• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Swanage to Wareham postponed again

Status
Not open for further replies.

341o2

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
1,899
News from the railway is that owing to not having recovered to pre Covid levels, plus uncertainty as to what 2022 will bring, the railway has decided not to run the Wareham service this year. Quote from the Railway's chairman

Swanage Railway chairman Gavin Johns said: “We can only run trains to Wareham when the conditions are commercially viable and it’s important that we operate the trial as economically as possible and when commercial conditions are at their best.

“We will continue with our main line train operating licence application to the Office of Rail and Road as quickly as practicable.

"The Swanage Railway's business is still recovering from Covid, which badly affected customer and staff confidence, against a background of challenging trading conditions and economic uncertainty.

“Trading conditions during 2022 are very unpredictable because they are being heavily affected by significant prices rises being borne by our customers and our business – such as the increased cost of coal – as well as the tragedy unfolding in the Ukraine.

“Concentrating on providing viable heritage train services between Norden, Corfe Castle, Harman’s Cross and Swanage remains the Swanage Railway’s first priority.

“The current challenging economic reality has affected our plans for operating a trial 90-selected day trial train service from Swanage and Corfe Castle to the main line at Wareham during 2022 and we are working to deliver that service during 2023, trading and economic conditions permitting.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mike Machin

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2017
Messages
213
I must admit it's looking increasingly unlikely. Maybe later in the decade economic confidence will improve, but I think at the moment all business are having to be cautious.

With the current alarming (and little reported) increase in COVID numbers, fall-out from the war in Ukraine, shortage/non availability of coal and the general economic issues facing family incomes with the worst inflation in over 40 years and rampantly rising energy and fuel costs, I think the Swanage Railway's decision is very prudent at this time.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,188
Location
Wittersham Kent
I think that the WCR operated trial would have proved that the Wareham dream was unsustainable. You only had to subtract the WCR costs and substitute in the volunteer costs to prove that. The Swanage wanted to fulfil their obligation to run two trials but have struggled to resource that for a few years. The bottom line is they know that the second trial will incur a loss and with the current uncertainties that would put the core business at risk.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,264
Aren’t there two separate aims? One is to extend heritage services to Wareham, but another was to introduce a commuter service. The latter intended to use those ancient council owned DMUs, and presumably would need full time year round paid staff.

But would the regular commuter accept that quality of rolling stock, compared to typical TOC provision? Seems to me heritage operations and all year round reliable early starts are completely different setups.
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Aren’t there two separate aims? One is to extend heritage services to Wareham, but another was to introduce a commuter service. The latter intended to use those ancient council owned DMUs, and presumably would need full time year round paid staff.

But would the regular commuter accept that quality of rolling stock, compared to typical TOC provision? Seems to me heritage operations and all year round reliable early starts are completely different setups.

As a commuter, I wouldn't mind the Swanage units, so long as they were reliable and well maintained.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Gateway to the South West
Aren’t there two separate aims? One is to extend heritage services to Wareham, but another was to introduce a commuter service. The latter intended to use those ancient council owned DMUs, and presumably would need full time year round paid staff.

But would the regular commuter accept that quality of rolling stock, compared to typical TOC provision? Seems to me heritage operations and all year round reliable early starts are completely different setups.
That is the perennial problem with 'commuter service over heritage lines'. That then leads to conflicts between the two 'sides' if they get even close to running together: do you charge a premium for heritage services? Are the customers willing to pay that? Would they all try and cram on the non-heritage (maybe to beat the steam train to get better photos of it, without actually riding it)? Would volunteers want to book on at unearthly hours to run non-heritage services? If not, do you have paid staff? Could the service's income support paid staff? And so on; there must be millions of other considerations, some obvious and some less so.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
In reality, it would have been better to get the DfT / SWR involved in the same way they did with Okehampton running a through service from Swanage to Bournemouth and in the process solving the issue of how to best serve Parkstone and Branksome more frequently. The question would remain about how to operate the steam railway and mainline service at the same time.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
In reality, it would have been better to get the DfT / SWR involved in the same way they did with Okehampton running a through service from Swanage to Bournemouth and in the process solving the issue of how to best serve Parkstone and Branksome more frequently. The question would remain about how to operate the steam railway and mainline service at the same time.

