Project Wareham

I don’t think you can infer that the fact the trial is running means that the railway has concluded that running it will not do it financial damage. It is just as likely that the assessment is that NOT running the trial would incur a greater damage. I cannot help but feel that success looks like a trial conducted at the least cost that allows everyone to gracefully conclude that the trials have shown that as a regular service the scheme has no future.

 

Without your own boat or aircraft it's a bit difficult for an ''overner"to get there without public transport.

 

Middle son has pointed out the lack of an airship mooring mast on the island (Dont ask)

 

I think even the IoW has realised that airship travel petered out almost a century ago. Either that or the council hasn’t yet caught into the concept of lighter than air craft, in which case we can expect an imminent announcement about the erection of a huge lattice tower in the middle of the island

 

From the Bluebell forum. DEMU 1305 purchased by the Bluebell Railway, though with a separate group maintaining it.
https://www.bluebell-railway.com/bluebell-railway-press-releases/
"It will form a useful and economic means of bringing passengers to our railway earlier than is currently possible and allowing them to spend a full day exploring the line"
So the DEMU might be used on the first Bluebell Line train from East Grinstead picking up mainline passengers.

On the SR if the trial goes ahead this year the class 117 or single 121 (off peak) DMMU will provide a similar function with mainline passengers at Wareham.

Guess the single class 121 DMMU carriage might be more of a risk if it broke down than the 117 as it has just one engine? Perhaps if the 33 was ready as a Thunderbird for a rescue the risk might be reduced?.
Hopefully the project Wareham team are busy with risk assessments and spreadsheets

 

Anyone got a spare tunnelling machine, for a short extension from stokes bay
As long as heritage railways don't get suckered into the providing a public service argument then providing an earlier service to and from the national network, might be ok, as long as it meets its costs, At least on the bluebell, its on their own metals, and as such is totally their own decision.

 

A class 121 has two engines as do the 117 power cars

 

Thanks, so possible for off peak travel from/to Wareham to reduce running costs?

 

As already pointed out the 121 has 2 engines.

Also I don’t believe there is any intention to use the bubble car on it’s own - too low capacity apart from anything else. It will be used to make a 4 car set with the 117, or to replace one of the 117 power cars in event of failure to make a 3 car set.

 

As @martin1656 points out, the two situations are very different. At East Grinstead, there is a short walk between Network Rail and Bluebell stations; Bluebell trains never need to touch Network Rail track. Once you go past the Bluebell ticket office, you are fundamentally "on the Bluebell"; it isn't a service to "get you to the Bluebell".

Tom

 

It would be informative to know what each of the various stakeholders in Project Wareham consider as "success"?
Certainly defining the criteria to be used as "critical success factors" must be an interesting exercise.
Reliability and punctuality could be measured using the definitions adopted by South Western Railway. Our Performance | South Western Railway
Financial Performance could be much harder to define:
Certainly SRT / SRC would need to define what constitutes revenue accruing to the Wareham operation but how would any abstraction of traffic which may have chosen to use one of the other stations as the start / finish point if Wareham was not an option be measured and taken into account.
Likewise how would costs of the Wareham service be defined? Track and Station access charges are straight forward but what about fuel given the Wareham service covers some of the journey an existing Swanage <> Norden service would have incurred? Will the costs also include the costs incurred to date of maintaining the section of line between Norden and the Network Rail boundary? (Though this of course may have been offset by the charter access revenue received to date).

These definitions may be crucial in that it could inform whether the operation continues in following year(s) or given up as unviable. Obviously the last thing SRT SRC wants to discover subsequently is that the true cost of operating the service was far higher than originally thought and thus creates further pressure on the core heritage operation.

 

Reliability and punctuality is an interesting issue. Drawing up a timetable that provides connections to the SWR services without mammoth "buffer time" will be a work of art.
My experience is many SWR services are late, for some reason many seem to loose a lot of time either after Southampton or Bournemouth or both. A rail link is good if provides a connection, not so good if you have to wait an hour or more for the next service.
Even on the link you posted SWR achieved a wonderful 53.7% of services on time.

 

One thing that would massively help with this is is the foot crossing ever closed, meaning the SR got access to the sidings. Then the Swanage DMU could wait in the sidings to connect with the delayed SWR service, instead of having to quickly return to Swanage to get out of the way of the mainline service.

 

Without being negative in any way my concern was that if punctuality and reliability was poor, the costs both direct and indirect SRC could incur could be significant when compared to the revenue. Delay Repay can create quite an administrative burden which SRC could struggle to manage.

The post by @Gladiator 5076 also raises the issue under what circumstances could / would SRC trains wait for a connection or would have to go leaving pax at wareham behind. Common sense says that to avoid the domino effect on the service the SRC would have to go but this could cause considerable customer service issues.

I travelled on the SR over Christmas a few times and I did note that the DMU had a number of issues resulting in some small delays. This further raised my concern over punctuality and reliability.

I am very torn by Project Wareham. I do want it to be a success (in all the criteria) however though in achieving that I do not want it to become the burden (financially, operationally, resource) that breaks the "camels back" so to speak.

 

But there is similarities.
The Bluebell early diesel service was started in June 2022 to meet the Southern 0900 service from London, so visitors can then get a Bluebell train at 10:15 at East Grinstead to spend a full day on the Bluebell Railway steam trains.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-railway-magazine/20220404/282875144294975
For 2023 it is hoped the heratige "Thumper" DEMU will be used at lower cost, instead of the 09 shunter.

At Wareham the heritage class 117 DMMU will also meet visitors on the SWR trains for a full day on the Swanage Railway steam trains, if the 2023 trial goes ahead.

 

The difference is the scale of costs of running the Wareham service versus an extra round trip on your own railway. It’s an apples and pears comparison.

 

Well yes but just a thought. Would it be better for SRT SRC and stakeholders to push for the up bay platform to be reinstated rather than continue to hope that Network Rail and Dorset Council come up with a solution to the access problem that allows the crossing to be closed?

Given all the issues surrounding the crossing (not least vehement local opposition to the closure) my preference would be to push for the up bay to be reinstated because then you are dealing with "the railway" on a railway operating issue.

 

As @21B says, it is chalk and cheese. On the Bluebell (and, eg, the Mid Hants) you can connect from mainline to heritage line without needing to operate a heritage line service on mainline tracks. On the Swanage Railway (and eg WSR) you can’t. That’s a huge difference.

Tom

 

But then you've got the massive cost of installing signalling to allow access to the bay. Is the crossover at the west end of the station up to regular passenger services? OTT maps suggest it's merely a shunt signal. So you've then got to resignal the crossover as well as reinstate the bay platform and signal that. It's not just putting up lights on sticks, it's linking it all together with the rest of the signalling that's already installed. I'd be amazed if it came in at less than £3 million.

 

Ideally the SR should have its own track to Wareham.
But a way round has been found to provide a service so those travelling on the mainline can get a heritage diesel service and a full day on the steam railway, (as at East Grinstead with the new early morning diesel service).

Not ideal, and perhaps using 60 year old diesel DMU trains add more risk, but hopefully if the 2023 Wareham trial goes ahead, it will go well, as it did in 2017, but at lower cost to make it viable.