be frightened before becoming extinct, the hovels of the poor be tumbled down, hens will stop laying, cows dry up, and the district be covered in smoke, dirt and misery"

 
This should be an interesting evening.   There is clearly not (yet?) any unanimousity between all the various ideas - and as such the "leave is as it is" elements are well placed to get support from all sorts of governmental quarters, and all the more so because "as it is" requires no public funding.    Sadly, "as it is" only does a proportion of what it might do for the town of Minehead, its residents and visitors, compared to what a corridor able to support a wonderful heritage line and a realistic service for the wider use of the area could do.  That latter would most likely need 'near provision' financial support, but the benefits brought to the wider economy of West Somerset should well outstrip that near provision.  That is a set of general thoughts which are not getting into practicality / impracticality arguments.

---

I have seen many suggestions that all-rail services to Minehead might be provided by extending the Cardiff - Taunton service on to Norton Fitzwarren, to Bishops Lydeard, or all the way to Minhead.  With changes at Norton Fitzwarren or Bishops Lydeard in the first two cases.   I find myself suspecting that's due to the convenient service from Cardiff terminating at Taunton from the east and so it become natural for it to go through to the west ... but would Minehead passengers really come from Bridgwater, Weston, and intermediate stations?  Perhaps the train would be an everyone off - everyone on at Taunton, and what a pity if they have another change at Norton Fitzwarren!

Logic follows that serious thought be given (but the option may later be ruled out) to running from the bay to the north west of the station.  I'm aware of the paradox of me putting forward that option when I'm so keen to link Swindon - Westbury to Westbury - Warminster and beyond, but as a wild guess traffic to Minehead would originate from Taunton itself, from London line services, and from Cross Country services - Bristol and beyond - way in excess of through journeys on the Cardiff stopper.

 
IMHO, an ideal service would be a regular service between Minehead and Taunton, with some services to/from more distant places
Something like
07-00 Minehead to London
08-30 Minehead to Bristol
10-00 Minehead to Cardiff
11-30 Minehead to Taunton
13-00 Minehead to London
14-30 Minehead to Bristol
16-00 Minehead to Taunton
17-30 Minehead to Cardiff
19-00  Minehead to Taunton

With a similar service in the other direction.
Trains running beyond Taunton would have to be something modern but not too expensive. Voyagers or HSTs seem possibilities. IETs seem unlikely due to clearance issues and the great costs.
Hopefully TPTB will allow heritage traction for the Taunton trains, this needs to be something cheap and easy to run but reliable and operable from either end without running a loco around. A heritage DMU or a few coaches with a small loco (class 20 ?) at each end might be reasonable.

 

My idea for a transport hub would include reinstating a Norton Fitzwarren national rail station. Not only do you have connections to the WSR, but you provide a station to a growing area of west Taunton. Interchange there for WSR rather than Taunton where capacity would be constrained.

Dismissing out of hand vehicular access to such a site fails to understand the realities of transport use.

None of that precludes direct specials and/or high season through trains.

 
Car parking provision is indeed needed at railway stations in general.
However consider Norton Fitzwaren in particular I would be opposed to car parking. Providing same would be seen as a significant betrayal by the local community who were reassured that the Norton site would not add to parking or traffic.

Many locals feared that the Norton site would be the "thin end of the wedge" and a precursor to "out of town shopping, new housing estates, and car parks"

Those who wish to drive to the station could reasonably use Taunton.

 
In 1976, I left BR and became involved on a professional basis in the re-opening of the WSR in stages from Minehead.  Firstly to Blue Anchor, then Williton, in 1976.  Then to Stogumber in 1978.  And Bishops Lydeard in 1979.  The intention was at that time to run an all-year public transport service, using a Running Powers Agreement over the former Up Relief line into the Up Bay Platform at Taunton.  It was intended that this service would be provided with DMUs.  There was provision for loco-hauled stock to travel from the branch into Taunton, and a run-round loop would have been provided between what had been Taunton West Junction and Taunton West Station.  All stock running over the BR part of the line would have had to have been maintained, inspected and approved by BR, as would all staff.  Which is why we operated to the BR Rule Book in those days, and crews were passed-out by BR Traction Inspectors.

The Light Railway Order gave permission for a line speed of 40 mph for DMU trains, subject to the same inspection and maintenance provisions as for running on BR.  As we automated the level crossings, they were laid out with the higher line speed in mind (although the crossings themselves had various lower speed restrictions over them)

The (what we then called) "tourist" steam trains were envisaged to run only over part of the line - probably Norton Fitzwarren to Bishops Lydeard only - and would provide sufficient revenue (the directors reckoned) to subsidise the all-year DMU service.

It's well known that the intervention of the NUR on behalf of their bus driver members, and a craven attitude towards this by BR, were causes for the Taunton service not to materialise back then.  Active discouragement towards the new enterprise came from BR(WR) Bristol divisional management, who did not, in my opinion, wish to see a line they had closed on loss-making grounds turn into a financial success.  The costs required for the Running Powers Agreement were escalated in Saturn V rocket style at each meeting.  Eventually, the WSR had to throw-in the towel.  There was no negotiation with these people.

Whether the provisions of the original LRO still have full effect, or not, I can see that it would be problematic for today's WSR to operate public trainsport sevices interspersed with 25 mph steam trains.  The single line sections operate at full capacity already during daytimes in the summer months.  So investment in infrastructure (particularly for crossing loops where they used to exist at Leigh Wood and at Kentsford, and possible re-doubling between Dunster and Minehead) to improve capacity would be a minimum requirement.  And then the line would have to be staffed.  If the present heritage style signalling were retained, this would mean an absolute minimum of four signalboxes, open two shifts.  And crews for these public transport service trains would have to be found.

All these things are possible.  My question is: "where's the money coming from".  I don't imagine the present day WSR plc has any ability, let alone desire, to fund this idea.

