Swanage Railway - could we see trains to Wareham in 2024?

[theironroad]

Yes lets forget about the £5M+ of tax payers money that was spent on this project.

The "lets forget about it" attitude - and I have to say that was my interpretation of reading Swanage Railway Magazine - concerns me deeply. It shows an unwillingness to learn from this project of which there are so many learnings not least a failure to listen to all those who had justifiable doubts but were labelled as doom mongers by the SRT and SRC.

They have lost a great deal of goodwill in the local community (as evidenced by the comments on the Swanage News Facebook pages) and will have lost a great deal of credibility with Dorset Council and Swanage Town Council.

Coincidentally, and I accept it is pure coincidence, but the majority conservative groups on both councils who were supportive of SRC are no longer in power in the case of Dorset Council and there is a hung council at Swanage Town Council. Mike Whitwam a long term SRT Trustee and formerly a long term Director of SRC has lost his seat on Swanage Town Council.

Whilst the T3 has been a fantastic success - of which SRT SRCs part has been to raise the funds for it to be restored professionally off railway - there are a number of long term projects which are stalled and have been for a long time due to lack of funds: the water tower project, the turntable project and the two unrestored moguls.

They talk about not wishing to compete with the local bus service and cite the £2 fares but that was not the market they were seeking to attract. The market they were seeking to attract was the tourist coming from further afield, persuading them to leave the car at home and in conjunction with SWR come by train all the way. Does SRC really believe that the bus fare reducing from £9 return (IIRC) to £4 return dealt a fatal blow? That the Wareham passenger numbers pro rata are not very different from 2017 when there was no cheap bus fare rather undermines their argument.

They have blamed covid, the cost of living crisis, the £2 bus fare, the refurbishers of the DMU Units for delays and cost overruns, the bad luck that every axle on the dmus failed the crack inspection test, the cost of compliance for mainline running. Is it bad luck or something else?

Tbh, I can't remember if SR have ticked all the boxes for the DCC grant, but either way, I can#t see the council demanding any money back.

If things are as a dire as the article suggested then, then the core focus and restructure is the only way forward.

 

[yorksrob]

It rather sounds as if SRC wanted everything to be paid for, right down to the tea the volunteers drink, by someone else.

If that were true, they wouldn't have lost money on it.

Valiant is not a word I would use. "Foolhardy" and "inept" are a better fit.

Only for those who never want to see our public transport network improve.

 

[43096]

Only for those who never want to see our public transport network improve.

The reduction in the bus fare is an improvement in the public transport network! And that is a rather better use of taxpayers' money that squandering several £million on a very expensive trainset that doesn't deliver any reasonable benefit.

I rather suspect you mean "rail" based on your past postings but your use of "public transport" only serves to undermine your own argument. You really need to take the blinkers off and look at public transport provision as a whole, because it is blatantly obvious that bus is the best value option in this case.

 

[Titfield]

If that were true, they wouldn't have lost money on it.



Only for those who never want to see our public transport network improve.

I was saying that somewhat tongue in cheek but even so the capital costs of the civil engineering, resignalling and rolling stock were met by grant funding.

A grant was made towards the cost of the dmu servicing centre at Corfe Castle Station. BP / Perenco paid £500K towards the cost of the level crossing at Norden.

SRC has volunteer drivers, guards and ticket inspectors.

SRC had to pay network rail for track access charges (for literally the mile between Worgret junction and Wareham), SWR for station access charges (for Wareham), WRC for insurance on the mainline, a fee for for effectively using the WRC licence and ??????

Perhaps SRT should issue a statement of accounts so that interested parties can see how the loss was made.

 

[DerekC]

The basic problems seem to be the very high cost of modifying the main line network or operating anything different on it (which has applied, sadly, to our whole industry since privatisation) and specifically the failure to include recommissioning the bay platform at Wareham in the scheme. If a regular summer heritage service from Wareham to Swanage could have been operated, the picture would be very different, I think. The capital cost wouldn't have been recovered but the local taxpayers would have got something visible for their money.

 

[paul1609]

It rather sounds as if SRC wanted everything to be paid for, right down to the tea the volunteers drink, by someone else.

