If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Project Wareham

Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by David R, Jul 31, 2015.

  1. 80104

    80104 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2020
    Messages:
    679
    Likes Received:
    451
    Location:
    a small town in germany
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    But could be a worthwhile long term investment if the DoT and DC really want a daily service over the branch to Swanage. The foot crossing problem is not going to be resolved easily or quickly.

    Let us not forget £3M has already been invested in bringing the Worgret Junction to Norden section up to the required standard and over £1M invested in "mainlining" the DMU.
     
  2. DcB

    DcB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,339
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Surrey
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Or long term would an extra track laid alongside the main line between Worgret Junction to Wareham and a new platform on the other side of the station be feasible?, SR and SWR services will be isolated from each other (some car park spaces will have to me moved).
    But inter connections between SR and SWR would be easy, and running tourist steam trains to Wareham viable.
     
    Hirn likes this.
  3. 21B

    21B Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,944
    Likes Received:
    6,303
    At £2m a mile or whatever it now costs to lay NR track, it will never be viable to add another line to Wareham
     
  4. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,105
    Likes Received:
    57,436
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That’s the sunk costs fallacy. The fact you’ve already spent some money on a project doesn’t automatically justify that continuing to spend money will deliver value. You might just have to accept an idea isn’t viable.

    (I saw it on our own railway, at a smaller scale. Money was poured into converting some carriages as sleeping accommodation and the justification was always “we’ve come this far, we can’t stop now”. Eventually a halt was called, but it could have happened so much sooner. Railways need not to be afraid to “fail fast”.

    Tom
     
    lil Bear, Romsey, Poolbrook and 6 others like this.
  5. Woof Mk2

    Woof Mk2 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2015
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    218
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Padstow
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    You need very very and very deep pockets for that to happen.....and if you did would not happen very soon either
     
  6. Woof Mk2

    Woof Mk2 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2015
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    218
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Padstow
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    The signalling at Wareham allows for passenger trains to run into either platforms.
    PW5246 (the up direction signal on the down line ) has a feather signal for platform 1
     
  7. 80104

    80104 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2020
    Messages:
    679
    Likes Received:
    451
    Location:
    a small town in germany
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Agreed. What I have often wondered is to what extent the presence of the foot crossing (and its consequent denial of access to the sidings) was taken into account when "Project Wareham" was first mooted. A considerable sum of money was spent on including Worgret Junction in the resignalling scheme (as opposed to removing the junction completely and thus severing the branch for ever) and yet the problem still exists that the mainline can delay services on the branch and vice versa. It may be an accounting exercise but if daily services did run I wonder at what point the cost of delay repay would have justified either reopening the up bay or providing access to the sidings.
     
  8. Jon Lever

    Jon Lever New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    109
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Bookseller
    Location:
    West Dorset
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Can you think of anything that would be involved in this trial that now costs less than it did six years ago?
     
  9. Gladiator 5076

    Gladiator 5076 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Messages:
    6,078
    Likes Received:
    4,893
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Swanage
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Not having to hire the stock a driver and a guard from WCRC and associated subsistence and travel cost for them.
     
  10. Dunfanaghy Road

    Dunfanaghy Road Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2019
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    1,566
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Alton, Hants
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Didn't the signalling work, partly paid for by Dorset CC, include the provision of connections and signalling to the Down Sidings at Wareham? If so, then commissioning that part of the scheme should be fairly straightforward - unlike introducing a completely new scheme to reinstate a bay road.
    Pat
     
  11. 5914

    5914 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    520
    In the original scoping, it was thought that having the use of both platforms, and having the ability to recess into the down sidings met all operational requirements. The signalling was designed for this, and on the basis of DCC agreeing an alternative solution for the crossing which was not included in the signalling scheme. When it was added in, it was done on the cheapest basis possible - interlocking only the main running signals and leaving everything else to be commissioned once the crossing issue had been resolved. Everything for the signalling to the sidings is provided for - just not commissioned yet.

    Installation of the bay platform would have had a significant additional initial capital cost, and ongoing maintenance costs for which an asset protection agreement covering the costs would have been required. It also has the operational limitations of a significantly shorter operational platform length, and the removal of the option for same platform interchange in both directions (the preferred timetables modeled had the following sequence: SR train arrives in Up platform and runs to sidings, Up and Dn SWT trains arrive/depart, SR train runs to Dn platform and departs).