 
Thanks for the interesting first hand insight.
Re-doubling between Minehead and Dunster looks, IMHO more achievable than some of the other upgrades.

It seems to me some that at least of the trains between Minehead and Taunton should be operated by heritage stock, in order that the same train can serve both the heritage market AND those seeking a public transport link.
A preserved DMU would serve in the off season, with steam warranted in the summer season.

HSTs should also be considered as they ARE borderline heritage.

 

That is a fantastically useful summary and look to where we stand.  Thank you.

 

How do you run a regular summer season steam service into and out of Taunton station? The west facing bay on the up side isn't long enough for a run round loop for a train with more than two carriages. Nor is there the land to widen and extend the bay for a longer run round. Do you instead run the steam services into a through platform and run round there? I don't think Network Rail would ever countenance tying up the main lines and platforms for such movements. Nor would they pay for the associated track and signalling work.

You are realistically only ever going to have room and operational flexibility for a DMU into and out of Taunton. WSR have rolling stock for just one 3/4 car heritage DMU. That would, at best, only manage two round trips per day based on current speed limits and staffing levels.

However you look at it, running heritage services into and out of Taunton requires a lot of work, and a lot of cost. For what return? Additional revenue from a couple through trains per day, limited in passenger capacity due to infrastructure constraints, is very unlikely to cover capital and operational costs. WSR would baulk at the access charges and penalty payments when there are train failures.

Organic growth at WSR's Norton Fitzwarren site, coupled with a concerted campaign for a west Taunton mainline Station close by, which would serve a large and growing catchment, and with a 'Parkway' style transport interchange for car, bus and bike would, I believe, be better all round.

Housing development in that area will continue, plans for more housing in Norton Fitzwarren and Bishops Hull/Silk Mills are in the pipeline. Providing those residents (and those living in Staplegrove, Galmington, Comeytrowe and further afield to Milverton and Wiveliscombe) with an alternative to driving into Taunton for rail access would surely be beneficial. Traffic from west of Taunton into the Station Road area is already bad.

Far better than misty-eyed plans to see a regular steam train service at Taunton again. That ship has sailed train has long since departed. Running a couple of steam trains/heritage DMUs a day, and occasional specials from further afield, does nothing for local transport needs. All it does is offer the rose tinted spectacle brigade a bit more track bashing mileage.

It's worth noting that West Somerset Railway themselves are not actively persuing extending into Taunton. Nor are they, at this time, affiliated with or supporting the Minehead Rail Link Group.

 

I'm not aware of the land available at the present-day Taunton Station.  But back in the day when I was involved there was sufficient land to provide a run-round at the site of the old carriage sidings which ran alongside the former Up Relief line.  There was no intention to run regular steam trains onto BR tracks, but it was believed the facility would have been useful.  The maintenance and inspection clauses in the proposed Running Powers Agreement killed any real prospect of anything other than DMUs running along the two miles or so from Norton Fitzwarren into Taunton Station.

All a bit hypothetical now, anyway.  There's no money available - WSR plc and Somerset County Council are not known for being flush with cash.

I'm afraid that the dreams of starry-eyed twenty something me are not about to turn into reality

 
Somerset County Council would find it far easier to fund my idea at Norton Fitzwarren. Development levies and govt. grants for transport infrastructure could be gotten. Possibly. Or pigs might fly...

But who knows? Taunton could have a Parkway station linked to a heritage line. Wouldn't that be attractive?!

 

I largely agree, but remain concerned at the NIMBY factor around Norton Fitwarren. The obsession about house prices seems particularly strong in that area.

 

Intrigued by that. Generally one would expect plans for a new railway station to drive house prices upwards...

 
To throw more spanners into the works of running into Taunton on a dedicated line...

The railway was once four track from Norton Fitzwarren to Taunton. From north to south they were Up Relief, Up Main, Down Main, Down Relief. When the area was resignalled by BR in the 1980s the Up Relief was removed. Today there are three lines between Norton Fitzwarren Junction and just west of Taunton Station. Again north to south, Up Main, Down Main and a bidirectional Down/Up Relief.

To give WSR access to Taunton's defunct west facing bay on the up side just means relaying the Up Relief for their dedicated use, yes? Sadly not. When BR resignalled the area and removed the Up Relief, they also slewed and spread the main lines. The Up Main now middles the formation where there was once Up Relief and Up Main. Oh, and the signalling cable runs are in the remaining space between Up Main and the north side boundary.

Yes the tracks could probably* be slewed back to reintroduce four lines. At what price and at what disruption though? WSR couldn't afford to pay for it. Network Rail and national rail TOCs would baulk at the disruption. And for what benefit? A few heritage DMU services into and out of Taunton per day, and only on WSR operational days.

   *I've said "probably" above because there is doubt that there's even
     room for a reinstated fourth track under the modern Silk Mills road
     bridge. Said bridge replaced Silk Mills level crossing in 2005.

All that realistically just leaves having WSR services cross over the Up and Down Main to the Down/Up Relief at Norton Fitzwarren Junction. Then running into the west facing bay on the down side of Taunton Station. There's more space here for a dedicated WSR station, along with a release head shunt and run round loop. There would also have been the possibility of seperate access to potential WSR facilities from the Inner Relief Road. Unfortunately the derelict railway land on the down side at the west end of the station is now earmarked for housing development. It may already have been sold by Network Rail.

This option has its problems too though. It means Network Rail giving up the west facing down bay, along with any potential national rail passenger use of it in the future. It means having heritage trains regularly crossing the main lines at Norton Fitzwarren Junction. And it also means said trains would have to be operated by Network Rail accredited staff across said junction and along the Down/Up Relief. That means WSR either paying to train their staff to run on NR metals or hiring pilots. WSR would also have to pay track access charges and sign contracts covering delay compensation. Imagine a WSR kettle failing as it crossed the main lines.