I imagine you could have the reverse of Whitby where instead of services sharing the main line, they could share the branch. The main line trains could use the shorter platform.

If the railway company paid the track access charge to the Swanage railway, it could form a considerable fixed income for them
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,250
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Aren’t there two separate aims? One is to extend heritage services to Wareham, but another was to introduce a commuter service. The latter intended to use those ancient council owned DMUs, and presumably would need full time year round paid staff.

But would the regular commuter accept that quality of rolling stock, compared to typical TOC provision? Seems to me heritage operations and all year round reliable early starts are completely different setups.

As a commuter, I wouldn't mind the Swanage units, so long as they were reliable and well maintained.

Don't forget that the "ancient council owned DMUs" is the 117 which was extensively refurbished at Eastleigh Works a few years ago. Both it and the 121 were comprehensively refurbished and fitted with the necessary equipment for mainline running, and in part thanks to Covid shutting things down for some time, haven't really had the chance to be used in anger. Ok, they're not as modern as say the 158 SWT / SWR provided, but they are in a good position to start the mainline shuttles at least.

I am sorry to see it's been postponed another year to be honest - even if it's just a Saturday or Sunday shuttle between Wareham and Corfe Castle, it's a shame to see it placed on ice for another year. I wonder if SWR will be happy to step in as they have done in past with another 158 shuttle? That said, the rather oddball service to get it down there has of course since been binned off, so would require it to run ECS down to Bournemouth Depot.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Don't forget that the "ancient council owned DMUs" is the 117 which was extensively refurbished at Eastleigh Works a few years ago. Both it and the 121 were comprehensively refurbished and fitted with the necessary equipment for mainline running, and in part thanks to Covid shutting things down for some time, haven't really had the chance to be used in anger. Ok, they're not as modern as say the 158 SWT / SWR provided, but they are in a good position to start the mainline shuttles at least.

I am sorry to see it's been postponed another year to be honest - even if it's just a Saturday or Sunday shuttle between Wareham and Corfe Castle, it's a shame to see it placed on ice for another year. I wonder if SWR will be happy to step in as they have done in past with another 158 shuttle? That said, the rather oddball service to get it down there has of course since been binned off, so would require it to run ECS down to Bournemouth Depot.

Yes, from the pictures they looked very well looked after. The old bubble car worked well for Chiltern, so I'm sure these units would be fine.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,188
Location
Wittersham Kent
Aren’t there two separate aims? One is to extend heritage services to Wareham, but another was to introduce a commuter service. The latter intended to use those ancient council owned DMUs, and presumably would need full time year round paid staff.

But would the regular commuter accept that quality of rolling stock, compared to typical TOC provision? Seems to me heritage operations and all year round reliable early starts are completely different setups.
Swanage is a town of 10000 population. Its 13 miles with a direct bus to Bournemouth via the chain ferry. The bus service is slow taking an hour. Who is realistically going to use a rail service that goes at 25 mph in the wrong direction for the first 10 miles, where you change on to a another train service that takes 25 mins to dump you in a bus station half a mile from the town? Even in the deluded minds of rail enthusiast there must be few who believe that a commuter service could cover its running costs.
 

Brush 4

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2018
Messages
502
That's ignoring Branksome, Parkstone, Poole, Hamworthy, Holton Heath (if included) and Wareham (for London, Southampton, Winchester, Basingstoke, Woking) A lot of revenue streams there along with Bournemouth. I agree though, I don't believe they have wanted the Wareham service for the last several years, certainly not in winter and now summer seems doubtful.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Swanage is a town of 10000 population. Its 13 miles with a direct bus to Bournemouth via the chain ferry. The bus service is slow taking an hour. Who is realistically going to use a rail service that goes at 25 mph in the wrong direction for the first 10 miles, where you change on to a another train service that takes 25 mins to dump you in a bus station half a mile from the town? Even in the deluded minds of rail enthusiast there must be few who believe that a commuter service could cover its running costs.

I could well imagine someone living in Swanage and getting the train to the office in London a couple of days a week. I can't imagine them bussing it to Bournemouth for a connection so much.
 

Titfield

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2013
Messages
1,665
Aren’t there two separate aims? One is to extend heritage services to Wareham, but another was to introduce a commuter service. The latter intended to use those ancient council owned DMUs, and presumably would need full time year round paid staff.

