Project Wareham

Going back to the trust statement
https://www.swanagerailwaytrust.org/giving#
'31806 - is currently in traffic and we urgently need your help to restore 'N' class, no. 31874"
The long term aim does indicate using 31806 and 31874 top and tail into mainline stations like Wareham to boost leisure travel via SWR.
However the cost of updating the MK1 carriages may scupper this.
But the possibility of starting the DMU 90 day service on May is looking better, and training seems to be continuing over Friday.

 

There seem to be at least four possibilities for the Wareham service:

Steam at each end of main line compatible coaches.
Class 33 diesel with a 4TC set in push pull
DMU
Contract in someone else with heritage stock to provide it

notwithstanding all of the outstanding certification issues.

Regardless of everyone’s favourite traction, the DMU solution was the one chosen and backed financially many years ago. Isn’t it in everybody’s interests to get behind this solution and make it work the best we can?

 

Yes there are those four possible solutions to provide traction and passenger accommodation for a Wareham service.

Looking at those options though from a financial perspective - which I accept is not the only perspective - it is surprising that given the financial challenges SR faces so many horses are being backed.

The DMU option has cost in excess of £1M to date. Not to use it fully for the purpose (and standard it was refurbished to) would surely have the funders of the £1M + wondering why other options are being pursued?

The Class 33 Diesel with the 4TC set in push pull mode is probably the most realistic alternative to the DMU. IMHO it is a pity that this option wasnt pursued before the DMU was selected though I am not cogniscent of all the facts and it may simply be a matter of timing / availability of the 4TC carriages (to be restored).

The steam option whilst highly appealing particularly from an enthusiast point of view would be very costly and imho likely to incur a significant loss except on days of high demand. It is also worth considering what would be operating on the "core" part of the line whilst the two steamers were en route to / from Wareham beyond Norden.

Contracting someone else in has been discounted by SRC after the experience of the 2107 trail though doubtless this could be revisited.

As has been a recurring theme in this thread the elephant in the room really is that the total cost of operating to and from Wareham (including the costs of all the infrastructure renewals / additions) is very high indeed and unlikely to be recouped from revenues. The question really is will the revenues cover all the operating costs and if not who is prepared to make up the shortfall?

I am sure that Project Wareham has considerable support amongst staff, volunteers, supporters and enthusiast, what will be needed though is hard cash whether that is fares, donations or grants.

 

In hindsight it might have been better to pursue a 4TC or other Mk1 based option for the Wareham services. Much of the cost and delays in overhauling the DMU was the sourcing and manufacturing of new wheel sets and bearings. If a Mk1 option was chosen instead, the knowledge and parts availability for mainline use is already much better established. The LUL 4TC was overhauled for mainline use at Eastleigh in a vastly shorter timescale to the Swanage Railway DMUs.

But that is easy to say now. The DMUs are complete and ready to go. I look forward to hopefully travelling on them from Swanage to Wareham this year.

 

Yes it is easy to say now but one has to ask (1) why the issue of the new wheel sets and bearings was not identified earlier as a significant cost / time risk issue (2) would it have been better to have abandoned the project when this issue was identified rather than ploughing on regardless.

However having said that we are where we are. Let us hope that the service operates this summer, that the weather is kind and that the patronage is good.

 

Although historically correct the Crompton and 4tc for the Wareham operation lacks 'insurance' ie more than one engine, hence why the DMU decision. The only alternative would have been a Hamsphire unit but with two power cars.

 

Genuine question here: Surely if the Crompton is passed for the mainline, the associated risks are no greater than for any (out of warranty) diesel out there? With the PP function inherent in the TC units and one of the most reliable locos to run on Southern metals, I have to ask if that's perhaps looking for problems ahead of the fact?

 

While 33012 is passed for the main line, a 33+TC operation would need to use 33111 which is not. Indeed no 33/1s are passed for the main line.

 

Right .... with you now. One for the future, perhaps?

 

Not sure in or out of warranty is an issue is it? Delay minutes will be delay minutes won't they. I would assume all TOC's (including the likes of WCRC and LSL) will have some budgeted position on likely delay minutes costs. No idea if the NYMR does as the only heritage TOC at the moment, but the impact to a Heritage Line's finances could be quite severe I would imagine with a lengthy delay caused by power failure of your loco/unit.

 

It is not quite true to say that there are four options for traction for regular running on the mainline - or that they were not all pursued. There were extensive discussions with HMRI/ORR at early stages in Project Wareham that led to many of the decisions that have brought the project to its present format.

The indications from HMRI/ORR were that for regular operation it was unlikely that a derogation would be granted for MkIs to be used on a service that was operating in other than charter conditions, or with other mitigation (such as low line speeds - which I think is one of the mitigations for NYMR). This, together with the lack of crash-worthiness in the leading driving car meant that in practice the 4TC option (which was not anyway a practical proposition when the original business case was drawn up, as both sets still belonged to LT) was not a realistic one.