A few summer special heritage services from the national network to Minehead is fine. Running national network DMUs onto the WSR, in the same vein as SWR/Swanage Railway did this summer, is also fine.

But if you want regular interchange between WSR and the national network, then that would be done best at a new Norton Fitzwarren national rail station, linked to expanded WSR facilities on their land there. There are too many problems, some insurmountable, to do such interchange at Taunton.

Or Network Rail could buy out WSR (and its landlords Somerset County Council) and reinstate regular scheduled national rail passenger services to Minehead. That means shutting down, or drastically reducing, the heritage operation. Interworking both on a 23 mile single line would be fraught with problems.

 

Thank you for those spanners ...

To the mind of a none-resident it seems insane that some of the changes happened in such a way that passive provision or protection of resources didn't happen.   How long was the interval between the BR line closing and the very first service under a preservation / heritage banner?   About five years I believe, and much of that time would have been spent with significant local activity getting ducks in a row - it wasn't a question of closing in 1971 the waving a wand in March 1976!

However - the 1970s were a different age.   

 
Passive provision to reinstate a four track railway from Cogload Junction to Norton Fitzwarren Junction may have been in the back of the minds of some at BR.

What wouldn't have entered their minds though would have been making that passive provision for the future aspirations of a private heritage railway.

The 1970s were indeed a different country in this regard. There was strong transport union opposition to the nascent West Somerset Railway. Western National busmen in the area were, at the time, in the National Union of Railwaymen (NUR), alongside their British Rail Western Region brothers. An accident of history going back to the days of Great Western Railway bus services. These heavily unionised, and by contemporary accounts quite militant, bus and rail staff were deeply opposed to the West Somerset Railway ever running back into Taunton. There was a fear, probably misplaced, that the WSR were a threat to the parallel Taunton - Minehead buses.

Add to that the idea of a private operator making a success of a line closed by BR, and you can understand why BR were reluctant to assist the WSR's (and Somerset County Council who actually purchased the line) early aims to run what would have been commercial services into and out of Taunton.

So the opportunity to keep Minehead connected to Taunton by rail, for regular services, was lost in the 1970s. Subsequent rationalisation by BR, and renewal works into the 21st century by Network Rail, have focused solely on the infrastructure for national rail services. It's actually a small miracle that the physical link to the WSR at Norton Fitzwarren wasn't cut when the Taunton Cider factory closed (I do miss Autumn Gold, Natch, Exhibition..), along with its Speedlink freight siding.

The passive provision we have today is the land acquired at Norton Fitzwarren by WSR, and a 'Core Strategy' plan from Taunton Deane Borough Council that includes access to this land. A new main road already runs right up to the former site of Norton Fitzwarren Station. This road abruptly ends here, but it's clear the intention is to link it to the WSR site. This land, known as Ford's Farm, is earmarked for as a 'potential use for mixed development' site*. All that'd be needed then is to get Network Rail (and by extension HMG) onside to plan a mainline station here too. Three platforms. Up and Down Main and the third for WSR services. And with the land that's available you have room for 'Parkway' style provison, with bus, cycle and pedestrian facilities for a large and growing catchment. Add in the recent new build and future planned housing and you have a very attractive proposition. One that's far easier to plan and fund than trying to square the circle of running heritage trains into and out of Taunton.

* http://consultldf.tauntondeane.gov.uk/portal/corestrat/adoptedcs?pointId=1342694080913

 


Reading in .. much useful stuff thanks.  I put a timeline together - top line showing end of service in 1971 and a single run (a class 25) in 1975 to extract a steam loco from Butlins.   Bottom line - formation of Minehead group a few weeks after closure, purchase by the council in 1973 and services starting from Minehead to Blue Anchor in 1976 and to Williton later that year.  Had extended as far as Bishop's Lydeard by the end of the decade.

 
A quote from my third-ever post on this forum:


I still think this idea has legs...

 

I very largely agree, but remain  concerned at the NIMBY factor.
Objections to car parking and extra traffic could perhaps be handled by not providing any public parking and by branding the new station "Norton Interchange" or some other wording not including parkway.

I fully appreciate that car parking is a general requirement at rail stations, but in this particular case, it might be reasonable to suggest that car drivers could use the existing Taunton station.

Presumably under this proposal, a regular service between Norton Interchange and Taunton would be operated by GWR, whilst a regular service between Norton Interchange and Minehead would be operated the WSR.

 

"The afternoon will be mainly cloudy, with light showers and occasional sunny spells, see the BBC Weather website for more details"

 

bignosemac - Can you walk me through what a typical mainline rail timetable at your proposed Norton Fitzwarren station would look like? I'm intrigued to see what you feel would be viable and desirable service-wise.

 
We don't yet know what the future timetables will look like on the existing infrastructure. It'd be a futile exercise to plan services for a new station with such unknowns.

Broadly though, I'd expect at least hourly regional services, and then calls by long distance services every other hour.

 
Full meeting details at http://www.mineheadraillinkgroup.org.uk/component/content/article/105-news/327-rail-link-group-to-hold-public-meeting-in-minehead?Itemid=1395

 
A very well attended meeting in Minehead this evening. Chris Austin from the WSR was, in my opinion, the most lucid and diplomatic voice among those speaking - I hope his involvement in the negotiations to run a trial service between Taunton and Bishop's Lydeard next year are productive. Alex de Mendoza remains unconvincing in his attempts to persuade the less gullible among us of the ease with which the WSR can co-exist with through trains from Taunton to Minehead, repeating the glib assurance he made in the press some time ago that the line is only running at 30% capacity (probably true in strictly mathematical terms if you are basing your calculations on a 24/7 target, but meaningless otherwise). He also won no friends among WSR supporters with his observation that the typical age of volunteers is rising (I myself see plenty of youngsters among their staff). David Latimer (chairman of the group) assured us that they had been running train planning projections, but did not actual offer a sample timetable. The local councillor who chaired the meeting seemed very much to be Mendoza's yes-man, chasing a few votes. Grahame Ellis gave us some thoughtful encouragement with the success story of the Trans-Wilts link, but, with all respect, I found the relevance to the Minehead line somewhat limited, as the Trans-Wilts does not have to co-exist with a heritage line, nor does it have to worry about infrastructure or maintenance.

