I don't consider that a new Butlins station is into the realms of fantasy, there is growing concern about road congestion both locally and more generally.
The environmental costs of flying and driving are increasingly considered.

I did state that this should be considered in the longer term, not initially.

For the Butlins traffic, I feel that the longer term aim should be to build a Butlins station within the holiday camp site. The walk from train to holiday accommodation would then be no longer than from a car.

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), this should be partly funded by Butlins, and partly funded from the public purse in order to encourage sustainable transport choices.

This new station could be either on a loop from the existing line in order that trains could still run to/from Minehead via Butlins, or a single ended branch terminating within the camp.
This would require portion working to still serve Minehead.

"This train is for Butlins and Minehead town. This train divides en route. Join the front 8 coaches for Butlins. Join the rear 4 coaches for Minehead town"

In the reverse direction, that portion of the train starting from Butlins could be at the new station in plenty of time without delaying anything else. Ample time for boarding with luggage, children, cycles, dogs etc.

Portion working is easy with DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) or new battery trains, and entirely achievable with steam locomotives, though more trouble.
Steam haulage right into the holiday camp could be an attraction in its own right.
A modern battery train could be attractive for environmental reasons.

As regards fares, one possible solution might be to charger higher fares (similar to the present fares) for peak season heritage trains, and lower fares (similar to those elsewhere on network rail) for the of season trains.

To avoid disadvantaging local residents who travel regularly including during the heritage season, offer monthly season tickets all year around but based on the off season fares.

This is IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) another example of the regrettably fragmented nature of the West Somerset Railway.
Getting all the groups that make up the WSR to agree is bad enough, without considering the challenges presented by network rail and GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway).

I can think of various possibilities as to what type of train to use, but in my view the important factor is to get an ALL YEAR round service operating at least between Taunton and Minehead.
Steam would be expected in the holiday season, but at other times almost anything that is safe, reliable, comfortable and of sufficient capacity would serve.

Most passengers would be satisfied by any of the following.
Class 159 or similar.
Preserved HST^▸ (High Speed Train).
Heritage DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit).
Preserved diesel loco and coaches.
A new battery loco hauling heritage coaches.
A newly built battery train.
A battery train converted from existing stock.
Steam, too expensive for regular use in the off season, but a possibility if needed.

More important than rolling stock is persuading TPTB^▸ (The Powers That Be) to allow 40/45 MPH running on the WSR, and to permit heritage stock on the short bit of network rail track to Taunton.

Splendid, but should perhaps be propelled by the gardeners boy, who might be younger and fitter than the butler.
I do rather like the port compartment

I don't much trust aeroplanes either, "keep up thy airspeed, lest the ground riseth up and smites thee"

I am too old and fat to cycle, and don't really trust any vehicle with only two wheels. It looks inherently unstable, and when I tried cycling I found the machine to be as unstable as it looked.
Three wheels is the minimum for stability, and four looks safer.

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) there is a picture of one on the a website devoted to liveries that don't actually exist, cant find it now though.

Increased cycling is IMO^▸ (in my opinion) good for the community at large, and not just for those who cycle.
Less traffic congestion, less pollution, less noise.

I have recently observed an increase in cycling.

I suppose that extra intermediate vehicles could be added, up to say 7, 8, or even 9 passenger vehicles whilst only needing two power cars.
These extra vehicles could include useful facilities not found on newer stock.
Bulky holiday luggage, cycles and even surfboards could be conveyed in the power cars.
It might even be possible to run these longer trains to and from London.

I would be reluctant to fly, due to concerns about climate change, even if enticed by Port.
I am also VERY doubtful about improvised sleeping arrangements, and try to avoid folding beds, air beds, camp beds, sofa beds, and any bed that converts from something else.
Folding beds=risk of collapse
Air beds=burst or leak.
Camp beds=risk of the canvas ripping and dumping me on the ground.

Various convertible seat/bed arrangements may work just fine on airlines, but I have no faith in such arrangements working if GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) or Hitachi are involved.
After years of development and several years in service, Hitachi still cant get a pair of DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) to couple and uncouple reliably and promptly.
GWR still cant reliably operate a very minimal trolley service.

Seats that convert into beds and back sound too complex.

The merit of the sleeper is the provision of a proper flat bed in a private room. In which one may change in privacy and sleep in proper bedding.

Any improvisations involving airline seats that sort of convert into not a proper flat bed, would be a significant downgrade. And experiences of both GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and new rolling stock suggest a lot of extra things to go wrong. Seat wont fold into ersatz bed. Fake bed wont change back into a seat. Gets stuck part way. Privacy screen drops off or gets stuck. GWR forget to supply pillows and blankets. Bookings don't work, or get transferred to a different service. Hitachi sends wrong train.
Train cancelled from Plymouth as wont couple to the other portion.

Yes, derailed rail vehicles can be recovered by rail mounted cranes, or very exceptionally by a road crane.
In this particular case, most vehicles look beyond economic repair, and that together with the remote location suggests cutting up at the accident scene. It is easier to move the debris if cut up first.
No one is going to authorise major repairs to HST^▸ (High Speed Train) vehicles, much more economic to simply scrap them, and save alternative vehicles for re-use that would otherwise be scrapped.

I  recall a relatively modern class 66 loco that was derailed in a most inaccessible location. Recovery was ruled out as being virtually impossible, it was therefore dismantled at the scene with some components recovered for re-use and the remainder scrapped. The cheapest option would have been to simply abandon it, but that is not acceptable these days.

EDIT TO ADD^▸ (Automatic Dropping Device), post #59 that was made whilst I was typing, and the youtube link in post 59, shows the difficulties in a remote location.

The correct basis for comparison is surely the distance in miles, not the time taken in minutes.
Possibly not much more, per mile than the worst UK^▸ (United Kingdom) train fares for full fare walk up.