I think thats possibly a little unfair on the Swanage Railway.
From a Generic Heritage Railway viewpoint the business has always been cyclical but in the early 2010s the majority of railways started to enter a downturn.
Some of this was apparent in the terms that retail sales had collapsed due to on line trading. this is wider than heritage railways and can be seen in the number of to let shops in the average uk high street. More subtle was the very much reduced profitability of standard static catering, there are various reasons why this has happened increased competition, increased minimum wages and recently increased energy costs. The bottom line really is that the core railway business can no longer make a loss on the hope of attracting secondary spend because the average secondary spend is not profitable.
There was also a downturn in the general passenger numbers and their spend which didnt really become apparent to many railways until the pandemic struck.
Then energy costs increased to a peak of around 400% of the mid decade price. All of this would I suggest be a shock to any business over a decade but the Swanage Railway had the added burden of taking on a quasi public transport service. the majority of public transport have had to be bailed out by central government. We know that railways generally are requiring a very large subsidy to avoid going broke. What we dont know is how the subsidy would be allocated to individual lines. i would suggest that some of the branch line services on the national network that are akin to the Swanage are absolute basket cases and that the amount of subsidy to keep them open is massive. Island line gives a fair clue. id suggest that some of the lines many of which are basically only tourist lines are receiving annual subsidies far in excess of the total amount granted to the Swanage.
i dont think its reasonable to think any heritage railway could have foreseen where we are in 2024 at the start of Project Wareham but we are where we are.

 

[WAO]

I think that heritage services along a mainline to branch lines are fundamentally unsound as the cost and complexity of mainline operation are vastly different to that of a heritage light railway. Yes, charter trains are successful but they have premium fares and high occupancy unlike a branch line equivalent.

What could work is a decoupled operation, where the heritage railway has its own track and bay platform, to provide a connecting service using non-certified heritage stock.

One can think of some stations that could have this; Keighley, Princes Risborough, Cholsey, etc, although regular connecting services may not be needed at many of these places. Others might have great potential (such as Taunton's platform 7), if a trackwork solution could be found.

In the case of the Swanage link, a more workable prospect would have involved an independent line into a South bay at Wareham. This would have needed a new trackbed across several watercourses and changes to Wareham car parking, possibly costing more than £5M but better, workable value.

WAO

 

[Titfield]

I think thats possibly a little unfair on the Swanage Railway.
From a Generic Heritage Railway viewpoint the business has always been cyclical but in the early 2010s the majority of railways started to enter a downturn.
Some of this was apparent in the terms that retail sales had collapsed due to on line trading. this is wider than heritage railways and can be seen in the number of to let shops in the average uk high street. More subtle was the very much reduced profitability of standard static catering, there are various reasons why this has happened increased competition, increased minimum wages and recently increased energy costs. The bottom line really is that the core railway business can no longer make a loss on the hope of attracting secondary spend because the average secondary spend is not profitable.
There was also a downturn in the general passenger numbers and their spend which didnt really become apparent to many railways until the pandemic struck.
Then energy costs increased to a peak of around 400% of the mid decade price. All of this would I suggest be a shock to any business over a decade but the Swanage Railway had the added burden of taking on a quasi public transport service. the majority of public transport have had to be bailed out by central government. We know that railways generally are requiring a very large subsidy to avoid going broke. What we dont know is how the subsidy would be allocated to individual lines. i would suggest that some of the branch line services on the national network that are akin to the Swanage are absolute basket cases and that the amount of subsidy to keep them open is massive. Island line gives a fair clue. id suggest that some of the lines many of which are basically only tourist lines are receiving annual subsidies far in excess of the total amount granted to the Swanage.
i dont think its reasonable to think any heritage railway could have foreseen where we are in 2024 at the start of Project Wareham but we are where we are.