No doubt the Group's press office will make sure that the meeting will be reported in the local press; will be interesting to see how the account compares with the experience of being there!

 

Many thanks for that report, Puffing Billy ... I came on to file a brief report, but you have noted many of the key points well and I can't disagree with them. 

Key to the meeting - despite differences, ruffled feathers and irrelevance of some of what was said to some of the audience - was that everyone should work towards a first step linking Taunton to Bishop's Lydeard during the heritage train season and time of day.  View would be to extend that on to Minehead during times (of year and of day) that the heritage service is not running in due course. Plenty of unknowns along the way, plenty of elephants to be dealt with, plenty more to be said and presented that couldn't be done in 90 minutes last night.   

With doubt and lack of knowledge of the great things possible from the other side, there's a natural fear and reticence on one hand, and an ability not to appreciate what's already been achieved and how it can be nurtured for the common good.  Also in a specific situation there are so many variables that lessons from elsewhere can only be guidance that's cherry picked rather than providing a total recipe of how it was done in [anywhere].

 

Here's their press release ...


Not sure how on earth they came up with my job / title - probably because of my "Well House Consultants" tag line - which is IT consultancy and training ... never mind, I guess I am a sort of consultant, even if it's like asking someone with a doctorate in ancient greek to diagnose your medical symptoms!

My reply to the press release:

 
It was indeed a most interesting evening and well attended.

It is beginning to look as though action might be forthcoming after a great many years of talking. No mention of Norton Fitzwarren as an interchange facility.

The discussion centered around GWR running to Bishops Lydeard, with a connecting WSR service onwards to Minehead, or in the longer term through GWR trains to Minehead.

It is to be hoped that the proposed trial next summer does proceed. I can foresee one near term problem, and other longer term issues.

In the near term, from where are GWR going to obtain the rolling stock to run from Taunton onto the WSR ? For most of the last summer GWR have routinely been short forming existing services for want of rolling stock. I refer here NOT to the IETs which are irrelevant in this case, but to the repeated short formation of branch line services, throughout the recent summer.
A Taunton/bishops Lydeard shuttle should only need a single unit, but will GWR have even one to spare ? Observation recently suggests they need at least two or three more units to run the existing branch line services properly.

The longer term issue, IMHO,  is how are the commuters/shoppers/through customers to be conveyed onwards to Minehead ?
In the "off season" it would seem relatively simple to run a heritage (or modern? DMU.)

In the "high season" the West Somerset is effectively full with no spare paths for extra services for most* of the day*. The obvious solution would be to convey the through passengers on the existing steam hauled trains. This is entirely doable, but raises a problem regarding fares.
If these connecting services are to be affordable and therefore popular, then the fares need to be broadly similar to GWR fares for similar length journeys, or similar to the fares on the existing bus route (and preferably be interavailable between train and bus)
The present WSR fares are appreciably higher per mile than most national rail fares. This is reasonable, and gladly paid by enthusiasts and leisure travellers.
I doubt however that ordinary passengers simply getting from A to B would pay these premium fares.

Various options could be considered, but some means needs to be devised to prevent steam enthusiasts enjoying an expensive to operate heritage line at local bus fare prices, but also ensuring that through tickets are reasonable in price.

*Extra trains could be run before the start of heritage services, and after the end thereof, even in the high season. The problem is during the day.

 
I am sorry if you think I was disparaging your contribution to the meeting, Grahame - I absolutely recognize and applaud your achievements in getting a train operator to revolutionise its services; but I thought it was important to emphasize the ways in which running services on a heritage line is different from doing so on the national network. I have a couple of friends who work on the WSR, and take a keen interest in it myself, but am conscious that many people I talk to have only a partial picture of what is involved in the operation of the railway - they may glance at the timetable as they walk past the station and observe that there are typically 4-6 scheduled departures, but they are as likely as not unaware of the Quantock Belle services, Driver Experience courses, visiting charters and empty stock movements, and think that maintenance is something that magically happans overnight like on the "real" railway. It is not the fact that the MRLC group think that these operations may have to be compromised in the interest of providing a service for visitors/commuters that irks me - their interest is as valid as mine; it is the way that their publicity conveniently avoids enlightening would-be supporters on the issues I have raised. Their website makes fantastical claims like the aforementioned "30% capacity" figure, and the assurance that the journey from Minehead to Taunton can be covered in an hour (no mention of the signalling changes and level crossing upgrades that this would necessitate).

I stress that I am 100% behind the Taunton-Lydeard link and/or Lydeard/Norton parkway idea (as well expounded by Bignosemac) - not only will this be good for visitors; it could also be really useful for people like me desperate for better access to the wild lands beyond Taunton. For visitors, surely a change of trains at Bishop's Lydeard would be no great hardship? A bit of clever marketing on the idea of through tickets could perhaps be beneficial to both WSR and GWR? I believe that a bit of work has been done in this area already. I have a slightly different slant from you, Grahame, on the idea of through trains; rather than running them when the WSR is closed, run them Mondays-Fridays at times when it is open - then the necessary staff will already be there. I do not think it is unreasonable for the powers-that-be to mandate that one or two paths in either direction should be made available to an operator other than WSR. For reasons (capacity) I gave earlier, I do not think this would be possible at weekends.

I am sorry that your journey into Taunton was a little fraught - this may be because of roadworks near Taunton, about which warning has been given recently. I not infrequently catch the bus into Taunton (as a change from the train or the automobile!), and have rarely found it to be delayed. More generally, I expressed opne or two thoughts on the bus service in a previous post, so I will not repeat them again.

