Minehead Rail Link Group

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

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.

[TaplowGreen]

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 Captain Mainwaring used to say "I think you're getting into the realms of fantasy" 

[broadgage]

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.

[grahame]

Some comments back ...

Timetables 1 to 2 are adjusted in peak times to be at the most time-dependent location at about the same time - usually Taunton, helping with the same work / college starts and ends, and avoiding the replacement of one set of connections with another as the trains get faster.  During the day it follows the differing clock face and (yes) huge care to be taken if any stops are on some trains only.

Minehead station(s). I find it hard to see trains dividing on their way in. I could see a modern platform alongside the single line on the north side outward of Seaward Way.  Borders onto Butlin's back fence - and perhaps there is no longer any need or desire for people to check in at the front in person? Could be a bit of a reminder of PenyChain - but not just from the holiday traffic.  I can do maps (I have drawn a catchment 1km) should it move forward (others can do maps just as well, of course!)

Apprenticships into NR^» (Network Rail - home page) - Wow! That is a brilliant thought - just the sort of new dawn opportunity that's needed and we hope (and can we do more than hope? - encourage? - suggest? - invite?) that a charismatic local lead picks in up and brings almost everyone along as owners within the team.

Shortish response to a long and excellent set of responses. But a further question in that last paragraph.  And another question - are there any other elephants I haven't even hinted at?

[Celestial]

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'm not sure many of Butlins' clientele fly in if I'm completely honest.  Though maybe they could remove the helipad from any future development in a nod to the environment.

And in a similar vein, for those deciding that the environmental cost of a fortnight on the Costa del Sunburn is too much, I doubt Butlins will be a first choice alternative.  I suspect that the typical demographic that considers Butlins an acceptable choice of holiday is more concerned with the budget available than the carbon footprint of their summer escape.   

[Rhydgaled]

Now digging a little deeper under the surface, there are numerous issues to be resolved (note - "resolved" and not "hurdles that will stop dual use") ...

Some comments back ...are there any other elephants I haven't even hinted at?

I fear so. I overlooked this one too, and it's a big one. PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) (Persons of Reduced mobility) - if the service is to run year-round as a part of the National Rail network, with through ticketing etc. ALL the trains will have to comply with the PRM TSI (Technical Specification for Interoperability). The regulations may have a dispensation allowing a train (or bus) operator to use heritiage vehicles on special occasions, which (if such a clause exists, I'm not sure if it does) I have thought in the past may allow a preserved IC125 or IC225 set in heritiage livery (with non-compliant, non-contrasting, doors) to be used to provide extra capacity for festivals etc. but I am almost certain the operating season of a heritiage railway is far greater than the limited number of days heritage stock would be permitted (if it is at all).

Therefore, the heritage stock needs to comply, meaning at the very least:

• all toilets must be locked out of use, unless a wheelchair-accessible one is provided
• wheelchair spaces must be provided
• audio announcements must be provided detailing the next stop etc.
• visual information must be provided detailing the next stop etc. for deaf passengers

Slam doors and the use of heritiage livery with non-contrasting doors could perhaps be managed by requiring the guard or a porter to open a few doors at each station. A brake coach at one end of the train could perhaps be fitted with wheelchair spaces and a wheelchair-accessible toilet while keeping the exterior and the rest of the train looking vintage, and I've been on at least one heritiage railway that has audio announcements. As long as they are done manually by a real person (or the whole announcement is recorded in one go, rather than being stiched together by a computer in real time) and 'see it, say it, sorted' etc. is avoided they may not appear too modern. But visual information? Sorry, I don't think that can be done without destroying the heritage feel. Would it be within the regulations to only provide the visual information in the modified wheelchair-carrying brake coach? Even if that is permissible, how would you communicate to the deaf person that they need to travel in the wheelchair coach?

[Lee]

But visual information? Sorry, I don't think that can be done without destroying the heritage feel. Would it be within the regulations to only provide the visual information in the modified wheelchair-carrying brake coach? Even if that is permissible, how would you communicate to the deaf person that they need to travel in the wheelchair coach?

If we provide a prominent, unmissable sign in heritage "veneer" style at every station informing deaf people that they need to travel in the wheelchair coach, would that cover it?

In terms of the overall changes that Rhydgaled has detailed, given that we would already be going for the concept of modernisation with a heritage "veneer", then I feel that a way could be found to accommodate them into the overall plan if that ends up being what is required.

[GBM]

Which perhaps then brings in another welliphant.

Oooooooz gooooonnna pay for it..................

[TaplowGreen]

Which perhaps then brings in another welliphant.

Oooooooz gooooonnna pay for it..................