Swanage Railway did not take on the added burden of the quasi public transport service in the sense it was forced upon them. The SRT continually over a very long period of time had promoted the concept that if funding paid for the civils, rolling stock and signalling system then SRC would operate the service and pay for those costs out of fare box revenue. The old adage of being careful what you wish for is so appropriate here. Once the ball had been set rolling then it had to run to its end. That would have been no problem if SRT SRC had taken a less financially risky course: get the funding to pay for the costs of hiring in rolling stock rather than purchasing life expired rolling stock and paying for its refurbishment to the current mainline standards. Why they didnt do this I do not know but it flew in the face of experience in that many many many refurbishments of life expired rolling stock has taken far longer and cost considerably more money than originally estimated. The outcome was that the DMUs were delivered 3? years later than planned. SRC had to hire in rolling stock at its own expense to operate the 2017 service. This was a (the main?) reason for the loss on the Wareham service in 2017.

This is not post event hindsight. The problem of refurbs taking far longer and costing far more is not an new thing, it has been an issue almost since the start of heritage railways.

 

[D Williams]

Well, what's done is done. It remains to be seen whether they can pull themselves out of the mire. I expect there have been some lively board meetings.

 

[notverydeep]

I would suggest that some of the branch line services on the national network that are akin to the Swanage are absolute basket cases and that the amount of subsidy to keep them open is massive. Island line gives a fair clue. id suggest that some of the lines many of which are basically only tourist lines are receiving annual subsidies far in excess of the total amount granted to the Swanage.

The comparison with Island Line is fairly instructive. Despite being part of the National Rail network, Island Line suffers from many of the issues that normally affect heritage lines, but don't affect other NR rural branches as much. It is small scale and isolated, requiring its own set of trains, train maintainers, signallers and infrastructure maintenance staff that are not shared wit the wider network of adjacent lines. The Cornish and Thames Valley branches and (say) the Lymington branch benefit from somewhat lower costs and economies of scale because the staff and infrastructure required for maintenance and signalling are shared across a wide area and their spare trains are also spare for a whole set of other services. In one sense Island line is even worse, having both a very vulnerable and costly structure (the Pier at Ryde) and negligible secondary spending potential - though as your post correctly notes, this spend isn't the life saver it once was. It does gain though from through passengers (despite complex rail to ferry to rail interchange) and many of its passengers will make multiple trips during their visit to the area - because its fares are not many times the price of the same journey by bus...

 

[341o2]

I think that heritage services along a mainline to branch lines are fundamentally unsound as the cost and complexity of mainline operation are vastly different to that of a heritage light railway. Yes, charter trains are successful but they have premium fares and high occupancy unlike a branch line equivalent.

What could work is a decoupled operation, where the heritage railway has its own track and bay platform, to provide a connecting service using non-certified heritage stock.

One can think of some stations that could have this; Keighley, Princes Risborough, Cholsey, etc, although regular connecting services may not be needed at many of these places. Others might have great potential (such as Taunton's platform 7), if a trackwork solution could be found.

In the case of the Swanage link, a more workable prospect would have involved an independent line into a South bay at Wareham. This would have needed a new trackbed across several watercourses and changes to Wareham car parking, possibly costing more than £5M but better, workable value.

WAO

You would also need an additional bridge to carry the A352 over the new railway, and Worgret Junction lies within a deep cutting.
Presumably, there would be widespread disruption while the construction work was being undertaken.
Is the land available for the new trackbed, or would it have to be purchased, assuming the landowner was prepared to sell?

 

[Titfield]

You would also need an additional bridge to carry the A352 over the new railway, and Worgret Junction lies within a deep cutting.
Presumably, there would be widespread disruption while the construction work was being undertaken.
Is the land available for the new trackbed, or would it have to be purchased, assuming the landowner was prepared to sell?

TBH I dont think the time that the unit occupies the mainline transiting from Worgret Junction to Wareham Station and vice versa is a huge constraint and certainly it is doubtful if one could justify the cost of a new piece of line to match the layout a la Brockenhurst. The real time constraint is the time the unit stands on the mainline at the station disembarking and embarking passengers.

The capex should be spent reactivating either the up bay or the down bay so the unit can sit out of the way not impeding the mainline. I do wonder if it would be worthwhile buying the somewhat run down trading estate adjacent to the up bay, demolishing all the buildings and creating a new car park for wareham station. This could free up the existing car park to be turned back into the down bay. I do not know operationally which would be better: up or down bay.