 

I didn't think that ...


For forum members who have probably been over-immersed in TransWilts over the years, little of what I said would have been any surprise.  But I suspect there were only three or four such members in the audience, and for the others a little of the background to how "it" can be done and that "it" can be done was there to encourage.    Totally agree that WSR is not TransWilts ... every line different.  "You" have a vibrant heritage operation ... "we" had a vibrant freight and diversion operation.  "You" have a branch to a terminus ...."we" have interchange junctions at both ends.  Etc ... need to go back to first principle, not assume we can compare from second base.

So, so good to be discussing onwards and looking at what can be done, and how costs / staff / etc can be shared.  I sensed that the WSR is not flush with money and there could be real benefits for everyone (and, yes, real fears, real risks).  I sensed that there's such a breadth of elements that need to come together that few if any of us appreciate them all, or even the existence of them all ... and that leads to worry, and at times comments that are wrong and hurtful ...

 
The statement by Mr Alex Mendoza that the WSR is "only 30% utilised" was undoubtedly misleading and may have lost the support of SOME WSR  volunteers and supporters.

Taken as a year round average it might well be factually correct that the WSR is only 30% utilised, but averages are of little relevance in such cases.
The fact that there is undoubtedly a lot of unused capacity on a Monday in mid January, does not alter the fact that the WSR is largely full during the high season.
To provide a more frequent service than that in the present "gold" or high season timetable would require infrastructure works such as double tracking portions, extra passing loops, and the re-instatement of the second platform at some stations.
All this is entirely possible, and might well be justified in the future but looks unaffordable in the near term.


Passenger capacity could be somewhat increased by longer trains to the same timetable, the extra passengers conveyed thus could justify the expense or running a larger engine, or double heading some trains. (both of which would also enhance the appeal to enthusiasts.)

 
It's not just infrastructure costs though. Additional trains require more staff. Signal boxes have to stay open longer. Increase train numbers and you start getting into the realm of needing to find/train more volunteers or start paying for qualified staff. Making the line attractive to those wanting to get to and from Taunton means manning from at least 7am until late evening. Getting volunteers to cover what would be two 7-8 hour shifts is not going to be easy.

Just one late running steam special off the network last year caused no end of problems for WSR. I was at one intermediate station photographing this train and got chatting to the station master. He wasn't particularly happy having had to stay on for an additonal two hours after the last WSR service. He also told me that the signalman at Bishops Lydeard had to close his box immediately after the special left BL, then drive to Blue Anchor to open the box there to pass the special on.

It may be the start of the journey according to Alex Mendoza, but if they want their plans to get anywhere then they need to start looking at costs and a drawing up professional business plan. Merely saying that the line has capacity for scheduled services between Taunton and Minehead is not enough.

 

Totally agree.

Before I let myself say anything the other evening, I had done a whole lot of calculations.  My figures may need significant update being based on nothing better than educated guesses, but in some elements (not others) I am actually quite well educated.


Yes.  Agree there too.  There were timetable /path diagrams around (though not shown or shared - I noted them within people's folders of papers) and there might have been some costings around ... but I was the only one to wave a piece of paper with figures on and say "you need to do the sums" (no-one came back with "we have done", I noted!)

 
From today's West Somerset Free Press :

"A packed meeting overwhelmingly backed a Minehead-Taunton rail-link proposal and welcomed a possible trial shuttle service which could be the forerunner of a major commuter scheme ..."

and so it goes on with a lengthy, and pretty accurate report of the proceedings. The one particularly questionable aspect of the meeting, and the reporting of it, was the vote which gives credence to this "overwhelming backing". Although at a couple of points in the meeting it was emphasized that the LYDEARD-Taunton link was something that we could all get behind, whatever else happens, this was something that we were NOT asked to vote on. If I remember correctly, we were simply asked if we wanted a MINEHEAD-Taunton service with no elaboration on whether this meant the availability of a connection at Bishop's Lydeard, or a direct service. I believe, especially given previous publicity from the MRLG, that most people present took it to be the latter, and wonder if Mr Mendoza's support will continue to thrive when people realise that, at least in the short-to-medium term the reality will prove to be short of the dream that they are being sold.

I believe that the Lydeard-Taunton link is a no-brainer, and that, once the dust from the trial service has settled, it would be right and proper to offer a limited number of weekday paths, within WSR operating hours, to another operator to give them a chance to show what they can do. This could benefit leisure travel both into, and, to a lesser extent, out of, Minehead. However, the opening sentence of the Free Press article, together with some of the pronouncements during, and prior to, the meeting, put an emphasis on COMMUTER travel, and this opens quite a different can of worms...

If the group want to pursue this latter aim, they have to identify their commuter market: journeys as far as Taunton might be popular, but it is difficult to see how they could be run economically at an affordable fare. Journeys to Bristol, London, Birmingham etc. might be more attractive, because you can factor in the saving made by not having to pay for daily parking at Taunton. But at the times of day when such commuters would have to depart from Minehead, traffic is not an issue, so people would probably still drive to Taunton anyway! You would have to be pretty confident, also, of getting back to Taunton on time in the evening (remember that the last bus departs at 8.00 p.m., so there is no back-up there). I could see GWR quickly racking up the bus/taxi bills for missed last connections. There is also the consideration that a service for Bristol commuters would have to depart Minehead at 7.00 a.m., and for London commuters at 6.00 a.m., bring with it the widely-discussed problem of keeping the WSR open for such long hours (perhaps it would be feasible and helpful if all the intermediate signalboxes could be "switched out" during the extended hours to save some staff). And, unless it would be practical to stable GWR units at Minehead overnight, there is the cost of empty-stock workings to and from Minehead to consider.