But would the regular commuter accept that quality of rolling stock, compared to typical TOC provision? Seems to me heritage operations and all year round reliable early starts are completely different setups.

There has been a great deal of confusion about the type of services to be offered.

The Commuter service (ie at times to enable passengers to travel to / from work for the traditional hours of work (broadly speaking 9am to 5pm)) has long been considered to be financially unviable, operationally challenging and requiring a very very significant subsidy. There just would not be enough commuters prepared to forego their car and travel by train instead.

The Community service (ie a service during the day for social purposes operating throughout the year) has been mooted but there has been no "flesh on the bones". It is considered to be financially unviable, operationally challenging but some days could be dovetailed into the leisure / tourist service (see below) so may require less subsidy. The Isle of Purbeck is very very quiet in the late autumn and winter.

The Leisure / Tourist service (ie a service during the day for tourism purposes operating on days when tourism demand is believed to be high enough to warrant such a service. Possibly 4 times a day 5 days a week from May to September. May be daily during the school summer holidays). This service would be the one most likely to be financially viable and the least operationally challenging though imho it would still require a subsidy. The 2017 trial which was skewed by the high hiring in cost of traction resulted in a loss of over £70K. Some have commented that though the cost was skewed so was the revenue by considerable numbers of "novelty / new experience" passengers including enthusiasts.

The challenges though are numerous including staff resourcing, asset resourcing, legal compliance and operational integrity including punctuality and reliability.

My view is, sadly, that the financial subsidy required for any of these options will simply be too great in the current climate for it to be funded by local government. Even if it was funded by central govt the impact on the heritage railway could cause it to enter a downward spiral from which there would be no recovery.
 

Djgr

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
1,638
Well this has gone pear shaped. You would have thought any residual COVID angst would have been a benefit to them?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
There has been a great deal of confusion about the type of services to be offered.

The Commuter service (ie at times to enable passengers to travel to / from work for the traditional hours of work (broadly speaking 9am to 5pm)) has long been considered to be financially unviable, operationally challenging and requiring a very very significant subsidy. There just would not be enough commuters prepared to forego their car and travel by train instead.

The Community service (ie a service during the day for social purposes operating throughout the year) has been mooted but there has been no "flesh on the bones". It is considered to be financially unviable, operationally challenging but some days could be dovetailed into the leisure / tourist service (see below) so may require less subsidy. The Isle of Purbeck is very very quiet in the late autumn and winter.

The Leisure / Tourist service (ie a service during the day for tourism purposes operating on days when tourism demand is believed to be high enough to warrant such a service. Possibly 4 times a day 5 days a week from May to September. May be daily during the school summer holidays). This service would be the one most likely to be financially viable and the least operationally challenging though imho it would still require a subsidy. The 2017 trial which was skewed by the high hiring in cost of traction resulted in a loss of over £70K. Some have commented that though the cost was skewed so was the revenue by considerable numbers of "novelty / new experience" passengers including enthusiasts.

The challenges though are numerous including staff resourcing, asset resourcing, legal compliance and operational integrity including punctuality and reliability.

My view is, sadly, that the financial subsidy required for any of these options will simply be too great in the current climate for it to be funded by local government. Even if it was funded by central govt the impact on the heritage railway could cause it to enter a downward spiral from which there would be no recovery.

If funded by Central government, what impact would it have on the heritage operation to push it into a downward spiral ?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,264
There has been a great deal of confusion about the type of services to be offered.

The Commuter service (ie at times to enable passengers to travel to / from work for the traditional hours of work (broadly speaking 9am to 5pm)) has long been considered to be financially unviable, operationally challenging and requiring a very very significant subsidy. There just would not be enough commuters prepared to forego their car and travel by train instead.

The Community service (ie a service during the day for social purposes operating throughout the year) has been mooted but there has been no "flesh on the bones". It is considered to be financially unviable, operationally challenging but some days could be dovetailed into the leisure / tourist service (see below) so may require less subsidy. The Isle of Purbeck is very very quiet in the late autumn and winter.