 

[yorksrob]

The reduction in the bus fare is an improvement in the public transport network! And that is a rather better use of taxpayers' money that squandering several £million on a very expensive trainset that doesn't deliver any reasonable benefit.

I rather suspect you mean "rail" based on your past postings but your use of "public transport" only serves to undermine your own argument. You really need to take the blinkers off and look at public transport provision as a whole, because it is blatantly obvious that bus is the best value option in this case.

The reduction in bus fare is an improvement, but not so much at the same time as rail fares are being hiked.

An "improvement in the public transport network" must surely entail a reduction across all modes.

 

[Titfield]

The problem with reducing fares is that the outcomes are highly variable. In the case of the £2 bus fare it would be interesting to know if patronage has genuinely risen ie modal shift from car or that the same number of car journeys are being made but some additional leisure journeys are being made by bus because for that type of journey the purchaser evaluates the choice differently.

 

[30907]

TBH I dont think the time that the unit occupies the mainline transiting from Worgret Junction to Wareham Station and vice versa is a huge constraint and certainly it is doubtful if one could justify the cost of a new piece of line to match the layout a la Brockenhurst. The real time constraint is the time the unit stands on the mainline at the station disembarking and embarking passengers.

The capex should be spent reactivating either the up bay or the down bay so the unit can sit out of the way not impeding the mainline. I do wonder if it would be worthwhile buying the somewhat run down trading estate adjacent to the up bay, demolishing all the buildings and creating a new car park for wareham station. This could free up the existing car park to be turned back into the down bay. I do not know operationally which would be better: up or down bay.

Reinstating the Up bay would have been straightforward and made use of the existing trailing crossover (adding a loop looks possible if desired); a down bay would have been more convenient but possibly too short.

The only realistic way to have segregated the branch and main lines would have been to single the main line - expensive and, with Moreton-Dorchester already single, operationally undesirable.

 

[WAO]

You would also need an additional bridge to carry the A352 over the new railway, and Worgret Junction lies within a deep cutting.
Presumably, there would be widespread disruption while the construction work was being undertaken.
Is the land available for the new trackbed, or would it have to be purchased, assuming the landowner was prepared to sell?

An alternative to a short line (c2000m) to Wareham would be an island platform around Worgret, serving the down line and Swanage branch.

Good for a rail link but less so for a Wareham -Swanage trip!

WAO

 

[zwk500]

An alternative to a short line (c2000m) to Wareham would be an island platform around Worgret, serving the down line and Swanage branch.

Good for a rail link but less so for a Wareham -Swanage trip!

WAO

Terrible for 99.9% of passengers, as they now stop a mile and a half or so down from Wareham in the middle of nowhere, further delaying their journey to or from Dorchester/Weymouth. And, of course, anybody wanting to return from Swanage by rail now has even further delay to their journey by having to circulate to the next stop in the down and then get the next Up train.

 

[Barclay]

Agree with the posts above, if it could be done cheaply it would be desirable to build a Smallbrook Junction-style interchange at Worgret and forget heritage trains running into Wareham.

If Dorset/BCP Councils were to consider an urban expansion of Wareham at Worgret and significant housebuilding at Holton Heath in the future, perhaps there might be a case in the future for a Bournemouth-Norden/Corfe service. BCP in particular has run out of land for a supply of new homes.

 

[Titfield]

Agree with the posts above, if it could be done cheaply it would be desirable to build a Smallbrook Junction-style interchange at Worgret and forget heritage trains running into Wareham.

If Dorset/BCP Councils were to consider an urban expansion of Wareham at Worgret and significant housebuilding at Holton Heath in the future, perhaps there might be a case in the future for a Bournemouth-Norden/Corfe service. BCP in particular has run out of land for a supply of new homes.

I would wholeheartedly object to Dorset Council agreeing to any solutions to solve BCPs problems! BCP were so keen to go their own way and form their own unitary authority to be rid of any of the problems of dealing with the rural part of Dorset.

