GWSR General Discussion and Operations

What makes you say this?
You do realise that 9466 is in it's final year of boiler certification, so West Somerset may want to keep on their railway.

 

You might be right, but it is a privately own loco and its owner will be looking to make money from it, to pay for its upcoming overhaul. Maybe it didn't register with you, but the WSR seems to have suffered a potentially very expensive (and potentially existential, to a line already in financial trouble!) landslip and so may not have the wherewithal to hire in another loco that they might not need. I don't know what the outcome will be, but I think the calculations and decisions on which it will be based are a bit more complicated than you seem to think!

 

Why are you over dramatizing the WSR landslip?

 

Probably one for the WSR thread?

Presumably that's moot until the repair bill and interference with the WSR's operations - and any recoveries from the SCC, other landowners and occupiers - become known?

 

Not definitely, but it does look from the evidence that the whole hillside could be on the move, which would be a very expensive and time consuming repair.

 

A look back over GWSR C&W's highlights and achievements in 2022, quite a lot to get through, surprised myself with quite how much we did this year! gwsrcarriageandwagon.blogspot.com/2023/01/2022-roundup.html

 

New civil engineering blog out today, with an update on stanway viaduct:

https://bridgestobroadway.blogspot.com/2023/01/br.html

 

A couple of shots towards the back end of this video of 4270 during its last week in traffic. Scenes are at Manor Lane and the last trip to Broadway at Chicken Curve in fantastic light




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Am I overdramatising the landslip? Such events are rarely cheap to deal with, and we know (because its Chairman has told us!) that the WSR's financial position is not that rosy. Also the pannier, AIUI, already needs special dispensation, as a red route engine, to run there. That will surely make it less welcome over "delicate" parts of the track such as the landslip.

 

There's a new Civil Engineering blog post out today, with a first report on renovation of the Prescott Road bridge.

Hope you like it.

https://bridgestobroadway.blogspot.com/2023/01/bridge-32-repair.html

 

As has been reported on the gala page for the Cotswold festival of steam, the gwsr are extremely pleased to have secured the hire of br std class 4 no. 75014 from our friends at the paington and Kingsweir. Due to arrive in early March The engine will fill the slot vacated by the withdrawal of gwr 4270. It will work alongside the remaining home fleet and be one of the stars at the steam gala which takes place 12-14th May, returning to Devon soon after. It is hoped by that stage that gwr 2807 will be ready to enter traffic.

 

In July / August 2021 Railway Paths Limited (RPL), owner of Sustrans, the national cycle path promoters, offered to sell the Broadway to Honeybourne track bed including eight (I think) overbridges for the nominal sum of one pound to GWSR.
It transpired that DfT refused to allow such transfer of ownership (or indeed any similar such transfers across the country) on the grounds that a heritage railway was insufficiently well-funded to ensure maintenance of these bridges. The bridges are in a run-down condition due to continuing lack of maintenance and misuse from overweight HGVs over many years. (I paraphrase somewhat.) RPL then attempted to transfer ownership to Worcs CC. Since then I have read nothing further.
Does anyone know what is the current situation? Are the bridges being maintained, and if so, by whom? Have any further developments occurred which have secured this future asset requirement for GWSR? The gravity of the situation surely requires that these bridges are at the very least monitored for safety concerns. I find it hard to believe that the matter is just left alone because no-one wants the burden of it.

 

Suggest that if Worcestershire CC are paying to maintain the bridges then the railway would make them happier partners by renaming itself the Gloucestershire and Worcestershire Railway. Pretty apt given none of the GWSR is or ever has been in Warwickshire

 

The majority of the section beyond Broadway is actually back into Gloucestershire again! So it'd be whatever agreement there is between Gloucestershire CC and Sustrans. Back into Worcestershire by Honeybourne, there are some very squiqly county lines round there. We'd have to get to Long Marston at least before we can fulfil our current name.

As far as I know, nothing further has happened regarding that stretch of trackbed since then. Beyond that I know nothing more, other than a personal opinion that I don't think we want to be responsible for the maintenance of those bridges given the condition they are in, we have more than enough bridges to throw money at that are actually a part of our running line.

 

Given that the majority of the bridges carry roads over the old line some authority must already be maintaining them to ensure the safety of road traffic and, therefore, their condition cannot be too bad. I would assume that, as current owners of the trackbed, RPL are bearing the cost, even if they have an arrangement for the County Council to do the inspections and maintenance. That would make their offer to part with the trackbed and bridges for a nominal fee quite understandable, but it should not be taken to mean that, should it accept the offer, the Railway would face a demand for immediate major remedial work on the bridges.

 

If heritage railways are not considered by the Dft to be sufficiently robust financially to take on responsibility for bridges it's difficult to understand why any local authority would accept the risk instead ( especially in the current economic environment). How could an LA step in where the DfT fears to tread? If it creates a financial liability for the Authority that would be a challenge to explain to ratepayers. Perhaps it could be argued that it's good investment (e.g promotion of tourism,) but that would have to pass the new tests on selective financial assistance that replace the previous rules prohibiting improper state aid.

It seems that any new scheme that involves a heritage railway taking over the liability for existing road bridges could be dead in the water.

Extending the GWSR to Honeybourne may be sentimentally attractive but would exacerbate the operational challenge of services originating and terminating at Toddington. Apart from occasional use for charters, or bringing locos in by rail, it's hard to see what commercial benefit the extension would bring, indeed it might be revenue abstractive. The main tourist attraction is Broadway so passengers might well prefer just to do the Honeybourne Broadway trip.

The desire to extend and restore more is understandable but should be resisted unless backed up by a robust business case and financial justification.

 

We're probably pretty much agreeing. Broadway is I would argue the main 'destination' for visitors who want to do more than ride the line and is of course one of Worcestershire's major tourist attractions. I've long hoped more could be made of the Worcestershire connection in the hope that the County Council would get involved to the betterment of the railway. Honeybourne is also of course in Worcs though mainline connection aside I'm not convinced that the cost of the extension is justifed or sustainable. As it is the GWSR seems to be already the optimum length both from an operational and a visitors perspective.

 

On 26 Jan 2023 I posted a request for information concerning ownership of the trackbed and maintenance of the over-bridges between Broadway and Honeybourne (post no. 1553). No one has posted a reply to this, with the exception of Alex (post no. 1555) who states that he doesn't know.
Regardless of posters' opinions concerning the possible extension of the GWSR to Honeybourne, I would think that someone associated with the Railway would know. Surely this is something where a watching brief is important, and I have to repeat this: 'regardless of posters' opinions concerning the possible extension of the GWSR to Honeybourne'.

 

That's not quite what I said - I said as far as I know nothing further has happened.
I completely agree that regardless of whether we want to go to Honeybourne or not, it is something that we ought to keep an eye on.