The Leisure / Tourist service (ie a service during the day for tourism purposes operating on days when tourism demand is believed to be high enough to warrant such a service. Possibly 4 times a day 5 days a week from May to September. May be daily during the school summer holidays). This service would be the one most likely to be financially viable and the least operationally challenging though imho it would still require a subsidy. The 2017 trial which was skewed by the high hiring in cost of traction resulted in a loss of over £70K. Some have commented that though the cost was skewed so was the revenue by considerable numbers of "novelty / new experience" passengers including enthusiasts.

The challenges though are numerous including staff resourcing, asset resourcing, legal compliance and operational integrity including punctuality and reliability.

My view is, sadly, that the financial subsidy required for any of these options will simply be too great in the current climate for it to be funded by local government. Even if it was funded by central govt the impact on the heritage railway could cause it to enter a downward spiral from which there would be no recovery.
Thanks for putting some much needed realism into the discussion. I think it’s one of our solutions without a problem.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
There has been a great deal of confusion about the type of services to be offered.

The Commuter service (ie at times to enable passengers to travel to / from work for the traditional hours of work (broadly speaking 9am to 5pm)) has long been considered to be financially unviable, operationally challenging and requiring a very very significant subsidy. There just would not be enough commuters prepared to forego their car and travel by train instead.

The Community service (ie a service during the day for social purposes operating throughout the year) has been mooted but there has been no "flesh on the bones". It is considered to be financially unviable, operationally challenging but some days could be dovetailed into the leisure / tourist service (see below) so may require less subsidy. The Isle of Purbeck is very very quiet in the late autumn and winter.

The Leisure / Tourist service (ie a service during the day for tourism purposes operating on days when tourism demand is believed to be high enough to warrant such a service. Possibly 4 times a day 5 days a week from May to September. May be daily during the school summer holidays). This service would be the one most likely to be financially viable and the least operationally challenging though imho it would still require a subsidy. The 2017 trial which was skewed by the high hiring in cost of traction resulted in a loss of over £70K. Some have commented that though the cost was skewed so was the revenue by considerable numbers of "novelty / new experience" passengers including enthusiasts.

The challenges though are numerous including staff resourcing, asset resourcing, legal compliance and operational integrity including punctuality and reliability.

My view is, sadly, that the financial subsidy required for any of these options will simply be too great in the current climate for it to be funded by local government. Even if it was funded by central govt the impact on the heritage railway could cause it to enter a downward spiral from which there would be no recovery.
It's really sad in a way, because orders of magnitude more are wasted subsidising poorly run and coordinated services on the mainline network.

Whereas here there's the opportunity to spend loose change (in government terms) on a genuinely useful service, run highly cost effectively and geared towards a target audience, rather than just being run at a certain time or in a certain way 'because it's always been done that way'.
 

Titfield

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2013
Messages
1,665
If funded by Central government, what impact would it have on the heritage operation to push it into a downward spiral ?

He who pays the piper calls the tune. The DfT would want a say in the decision making process which would be contrary to the principles and ethos of the volunteer led, volunteer run democratic Swanage Railway.

If the service level required paid staff, that would not sit comfortably with the volunteer staff who may wonder why they are providing their services for free when others are being paid for the self same role. It could serve to be a demotivating, demoralising experience for the volunteers who may vote with their feet.

Fewer volunteers means more paid staff means fewer volunteers means more paid staff.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
He who pays the piper calls the tune. The DfT would want a say in the decision making process which would be contrary to the principles and ethos of the volunteer led, volunteer run democratic Swanage Railway.

If the service level required paid staff, that would not sit comfortably with the volunteer staff who may wonder why they are providing their services for free when others are being paid for the self same role. It could serve to be a demotivating, demoralising experience for the volunteers who may vote with their feet.

Fewer volunteers means more paid staff means fewer volunteers means more paid staff.

Possibly the easiest situation would be that the NR operator would just have the right to run the train to the platform and back. The preserved railway would have to maintain their structures and PW in accordance with the track access arrangement, but they would have the choice when and whether to provide anything else. The national rail provider would have to provide everything on board by default.
 

Titfield

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2013
Messages
1,665
Possibly the easiest situation would be that the NR operator would just have the right to run the train to the platform and back. The preserved railway would have to maintain their structures and PW in accordance with the track access arrangement, but they would have the choice when and whether to provide anything else. The national rail provider would have to provide everything on board by default.
If only it was as simple as that.

