Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by David R, Jul 31, 2015.
I guess I missed your comment that it only adds to confusion but, at least, I've said why.
All you would add to that excellent overview is that there are 17 flat crossings on the SR, ranging from Norden Gates (with gates of course), through Quarr Farm (lights and siren only) to public footpaths and UWC gated crossings. I suspect any "take back" to being part of the National Network to give an increased line speed would mean some or all of these would need upgrading or closure given NR's view these days on such things. Although based on Rabbit Bridge at Iver which was also a footpath demolition and asking for forgiveness seemed easier option than asking permission.
Thank you for your exhaustive reply
However much the cost of the infrastructure work turns out to be
1. It is creating jobs
2. It is providing the means by which Swanage and Wareham can participate in the "seaside resort rail renaissance' as described in the quoted inews article
3 It is providing an environmentally friendly means for JQP to access one of the UK's most endearing resorts
4. It will bring an increase in customer volume for the SR
some mention the "negative" implications for SRC. I prefer to think that SRC,NR SWR and the relevant authorities can bring about the improvements beneficial to all parties Its still a lot cheaper than widening roads and knocking about a pretty unique landscape and giving over large proportions of urban areas for the parking of private passenger vehicles
I assume that Tom's post #1837 starting "But sadly they don't mix" was responding to one from Mr Ignored, not to Al's immediately previous suggestion of a mixture of through DMUs from Wareham with steam between Norden and Swanage. Those certainly could mix, though whether such a service would be viable remains to be seen.
It may well be, and if we are going to talk about changing government policy then that may be a conversation to have. However, I was careful to ground my answer in current policy and therefore what the various bodies must make their decisions on the basis of right now.
And, love it or hate it, we come back to the question of whether Swanage has the weight to be able to justify change in the current climate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The could mix up with locals like monkey world and tank museum to give joined tickets so then they could force a few more people to get off in Wareham but they’d been better using all the monies to make a museum at fuzbrook than just hitch up to the mainline which is prone to be a big waste. or develop fuzbrook to be another place and set a up a monkey world type place. Then the railway would get used for people to get off there with them and as a form of transport
Can I suggest we leave @City of truro fan and @oliversbest to sort out the details between the two of them while the rest of us watch on in stunned silence?
Or join those of us who already have them on Ignore and not bother to watch.
The idea of "combined tickets" has been proposed on many occasions by Dorset Tourism and the Tourist Attractions Group however unfortunately both Monkeyworld and the Tank Museum have declined to participate. Passes such as the London Pass and York Pass only work (ie sell in good numbers) when they include a significant number of attractions including the "big ones".
Details of the current Dorset Pass can be found at Dorset Sightseeing Pass | Dorset Crusies & Attractions | City Experiences
IMHO SRT SRC really need to consider locating all their museum assets at one location to give it some form of "critical mass appeal". Secundus currently on display in the goods shed museum at Corfe Castle Station really needs to be on display at Norden where the recreated clay mine workings are. Sadly the Museum Manager post was made redundant during the COVID turmoil.
Of course episodes like this will do little to encourage travel to Dorset by rail. As our Canadian correspondent often refers to the Dorset Echo surprised it has not been mentioned.
There is no argument on that.
Well in some ways encouraging as leisure train travel is up after the I news article said numbers for Weymouth and Poole we down.
From the Echo "A spokesperson for Great Western Railway said: “Unfortunately, this train had to run with less carriages than was planned because of faults with other trains on our network, we are sorry for the inconvenience caused". Does seem GWR have either maintenance problems, or might be a consequence of the delay of refurbished 769s and 231s on Gatwick and Greenford lines, not releasing enough Sprinter DMUs for the West lines?
Their spokesperson certainly has grammar problems ...
Some assert that, in that context, the word should be "fewer", but most of us would say/write "less". And (says he, deliberately starting a sentence with a conjunction) the grammar of postings on here is often not the best.
At least she undercover.
I think the plan was for her back when I was a volunteer to be on display on the loWer level of the mine building with the one surviving open wagon she worked with but like a lot of things at Swanage that plan seems to been abandoned.
Most would be wrong then . "Carriages" are a divisible quantity, so it should be fewer. It's very simple - if you can count the quantity in discrete units, use fewer; if you measure it as a continuous quantity, use less.
True, and I normally give a pass to posters on the forum, but a spokesperson for a large company - who is basically being paid to communicate clearly - shouldn't make such sloppy errors.
So... "there'll be fewer cars on the road using less petrol?"
I thought starting sentences with a conjuction was okay - the idea that it wasn't being rather dated and perpetrated by school teachers? I don't have my copy of Fowler to hand, so...
Exactly that - and the demand for less petrol will mean we’ll need fewer barrels of oil.
Anyway, it was intended as a sarcastic joke - so back to Wareham, which is fewer miles from me than Canada …
Separate names with a comma.