BCP should solve their own problems. The answer is to use a lot of the land up by Bournemouth Airport.

EDIT

My concern is that irrespective of whether it is BCP or DC the temptation to build large scale new housing at Holton Heath will be irresistible. This would create even more problems on the A35 and on the short section of the A351 to Holton Heath. The Bakers Arms roundabout can be a very dangerous roundabout.

It is also worth pointing out that taking the train to Poole doesnt work for a large number of workers because their employment is on or near the numerous trading estates that have built up over the past 25 years or so that are well outside of the town centre.

 

[Invincible]

Wonder why Project Wareham did not object to national rail adding an extra wiring and cabinet to the bay platform at Wareham which could have been used for the DMU service?

In an ideal world, an extra set would get added to the SWR fleet of class 158s and this would be deployed to the branch to shuttle to / from Swanage with (say) at most two driver duties per full hours operating day

I see First, part owners of SWR, have restarted the 2 hourly X50 bus between Weymouth, Wareham and Swanage.
Presumably subsided by the Government and/or council?, and in competition with More buses on the Wareham and Swanage roads (owned by rival bus and train operator Go Ahead) which is also subsided.

 

[yorksrob]

Reinstating the Up bay would have been straightforward and made use of the existing trailing crossover (adding a loop looks possible if desired); a down bay would have been more convenient but possibly too short.

The only realistic way to have segregated the branch and main lines would have been to single the main line - expensive and, with Moreton-Dorchester already single, operationally undesirable.

Segregating the branch and mainlines seems to be an unnecessary expense.

Falmouth branch trains use a section of the down Cornish main line in both directions without too much detriment to main line services. Such an option must be possible for Wareham.

 

[Titfield]

Segregating the branch and mainlines seems to be an unnecessary expense.

Falmouth branch trains use a section of the down Cornish main line in both directions without too much detriment to main line services. Such an option must be possible for Wareham.

Agreed. As I posted earlier the sensible capex would be to reinstate the up bay platform so that SRC trains do not block the line when disembarking and embarking passengers at Wareham.

Wonder why Project Wareham did not object to national rail adding an extra wiring and cabinet to the bay platform at Wareham which could have been used for the DMU service?

I see First, part owners of SWR, have restarted the 2 hourly X50 bus between Weymouth, Wareham and Swanage.
Presumably subsided by the Government and/or council?, and in competition with More buses on the Wareham and Swanage roads (owned by rival bus and train operator Go Ahead) which is also subsided.

Not just Project Wareham but the Purbeck Community Rail Partnership whose list of members includes Swanage Railway, South Western Railway, Dorset Council, Network Rail, Swanage Town Council, Perenco UK, National Trust, RSPB and the Community Rail Network plus Wareham Town Council, Purbeck Transport Action Group (PTAG), Dorchester Town Council, Corfe Castle Parish Council, Wool Parish Council, Friends of Wool station, Friends of Wareham Station, Friends of Dorchester South, National Trust, MoreBus, and First Wessex Buses.

 

[zwk500]

Agreed. As I posted earlier the sensible capex would be to reinstate the up bay platform so that SRC trains do not block the line when disembarking and embarking passengers at Wareham.

Having actually had the time to take a look at diagram of Wareham, I've noticed there are sidings to the east shown as connected. The east crossover is marked as Clipped & Padlocked, so that might need some reconditioning but the sidings are clearly visible on Google Maps (and it's a little bit embarrassing for me not to have looked).
The Capex for refurbing a crossover that already exists would be much less than reinstating a bay platfrom, and you would avoid the majority of accessibility problems if the SRC unit was shunting between platforms as passengers to/from the London direction (i.e. the overwhelming majority) wouldn't need to change platforms.

Although this resolves most of the issues around occupying the line, the primary problem of having enough punters or not would remain.

 

[Titfield]

Having actually had the time to take a look at diagram of Wareham, I've noticed there are sidings to the east shown as connected. The east crossover is marked as Clipped & Padlocked, so that might need some reconditioning but the sidings are clearly visible on Google Maps (and it's a little bit embarrassing for me not to have looked).
The Capex for refurbing a crossover that already exists would be much less than reinstating a bay platfrom, and you would avoid the majority of accessibility problems if the SRC unit was shunting between platforms as passengers to/from the London direction (i.e. the overwhelming majority) wouldn't need to change platforms.