Whilst the hard elements; structures, infrastructure etc are relatively straightforward there are numerous elements of the customer experience that would require careful resolution and agreement; for example station staff, staff training, fares and ticketing, provision of assistance, provision of toilets, TVMs........

How would SR manage for example a Friday in October when SR wasn't operating but the NR operator was?

I dont doubt the issues can be resolved but the costs then escalate resulting in what may be deemed to be an unaffordable subsidy requirement.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
If only it was as simple as that.

Whilst the hard elements; structures, infrastructure etc are relatively straightforward there are numerous elements of the customer experience that would require careful resolution and agreement; for example station staff, staff training, fares and ticketing, provision of assistance, provision of toilets, TVMs........

How would SR manage for example a Friday in October when SR wasn't operating but the NR operator was?

I dont doubt the issues can be resolved but the costs then escalate resulting in what may be deemed to be an unaffordable subsidy requirement.

Well, that's my point. The NR service would operate as a pay train (much like the Northern Rail service does at Whitby). If the Swanage railway felt it could earn some income by having a buffet, selling tickets etc it would be free to do so, but it would have no obligation.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
Don't forget that the "ancient council owned DMUs" is the 117 which was extensively refurbished at Eastleigh Works a few years ago. Both it and the 121 were comprehensively refurbished and fitted with the necessary equipment for mainline running, and in part thanks to Covid shutting things down for some time, haven't really had the chance to be used in anger.
Who funded the overhauls? The council?
 

Titfield

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2013
Messages
1,665
Well, that's my point. The NR service would operate as a pay train (much like the Northern Rail service does at Whitby). If the Swanage railway felt it could earn some income by having a buffet, selling tickets etc it would be free to do so, but it would have no obligation.


If for example there is a NR service from Swanage to Wareham and a SR service Swanage to Corfe Castle and Norden.
The NR operator is charging £10 one way Swanage to Wareham and SR is charging £14 one way Swanage to Corfe Castle.
What happens if an SR customer gets on the NR train by mistake? What happens if an NR customer gets on the SR service? Does the SR TTI charge an excess fare?
All these scenarios have to be "played out" so the "correct answers" are worked out and the staff trained on.

On days when SR is not operating who unlocks the gates to the platform, unlocks the toilets?

Communicating the differences in the customer offering will be a nightmare.

Who funded the overhauls? The council?
IIRC The Coastal Communities Fund £1.4M
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Gateway to the South West
Possibly the easiest situation would be that the NR operator would just have the right to run the train to the platform and back. The preserved railway would have to maintain their structures and PW in accordance with the track access arrangement, but they would have the choice when and whether to provide anything else. The national rail provider would have to provide everything on board by default.
You would need a 'signaller' presence. Even if the heritage line were run 'line of sight', there is still an interface near the main line that needs managing properly. You also need a way to deal with an emergency. Just like everywhere else, unlikely to happen but you need suitable people ready to act if something were to occur.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
You would need a 'signaller' presence. Even if the heritage line were run 'line of sight', there is still an interface near the main line that needs managing properly. You also need a way to deal with an emergency. Just like everywhere else, unlikely to happen but you need suitable people ready to act if something were to occur.

Well, yes you need the signalling staff. Swanage still has a national rail line interface at Worgret junction
 

david1212

Established Member
Joined
9 Apr 2020
Messages
1,464
Location
Midlands
IIRC The Coastal Communities Fund £1.4M

Correct as stated here

Swanage Railway was awarded a £1.47 million government grant from the Coastal Communities Fund. This successful bid helped provide the finance to enable the refurbishment of rolling stock and improvements to the infrastructure.

The article also states

In 2010, Purbeck District Council and Dorset County Council committed £3.2million for re-signalling improvements and other work needed between Wareham Station, Worgret Junction and Swanage Railway‘s existing signalling system at Corfe Castle. This work is part of Network Rail‘s 2013 Poole to Wool re-signalling scheme.

BP also contributed £500,000 towards works at Norden Level Crossing. This was a legacy donation to the community when the oilfield was sold to Perenco UK Limited

If the Council actually paid out the £3.2m then with the £1.47m close to £5m for something that has yet to happen but realistically can not be recovered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top