The different method of construction of the 117/121 DMUs meant that a derogation for limited mainline operation was considered with much more favour by the regulatory authorities.

The inability to run around easily at Wareham (or the need to top-and-tail, with its increased costs) militated against loco-hauled MkI operation. However, with a separate business case it was anticipated that some form of charter style operation could be a part of the mix of operation to/from/beyond Wareham - though that business case has a number of challenges given that Swanage is unlikely to be the location generating originating traffic for charters and line capacity through the New Forest creates a bottle-neck for anything going beyond Bournemouth (albeit line usage is different at present). One option that might have been a possibility would be an early train going Swanage-Bournemouth-Southampton-Eastleigh (essentially ECS that people could travel on from S-B), then a return trip from E-S-B-Sw-B-S-E, followed by a later afternoon/early evening return back to Swanage (again, with little expectation of much traffic beyond Bournemouth on that run). However, whilst it was possible to find some of the paths for this, I am not sure that the commercial case stacked up - especially as length of train would be relatively limited (operational constraints indicated 6/7 coaches as a maximum loading, with challenges of turning (or replacing the loco) at Swanage at the midpoint in the diagram. Anything terminating before Eastleigh ran into significant problems by requiring tender-first running, for which the lower maximum permitted speed meant that any paths evaporated.

I do not know if the regulatory decisions would be different now.

 

Thank you for the insight.

Fundamentally though the concerns have to be a) there does not appear to be any business case for regular operation between Swanage and Wareham b) the DMU option - which on the basis of what you have said appears to be the one most favoured by the regulatory authorities - has involved a very large capital cost (in Heritage Railway terms).

We can only hope that the next trial period does not incur a large financial deficit (to be born by SRC) and that a way forward can be found that does not imperil SRC even if that means abandoning any future regular service between Swanage and Wareham.

 

It is likely there was more to the "wheelset issues" than SR have ever publicly disclosed. The story doesn't seem to quite add up to the rest of us who have dealt with DMU wheelsets, but in the absence of any further information or details, saying anything more would be unhelpful!

Sent from my moto g(8) power using Tapatalk

 

Has anyone else in the heritage movement ever had to order brand new wheel sets to mainline standards for a DMU?

I seem to remember it was the bearings that caused the biggest issues though.

 

A question for fun we had was of a train went straight on from swanage in a line if would it hit the Isle wight or get to France first due to the angles

 

Isle of Wight, and then France near Le Touquet

 

Why would the Swanage Rly need to publicly disclose?
Unlike 55028 which was the Salisbury Route learner unit, The 117 railcars spent some considerable time stored at Winfrith, and therefore required what amounted
to a total rebuild.
IIRC One of the doner driving trailer power cars was found to be in far better condition than the one that had been originally designated, and was swapped.
I had completely forgotten about the wheel sets, IIRC Didn't some of the components have to come from Germany?
So I guess that the class 117 is as good as new then!

 

Happy to be corrected on this, but do I recall the tyres (or was it the complete wheels?) came from S.Africa?

 

I believe even the bubble car had to be given new wheelsets, despite it’s recent mainline use.

Yes South Africa rings a bell, and I think the bearings came from the USA.

Then of course central locking was fitted and engines overhauled, on top of the bodywork and reupholstery of the interior.

No one else has ever overhauled a heritage DMU to anywhere near this extent, so I’m not sure how anyone else could feel qualified to pass judgement.

 

IMHO three issues are "exercising" the minds of those who question the refurbishment of the Class 117 and 121 DMUs for Project Wareham.
(1) Judged by the costs of other heritage locomotive restorations, £1M plus would seem to be a very high figure for an outcome of two heritage diesel units (a class 117 and a Class 121) restored to mainline standards with mainline route availability limited to operating in passenger carrying service between Bridge 2 and Wareham Station.
(2) The bulk of the funding was in the form of a grant from a publicly funded body i.e. the grant was taxpayers money. It is a principle of using public monies that value for money should be achieved.
(3) Given that the stated purpose was for a trial over two years, in the mid 20teens, totalling 150 operating days, was sufficient consideration given to the hiring in of alternative suitable traction because, on the face of it, that would appear to have carried less risk; operationally, financially and timewise.

It has been extremely unfortunate that issues with the supply of components for the refurbishment (and then COVID) have pushed back the potential start date of the second year of the trial (the first with the DMUs) to 2022 - seven years after the signalling scheme was commissioned - but that is the position. Whilst hindsight is a wonderful thing nevertheless some foresight could have predicted some of these issues or that a least there was a possibility of significant delay and / or cost overrun. Has there ever been a major restoration of a long out of service traction unit stored in the open that hasn't taken longer and cost significantly more than first projected?

We can only hope that the trial goes ahead this year and that it is successful both operationally and financially.