However, there is one solution that seems to me to be screamingly obvious :

First Group do not only run the trains in Somerset - they run the buses as well. Furthermore, they have a depot in Minehead where they stable a number of buses overnight. One of these buses, departing at 6.00 a.m or 7.00 a.m. when traffic is light, and travelling directly down the main road with a limited number of stops, could comfortably reach Taunton station in 45 minutes, and in the evening could wait for late connections with fewer logistical problems than sometimes is involved with holding train connections. As an afterthought, commuters are unlikely to have the bulky luggage which can be a nuisance on buses.

I am sure that there is flaw in my reasoning somewhere down the line (or road), but perhaps there is some food for thought. 

 
The only flaw in your reasoning that I can see, is that a through train service, or at least a connecting train service, is being increasingly demanded, rather than an improvement to the bus service.

 
Having had a few days to settle (and deal with other matters), my thoughts have returned to the Minehead.  Always had a fondness for the place, and the excellent company and food last Tuesday / Wednesday as well as the envigourating meeting won't be quickly forgotten.

It seems to me - and I've seen much agreement - that there's so much of great benefit already being done, and so much addiitonal that could be done.  But there are already so may ideas about what should and shouldn't be in that additional stuff and what it should be setting out to achieve, and individuals or groups with even moderate insight into the total picture are few and far between.  And those rare people are perceived as having a foot in one camp or another. While that fragmentation and feeling remains, few high ranking civil servants, politicians, or rail industry folks are going to risk getting too involved / being too supportive.  And for things to change, political goodwill and support are going to be needed.

So is the likely route forward the steady state, do nothing one?  Perhaps it is, or perhaps it's the steady state with a few seeds thrown toward some sort of change - but whether those seeds are enough to germinate and grow, or sewn too thinly to do any good, is an interesting question. And if the seeds are thown but don't grow, what an excellent "proof" that things won't work ... except that maybe the way they weres sewn was flawed.

So - steady state forward?   Maybe.  But even there, there are clouds on the horizon.  At the meeting, the high cost of maintaining the line was raised, and the econimic are not brilliant.  What if the balance tips from profit to loss?  What then any form of railed transport at Minehead?  Let's say there's a 300k recurring cost for the permanent way of the current operation.   And that there would be a 400k recurring cost for a regular national network line.  If the services can share / co-exist, perhaps the total permanent way bill would be only 500k rather than the 700k sum of the two parts.   And you start to geneate an economic case stronger than either of its two components.  Even better than that, with crossticketing sorted, return trip opportunities - so traffic - will be much higher than either individual operation, or even the sum of the operations.  Then apply the same algorithms / approach to volunteers and staffing ...

Sadly, it seems to fall back to having too many people fighting their corners at the moment, and too few people promoting partnership. There is the odd ray of light around - a few people - and what's neeeded, IMHO, is for someone who's not widely viewed with deep suspicion to map out a long term strategy, and start to develop the tactics to move towards it. Such an approach, with wide principled endorsement of the outcome even if things remain to be sorted, will then start to attract the political and industry goodwill which no doubt is very much there under the surface, but dare not yet be risked in the current atmosphere of mistrust.

 
On a relatively lightly used railway, a fair part of the maintenance costs are fixed or largely fixed and not related to the amount of traffic.
For example, timber sleepers rot and need replacement after a number of years, and not after a certain number of trains.
Rust attacks steel parts of signaling and level crossing equipment at a roughly constant rate.
Buildings suffer from weather, storms, rot and rust, and not primarily from the passage of trains.
Boundary fences suffer also from rot of the posts, rusting of the wire, and animals, not from the passage of trains.
Vegetation grows continually and requires labour intensive cutting back, but it does not grow any quicker with more trains !

2000 trains a year wont double infrastructure costs if compared to 1000 trains a year.

 
Even then those costs that do relate to the loading (mainly maintaining track alignment (both vertical and horizontal) will depend on the axle load so the odd steam locomotive is likely to do more damage than a modern dmu.

 
Silly question - on the occasional days that Taunton to Bishop's Lydeard shuttle services have been run by GWR, how is the interchange to the West Somerset Railway handled?   Does the shuttle use one side of the loop and the Minehead train the other, with passengers crossing the road bridge or barrow crossing, or is there a way for the shuttle to arrive into the Taunton facing bay?  Or does the shuttle arrive at leave at the main platform at a time that it's not occupied by a Minehead service?

 

Bishops Lydeard is a 2 platform station as far as passenger trains are concerned.  Both platforms have the facilities of bi-directional use, and of allowing a train into an already occupied platform in either direction.  So it's just about as flexible as any such layout could be.

When I travelled on to the WSR from Taunton and return, via GWR DMU service, the train used what I'll call the Down platform to both arrive and depart.  The Down Platform Line was occupied by a locomotive waiting to go across to head a Down train in the Up Platform - which train had just arrived from the Minehead direction.

 

So if I'm reading you right, a train from Minehead could arrive at what we're calling the up platform ... already occupied at the Taunton end.  Passengers could then walk up the platform and join the train that's standing there which leaves for (or via) Taunton.  Minehead train runs round, loco serviced on the way, and in due course train arrives from (or via) Taunton behind it ... passengers walk down the platform to join their onward service to Minehead.

 

Just for information, the "down" platform is much shorter - I think you could only fit a locomotive and four coaches into it. The "up" platform could hold maybe a locomotive and nine coaches - no doubt someone from the WSR could tell you exactly.  The "bay" is never, to my knowledge, used for trains in service - the Quantock Belle ususally lives there in between duties.

 

Don't forget that any idea of (new) platform sharing by loaded passenger services is frowned upon by ORR/RAIB.

 
I find it somewhat concerning that a recent ORR inspection has reportedly found certain deficiencies on the WSR, and that the usual winter shutdown is to be considerably extended to allow rectification of said deficiencies which are reported to relate to track condition and staff training.

The infrastructure appears to me to be in good condition, though of course subjective impressions do not tell the whole story.