Not a problem, Broadgage has decreed that Butlins will pick up the bill (see above), probably means that the prizes for the knobbly knees competition will be a little less extravagant though in order to offset the cost, and I doubt you'll find fillet steak and Port on the menu in the "all you can eat" buffet for much longer..........(I am presuming however that all trains to Butlins Central will have a Pullman restaurant?) 🙂

[grahame]

A very interesting overnight discussion, thank you.  There is - I suspect - a need and desire to move forward with pragmatic steps - not "rip up and rebuild" mode.  This is not proposed as a borders railway project.  A requirement for a Development Consent Order should not be needed ... and a single carriage on heritage trains that are PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) accessible should be good provision, just as a single (lower) deck on double deck buses is good provision on buses.  There is certainly a need to look at each station that will be used by national services for access to those services for all, and in the case of some low number stations there could be a reluctant decision not to have the national services call.

Funding - perhaps a requirement to tap in on the national stage to the various funds and schemes. We are at a time of changes, and that's both a curse and a blessing.  There is a history of getting things "shovel ready" prior to knowing which fund / method will be used, and this one may be no different.  And, yes, it required speculation to get all the ducks in a row without a guarantee it will happen.    With a good scheme, with virtually everyone saying "we want this", it could happen.  I can find you some schemes that have moved forward without full funding which has then been found ... requires some "balls" and confidence - but can be done.  Look at extra funding just found for Portway Parkway, increased money for Portishead, which was not on the table at the start.

[grahame]

Missed from previous post ...

Let's look at the metrics of "who will use it" for both Butlins and the town, perhaps changed in the new normal.  Rail and public transport in general is for everyone and as well as the genteel country music festival goers and stereotype families. It's for the people who may have preferred Ayia Napa or Ibiza for their main / usual holidays or weekends away, but the carrot of Minehead plus the stick of quarantine worry on return may keep them local now. Comparisons to Weymouth - served by what are (this month) the most overcrowded GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) trains.  Yes, I know - that 21:00 off Minehead connects with the 22:21 or 22:43 at Taunton to Bristol (M-F services) and is likely to require 'dry rules'.

Daytime outbound by heritage train, back on the national service are likely to be common requirements for some of the people I mention, and that's where care needs to be taken in having an encouraging yet financially secure fare system.  Outgoing I suspect the day trippers who may not be fit enough to drive home by the evening will pay heritage rates and if those are "return by national rail" tickets, you eliminate fare collection issues after dark.

[Lee]

Which perhaps then brings in another welliphant.

Oooooooz gooooonnna pay for it..................

In answering that, it is probably prudent to also ask Ooooooow much is it gooooonnna cost......

Lord Tony Berkeley and Michael Byng attempted to do that in their July 2020 South West rail enhancement proposals report:

Does anyone know what is proposed regarding "upgrading the Taunton – Minehead West Somerset Railway heritage line    (£11.8m)."

Do they mean upgrading the existing heritage line, perhaps to national network standards ?
Or improving facilities for through running between the WSR and Taunton ?
Or subsidising the running costs of a regular through service ?

Or something else.

No, I don't know - but I can look it up using the link Lee provided:

West Somerset Railway – provision of community rail services; estimated project cost
£11,800,000.00
This popular heritage line is in need of major track and structures upgrade if it is to continue to operate. Expert track engineers will need to finalise the exact needs, but they can provide this service as part of the heritage sector support. The works themselves, however, should include upgrading the line to higher line speeds and enabling scheduled passenger services from the large town of Minehead and intermediate stations to Taunton and possible beyond on the GW^▸ (Great Western) Network. It has the potential of removing the need for many journeys on the currently congested and slow road network.
a. Taunton Station (NR^» (Network Rail - home page)) – alterations to Platform 2
b. Taunton to Norton Fitzwarren (NR) – enhance bi-directional loop
c. Norton Fitzwarren to Minehead (WSR) – track renewals and capacity enhancement

However, it is unclear whether the actual costs of providing the through National Rail services are included in the £11.8m figure, and the authors themselves admit that the exact needs of the upgrade of the WSR section are yet to be finalised. It is unlikely that additional potential issues such as those identified by Rhydgaled have been factored in either. And, dare I say it, there is a fear that potential costs of projects elsewhere in their report have been somewhat undershot.

So let's err on the side of caution, double that figure, and call it £25m.

That just happens to be the cost of the recent upgrade of our neighbouring Guingamp-Paimpol line. It has SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) services all year round, with the line being shared with steam services in the summer. It is also roughly the same length as the Taunton-Minehead route, with a similar restricted speed limit profile.

However, SNCF didnt happen to have a spare £25m sitting around for this project, and a similar Oooooooz gooooonnna pay for it debate ensued.

The answer was that all the project stakeholders chipped in to pay for it, to the following contribution percentages:

Brittany region: 43%, Central Government: 20.3%, SNCF Réseau: 15%, Departmental Council of Côtes d'Armor: 11%, Paimpol community of communes -Goëlo: 4.4%, Guingamp Community: 4%, Pays de Guingamp: 1.5%, Pontrieux Community: 0.6%, Pays de Bégard: 0.2%

While I would be the first to admit that acheiving similar contribution percentages in terms of funding would be difficult to say the least in the current climate, it does underline the need to come up with a coherent, united plan, and to get everyone involved to coherently unite around it.