    Setting the Up bay as the platform for branch trains would also have been a limitation should services have been extended beyond Wareham (thus future-proofing the service running further - possibly to expanded P&R facilities at Holton Heath or providing a more commercially viable service by running to, for example, Poole and removing the disincentive of having to change at Wareham).

    Finally, the option of a segregated line has never been a practical proposition - the earthworks required would be well outside the capacity of SR to fund, and a B:C ratio would have been interesting! (it would require excavation of a deep cutting at Worgret (including rebuilding a substantial road overbridge), then building a significant embankment across nearly a mile of floodplain before building what would essentially be a new station on the site of the main car parking for the station for which there is no obvious replacement location.
     
    Paul42 and Gladiator 5076 like this.
  12. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It probably will cost £3million but I do wonder why anything N.R. does is the case. When the NYMR first decided that a second platform at Whitby would be a good idea, the plan was for it to be essentially a private siding with the NYMR effectively building it using a mix of own staff and contractors. It was schemed out at a budgeted cost of £750K. In the end, Network Rail decided that they'd prefer to be in control and they would do it at the NYMR's expense. The budget immediately jumped to £2.5M with project management charges of £700K. And this was for a connection into a single line controlled by a simple ground frame. No signalling involved, other than a TPWS mat, points indicator and an additional token instrument. Fortunately, the majority of this was met with grant funding, including a substantial contribution from N.R.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2023
  13. Alan Kebby

    Alan Kebby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2019
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brighton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Recommissioning the bay platform would cost the Swanage Railway millions.

    Waiting for DCC to build an accessible bridge to replace the crossing costs the SR nothing. At which point the existing signalling can be put into use to access the sidings.
     
  14. kwrail

    kwrail New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    90
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Is a Smallbrook junction solution at Worgret an option? Would make operating a connecting DMU service easier than crossing onto the main line. No need to have a run round loop on the branch.
     
  15. Alan Kebby

    Alan Kebby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2019
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brighton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I seem to remember the original plans for the Swanage branch in the 19th century involved a completely separate line all the way to Wareham station. Protests about the destruction this would cause to the historic town walls meant the current arrangement of sharing the mainline was used instead.

    How much easier life would be for the SR if the original plans had gone ahead!
     
    GOEdwards likes this.
  16. Romsey

    Romsey Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,619
    Likes Received:
    1,637
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired SPM
    Location:
    Close to Spike Island
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Deleted - duplicate post on signalling layout.
     
  17. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,105
    Likes Received:
    57,436
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Good luck with the earthworks!

    [​IMG]

    (Not my photo - source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-pelican-railways/16545018183)

    Tom
     
  18. 5914

    5914 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    520
    I think it has been covered before - but the curvature and (especially) gradients militate against this as an option (aside from the time penalty of an additional stop for mainline trains).
     
    lil Bear likes this.
  19. Dunfanaghy Road

    Dunfanaghy Road Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2019
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    1,566
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Alton, Hants
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It was looked at a long time ago, I believe. The late Peter Pescod, Hon. Consultant Engineer to the MHR (and former South Western Divisional Civil Engineer at Wimbledon) mentioned to me that he had looked at it at the request of the SR. If memory serves (and it all to frequently doesn't) the idea he looked at was for a platform country side of the overbridge shown in @Jamessquared 's post. No idea what conclusions were reached.
    Pat
     
  20. 5914

    5914 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    520
    When it was re-looked at about 15 years ago, and meeting the then 'blue book' requirements, the nearest compliant location for a platform for terminating trains was at the foot of the gradient (i.e. at the end of the curve that is beyond the bridge to the left of the picture). This would have been a good walk across open farmland from any mainline platforms - which could only be located out of sight to the right of the picture. But the possibility of platforms on the mainline were dismissed out of hand anyway! Incidentaly, there would also have been a requirement to re-equip East Holme Crossing (then an AHB) with a controlled crossing. The costs would have been astronomical, and the interchange mildly sub-optimal (even if there were platforms on the mainline)!
     

Share This Page