One hopes that the inspection was genuinely independent, and that the report was not politically motivated with the purpose of preventing through running. Or least rendering it unduly expensive.

 
Seeing as the WSR are not actively seeking through running (it's an aspiration of an unincorporated group), then I think suggesting the ORR are pre-emptively nixing outside aspirations is nothing but conspiracy theory.

 

I think that you are PROBABLY right, I just find the timing a little odd, but it is probably just chance.

 
From the Somerset County Gazette


It's pretty serious.

 

Indeed. The Somerset County Gazette is pretty much quoting the press release - so serious, but not yet fully defined nor anything new in this particular article.

 
From the Somerset County Gazette

 
Any serious proposal to run a regular through service to the national rail network does seem to suffer from endless delays, of which this is but the latest.

I can understand the concerns that a regular through or connecting service could dilute the heritage aspect of the line.

Two answers to that !

Firstly on days when heritage trains do not run at present, I see no harm in running modern trains. Those who wish to savour the heritage aspects should visit on an operating day as at present.

On days when steam or other heritage trains do run, then it depends on exactly what is proposed. If only a connecting service between Bishops Lydeard and network rail is proposed, then I see little harm in use of modernish traction. The ONLY impact would be on photographic opportunities at Bishops Lydeard. If modern traction in the photograph is not wanted then the photographer would have to wait until the modern unit leaves, or be restricted in what viewpoint they select.

If through trains all the way to Minehead are proposed, then I believe that these should be at least somewhat heritage.
Slam door mark 2 coaches with vintage locomotives as widely used for railtours should be suitable. Or of course HSTs, these ARE borderline heritage, remembering that that the first ones ran only a few years after the end of main line steam. (and yes I know that HSTs are now out of gauge to Minehead, but they HAVE run thereto recently so presumably could do so again)

Anything that runs regulary onto the national network does IMHO need two engines to protect against hugely expensive failures.
Either a DMU, or an HST, or a set of coaches with a loco at each end.

 
From the Somerset County Gazette

 
What is the current legal situation regarding the line? Assuming funding were forthcoming, could the WSR be forced to accept these plans, or do they have an effective veto?

 
Bearing in mind that Somerset has declared a 'Climate Emergency', this is the sort of thing that should go ahead getting people out of cars and onto rail to get from Taunton to Minehead. No point in declaring such a thing and not putting into place 'easy wins'. Oooooozzzzz gonna pay for it can no longer be used as an excuse if you've declared an emergency.

 
The line is owned by the Somerset County Council and leased to the WSR plc on a 99 year lease which has a long time to run.  I don't think that, as the legal operators of the line, the WSRplc can be compelled to run any particular service on it.  They may wish to please their landlord, but that's not a given.

The present management and directors of the WSR seem to be asserting their authority now in a way not seen before.  I'm not convinced this is for the better.  But they do have the laws of finance to contend with, and this may have concentrated their minds somewhat.  The Somerset & Dorset Railway Trust, who have been sub-leesees of the site at Washford Station since the 1970's, have been given a year's notice to quit very recently

 
Three comments added to the article by members of the public illustrate the differing views, and just how hard it is to knit heritage and national rail services.




If I were the one responsible for allocating the £500 million - and noting that much of it is to be used to develop business cases - the significant difference of (local (?)) views would make me very wary of a lot of funding for Minehead. Mind you, I would like to see a professional expert outside view of the case so that we know if there are real issues that rule out an everyday train service from Minehead to Taunton (and beyond?) - that tells us if the case against is correct and insoluble, or if it is based on fear of change and what that change might bring.  It would also need to look at the business case for that everyday service in various guises.

 
My 2nd and 3rd posts on this forum:



I still think there is mileage in the concept of a conserved (rather than preserved) railway.

How much heritage would you have to alter to make the WSR into an efficient 80km/h railway? The stations could stay pretty much as they are, and the scenery won't change that much.

One by one the heritage railways are swapping out bullhead rail on wooden sleepers for flat-bottomed CWR on concrete.

How much difference would it make to the average punter if the semaphore signals were kept for decoration only? Is there a safe way to do this?

Would it be possible to keep the old level crossing gates, locked open, for decoration? Is it really necessary to rip all the old stuff out and salt the ground it stood on when installing half-barriers?

There are safety issues here, of course, which is why I pose these ideas as questions...

 
There is a huge difference in the ORR requirements between a Heritage Railway and a Main Line Railway.  You would end up with nothing like exists today (level crossings being one of the more significant issues).

 

I read the various comments in Another Place, and came to the same conclusions, grahame. The aims of the two groups seem similar at first glance, but are mutually exclusive in large parts.

 

From Rail Advent posted earlier today

 

I don't see how the old level crossing gates could be retained "locked open" When the gates are open to rail traffic they block the road. If half way they block the road AND the railway line.
Semaphore signals retained for decoration might be misleading. I see no reason why semaphores cant be kept in working order and used to control the trains. There are still a few semaphores on the national network.

The curves and gradients would rule out high speeds, but I don't see why the Minehead Branch if re-instated as part of the national network, could not have line speeds similar to those in force in BR days.
It might be possible to slightly increase speed limits.
Doubling the track between Minehead and Dunster would improve capacity and flexibility. In particular by allowing an up and a down train to pass just outside the terminus.

The tourist and enthusiast markets expect steam or heritage diesel services. Battery trains sound a good idea for non heritage services.
HST trailers hauled by a battery loco ?

 

I wasn't very clear. A typical conservation solution might be to re-hang the gates 'backwards' so that they block neither road nor rail. Basically you'd be propping them up near the crossing as an ornament.

There are a couple of crossings - Blue Anchor being the main one - where you'd really want to retain what was there in working order. There would be a cost associated with this, but probably one worth paying.