[Witham Bobby]

As one of those involved in the rescue of the WSR from oblivion from 1973 onwards, and active involvement in operation from early 1976 to late 1979, I'd like to say how heartening it is to see the branch again being thought of in the light of its ability to offer a proper public transport service

The GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) (the real one) added greatly to the line's capacity in the 1930s by doubling the sections between Norton Fitzwarren and Bishops Lydeard and between Dunster and Minehead.  I'm not sure about the utility of the first of these sections as being doubled in the present day (it was widely rumoured that the only reason the GW^▸ (Great Western) did it, along with the section to Milverton on the Barnstaple line, was to avoid the need for token exchanges at the extremely busy Norton Fitzwarren Jcn box).  Also, "summer service only" basic crossing loops were provided at Leigh Woods and at Kentsford.  Remotely-controlled reinstatement of some/all of these (assuming the money could be found, which is a huge "if") would enable a timetable to be provided that would cater for commuter trains to/from Taunton and beyond and also heritage steam trains.  30 - 40 minute headways would become possible with shorter sections and recovery from late running would be easier with the double track at the Minehead end.  Something like this was my ideal, back in the 1970s

40mph running for DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) type trains was envisioned by the 1975 LRO - I don't know how amenable to this prospect are the present day powers-that-be.

The signal (E627) that gives access to the main line at Norton Fitzwarren, controlled by Exeter Panel, routes only to the present Down/Up Relief.  Which is handy, because of access to the existing bay platforms at the country end of the Down Relief platform at Taunton, but a pain regulation wise because a train on or off the branch is difficult to cross the main lines.

I suspect it's all do-able, but lack of will politically, a dog-in-the-manger attitude amongst preservationists of the present WSR, and biggest of all, a shortage of money, will keep all of this very much on the back burner

[grahame]

So let's err on the side of caution, double that figure, and call it £25m.

You have been reading what Jonathan Jones-Pratt, chairman of the West Someret Railway, said at the start of March:  (from ((here)) )

He added: “We currently operate under the Light Railway Order.

“To run the service MRLG are proposing, at the speeds they are proposing, would require a huge overhaul of much of our infrastructure to bring it up to the standards required for running a Network Rail service.

“That alone could cost between £20 million and £30m.”

Away from the spotlight of publicity, and with the shakeup of coronavirus on top of everything else, I do wonder if some respected 'elder statesman' could start the unthinkable moving along. You've seen my description earlier, and I would add in a West Country knowledge too, and perhaps a railway and/or local government transport career.

As one of those involved in the rescue of the WSR from oblivion from 1973 onwards, and active involvement in operation from early 1976 to late 1979, I'd like to say how heartening it is to see the branch again being thought of in the light of its ability to offer a proper public transport service

[snip]

I suspect it's all do-able, but lack of will politically, a dog-in-the-manger attitude amongst preservationists of the present WSR, and biggest of all, a shortage of money, will keep all of this very much on the back burner

Wonderful extra fill in - thank you. Just snipped to make complete my post without getting out of hand.

Perhaps - just perhaps - the current crisis has tossed all the cards in the air and people can think the unthinkable, fund what would have been very hard to fund.    And move it OFF the back burner - bring it forward in a spirit of a new beginning.

[Lee]

So let's err on the side of caution, double that figure, and call it £25m.

You have been reading what Jonathan Jones-Pratt, chairman of the West Someret Railway, said at the start of March:  (from ((here)) )

He added: “We currently operate under the Light Railway Order.

“To run the service MRLG are proposing, at the speeds they are proposing, would require a huge overhaul of much of our infrastructure to bring it up to the standards required for running a Network Rail service.

“That alone could cost between £20 million and £30m.”

I hadnt read that actually - If I had, then I would have quoted it 

What I do find interesting is that both MRLG and our proposals see the provision of through National Rail services as a way of securing WSR's very survival, whilst Jonathan Jones-Pratt clearly takes what Witham Bobby described as a dog-in-the-manger attitude - ie that the proposal is an existential threat to the WSR.

In my opinion, he needs to be careful what he wishes for. It wont have gone unnoticed by those among the powers that be who view WSR as a barometer of the health of the Heritage Rail sector that they have yet to operate a timetabled train in anger since the Coronvirus hit in earnest, while a number of comparable heritage railways are up and running again.

If he and the WSR force the binary choice that I described in an earlier post, then they may find that they end up removing themselves from the playing field far more effectively than any supposed "enemies" might.

Our proposal provides a way of avoiding that and allowing WSR to continue what they do best for many years to come, while also enjoying the safety in numbers of being a key part of an overall effective team.