Although this resolves most of the issues around occupying the line, the primary problem of having enough punters or not would remain.

The east sidings are locked permanently out of use because of issues relating to the foot crossing. Network Rail wishes to close the crossing, the locals including Wareham Town Council wish to keep it open as it is convenient and avoids using the bridge which iirc doesnt have a pavement. At the moment Dorset Council is paying for the crossing to be staffed. There are pedestrian gates which close the crossing when trains are due etc.

Plans have been put forward for a mobility friendly footbridge (to replace the existing up and over) but agreement cant be reached. There is disagreement about the visual intrusion caused by a zig zag type bridge to meet the gradient rules. Some want a bridge with lifts but this raises issues about what happens in the event of a breakdown and that the station isnt staffed all the time.

 

[nanstallon]

Whether it was or not, in any sensibly-run transport scenario, it shouldn't have been a stupid idea - it should be a blindingly obvious thing to be able to do the connect a popular preserved railway to the main line and effectively provide a local transport link to a significant seaside town at the same time. It's not as if a train from Swanage running into Wareham has to weave into an intensive main line service. Only in modern Britain could it be made so hard to do the obvious.

Yes, modern Britain is a pathetic country, tying itself in knots with red tape. In BR days (before 1972), it was practicable to run a regular service between Wareham and Swanage. In 2024, it is not. Progress?

Perhaps the real 'lesson to be learned' is that railways are great for fun, but becoming irrelevant for getting from A to B.

 

[Falcon1200]

In BR days (before 1972), it was practicable to run a regular service between Wareham and Swanage. In 2024, it is not. Progress?

But it was that very same BR which deemed it not practicable, withdrew the service and closed the line! At the end of the day a railway is just one form of transport, and not always automatically the optimum means of providing that transport. As has been explained very well elsewhere in this thread.

 

[yorksrob]

But it was that very same BR which deemed it not practicable, withdrew the service and closed the line! At the end of the day a railway is just one form of transport, and not always automatically the optimum means of providing that transport. As has been explained very well elsewhere in this thread.

It wasn't that the railway wasn't practical, rather at the time the company had an ideological preoccupation of reducing route milage at any cost.

 

[Falcon1200]

It wasn't that the railway wasn't practical, rather at the time the company had an ideological preoccupation of reducing route milage at any cost.

Practical, or rather practicable, was the word used in the post I quoted! But while it is a pity the Swanage branch closed, would the revenue ever have come close to covering the cost of the service? In which case a decision had to be made on the worth of subsidising the service; Just as it has today with the Wareham DMU.

 

[Titfield]

Practical, or rather practicable, was the word used in the post I quoted! But while it is a pity the Swanage branch closed, would the revenue ever have come close to covering the cost of the service? In which case a decision had to be made on the worth of subsidising the service; Just as it has today with the Wareham DMU.

Some of this discussion rather neatly encapsulates the issues surrounding one of the main objectives of the 1947 Transport Act: publicly owned, centrally planned, integrated transport system.

What could be better than a railway providing the heavy lift between London Waterloo and Weymouth calling at Wareham and a bus company providing the light lift between Wareham and Swanage.

 

[nanstallon]

But it was that very same BR which deemed it not practicable, withdrew the service and closed the line! At the end of the day a railway is just one form of transport, and not always automatically the optimum means of providing that transport. As has been explained very well elsewhere in this thread.

BR deemed it to be not practicable for financial reasons. They didn't say it was impracticable for operational reasons. These days so many expensive obstacles are raised that operations such as a revived connection from the Swanage Railway into Wareham for regular services becomes saddled with so much expense that didn't apply in the 70s, that it is indeed now not practicable even with volunteer staff. Swanage Railway weren't charging £25 return out of greed! This sad episode does show that in modern conditions the railway is indeed not the best way to provide public transport to Swanage, and so the Swanage Railway will only ever be a fun railway for visitors.