 
Apologies in advance for any ignorance and/or naivety on my part but why aren't these two groups working together? Aren't there ways in which better connectivity between the WSR and the Big Railway for residents and visitors alike could be achieved without compromising the existing set-up? Charters/specials already run through to Minehead and a shuttle to BL. has already been trialled. WSR operations are from 10-5.30pm, mainly. Could a 'chartered' service out and back for morning/evening commuters/day trippers/shoppers work alongside a daytime Taunton-BL shuttle in the summer months? Might a summer timetable experiment along those lines à la Okehampton be a first step? I see that this is not achieving a 365-day railway connection for the townsfolk of Minehead, of course.

 
Semaphore signals are still in use on the national network, Shrewsbury for example, and I seem to recall that not all that many years ago brand new semaphore signals were installed somewhere (Banbury perhaps) to facilitate diversions of passenger services over a little used freight connection. The only reason I can think of for wanting to replace semaphore signals with colour lights is to reduce staffing costs by allowing signal box closures. Other lines still use tokens (eg. Pembroke Dock and Heart Of Wales) and have very few signals, so if you want to close signal boxes without making the route look modern by putting in colour lights you could remove the signals and rely on tokens. As for level crossings, on holiday a few years ago I discovered that at least one on the line between Oakham and Melton Mowbray (Wyfordby I think) had a manual gate with a red circle on it much the same as heritage ones.

I wouldn't expect too much; the Welsh government and (I think) Pembrokeshire County Council have both declared a 'Climate Emergency', yet both support 'improvements' to the A40 which the Welsh government freely admits will increase greenhouse gas emmissions!

 

That was the reason I had in mind.

 
Semaphore signals are normally operated by rodding from the signal box, which must be within a reasonable distance.
Remote operation is however possible, and has been done in the past.
With a semaphore signal out of sight of the signaller, then some means is required to prove correct operation and to prove that the lamp is lit.

An oil lamp can be remotely proved to be lit, by means of a temperature sensor, this was done decades ago.
An incandescent lamp can be remotely proved to be lit by a current sensor, also a mature technology.
LEDs are more difficult, but might be judged reliable enough that no remote proving is needed.

Out of sight from stations, colour light signals would IMO be acceptable.

 

This is the same throughout England. Road schemes just have to connect up to the Highways England funding firehose, whilst sustainable transport has to scrat around like Bear Grylls looking for patches off moss to wring a few drops from. Something has to change!

 

It would seem from these, and other, examples that we are missing the point about councils declaring climate emergencies. Bristol did likewise, then carried on with the delivery of new diesel vehicles for their fleet. One could be excused that it is the latest box-ticking thing, and that some councils will do it just to get the hordes of protesters away from their meetings so that they can get on with some business, and without added pressure on their prospects of re-election. I think even my local parish council may have said something about it, but not too loudly in case nothing changed, although with unfilled vacancies for a few years, the fear of the ballot box is not with them. Others want something done, but not by them. A few still hold out to the notion that all is well with our climate, but not so many these days.

It would be nice if someone actually got around to doing something positive, but I hold out little hope.

 

Pedant mode - wires for signals, rods for points as I recall. The weight of signals returns them to danger when the pull on the wire is released or if the wire breaks.

This thread has set me thinking - putting myself in the shoes of the General Manager of a "heritage" railway, and with it the various decisions about what to keep the old way, and what to modernise.   I came up with a long list to consider - perhaps members would like to have a go - poll at http://www.passenger.chat/22949 .  Open until 1st March 2020; if you're not a member here yet, please register to take part via http://www.passenger.chat/register

 
Must be a bit dim this morning.  What does the * mean in the poll and how do you choose between the two options in each question in the poll?

 

Click the box if you want things "as they were in the past" which is the option marked with (*), please.   I have duplicated that instruction into the question rather than having it just in the descriptive post with the poll.

 

Thanks for clarifying that Grahame. Need to drink some more coffee when I wake up on a Sunday morning

 

The West Somerset Railway has issued a statement over them giving the Somerset & Dorset Joint Railway notice to leave their Washford site says Rail Advent

 
At least prospects look rosier for the West Somerset Railway according to this BBC report.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-51630832?fbclid=IwAR0ccRlaXRMMMJG68vSmJ1F-jzZtg9-AZc-nb1G9eRqY83JI-KEs2q-uky0

Good to read about their aims and successes with getting younger people involved as well as new revenue streams.

 

Harsh reality meets heritage railway operation. It is very good to read that a plan is in place, with what looks like a very good chance of success. The WSR is a very large business in terms of a lot of things, and needs some of the practices of a business to keep going, even if that wasn't the intention at the outset. That holiday cottage will be popular, turning a liability into an asset.

Apprentices are a good idea, giving skills in exchange for labour. The BBC could benefit from that - the article is one of the worst written or edited that I have seen from the Beeb.

 

The intention at the start was for the WSR to run a year-round service of DMU trains between Minehead and Taunton, six round trips per day.  It was intended, and costed, as a public transport service, replacing what BR(WR) had removed.  The year round service would have been subsidised by seasonal steam train services at both ends of the line.  Somewhere in my loft are all the plans from 1974 onwards.

And we'd have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids at Bristol Divisional HQ, aided and abbetted by the NUR

 
Yes.
Todays supporters, friends, volunteers, and paid staff on the WSR often forget, or are unaware, that the original intent of the WSR back in the 1970s was to run to run a year round public transport service.
Over the years, this has been gradually forgotten in favour of a heritage railway with a limited operating season.

I would hope that a year round public transport service could co-exist with the heritage operation.
If that cant be achieved, then I would prefer a year round public transport service, preferably with a new loop or branch into the holiday camp, so as to reduce road traffic, and the carbon emissions thereof.

 
I am indebted! At last, I can stop learning. The emphasis has changed somewhat over the years.

 
This bit in that BBC report made me chuckle a little bit......

 

#MeToo! At firsdt, I thought it sounded expensive, but this is railway after all...