Should the Permitted speed on Heritage Railways be raised ?

Ex. a few comments on the GBVIII Thread.
With a Big cloud over the current Mainline Scene and the expectation that Mainline/NR Steam will become increasingly difficult to achieve the focus for the Steam enthusiast must inorexorably turn to private lines/ permited running on branch lines.

One aspect of the Steam experience that may become lacking is the sight and sound of Steam at Speed.
Either passenger or n0n passenger carrying, there will be a demand for this... can it be satisfied ?

One comment was that on most preserved lines an increase in permitted speed would deliver a shorter and therefore less atractive experience for the Heritage railway punter. However going faster would not be mandatory.
For some of the Longer Lineshowever A full line Return including Stops and run around is now geting on for two Hours, in some cases longer . On these railways being able to open out a Tad more on some of the longer stretches would make journey times more attractive and enhance the experience, especially if non CWR was in place. as nowhere else will you be able to experience the wheels singing, the clickety clack and swaying of the carrages. On the NYMR the moderate increase in Speed allowed on the NR metals to Whitby is a definite plus. Regulations may prevent it but being able to run at upto 35mph for the whole line would also imho be a definite plus.

 

Unfortunately, the main regulation that would add hugely to cost is the Railway Safety Regulations 1999, which prohibits the use of trains without a protection and warning system, the use of Mark 1 coaches or the operation of coaches with hinged doors (except with Central Door Locking provided) in passenger service on a "railway".

The definition of a "railway" has various exclusions and one of them is any system where the maximum speed is 25mph or less. Hence, any increase in maximum speed would mean that the Regulations applied in full.

Now clearly, exemptions can be granted under these regulations and quite extensive ones from the latter two have been granted but the exemptions from TPWS that have been granted are extremely limited.

The regulations apply equally to operators and infrastructure owners. They don't just apply to "the national network".

I do agree that the trip out to Battersby, with maximum speeds of up to 45mph, is a notably different (and most enjoyable!) experience despite the speed being some way short of the "full" mainline 75mph limit!

There is certainly an argument that train pathing and keeping to time would be easier with that slightly higher speed limit but it is uncharted territory as to whether a heritage line could obtain an exemption from the need to fit TPWS or use door bolts which have not been granted anywhere for the network. It is, however, an interesting question!

Steven

 

I seem to remember that a few years ago there was a statement that the GCR had costed what it would take to get their passenger speed raised to 40 MPH and the answer was somewhere around 50-60K. Does anyone here have the actual statement? I remember a lot of renewing of lineside fencing being one of the things that was included.
JP

 

So just ignoring all the legislative issues - which lines would it actually work on?

Take the WSR - 20 miles long, but at the country end of the line, you have Minehead, Dunster, Blue Anchor, Washford, Watchet, Doniford and Williton in the space of about ten miles, about 1.5 miles between stations. Not much opportunity to get up above 25mph even if you really opened up out of each station. After Williton, there is quite a long stretch to Stogumber, but it is all uphill and has a level crossing, so again difficult to imagine running at much over 25mph.

The Severn Valley is similar: 8 stations in 16 miles, so again you have hardly opened up out of one station before starting to slow for the next.

For both those lines, the round-trip time is primarily dictated by the large number of stops (if you imagine an average station time of just two minutes, on the WSR twenty minutes in each direction is stationary, before you even consider the extra time needed by crossing). Increasing speed is a lot of expense that would have negligible impact on journey times.

Probably the NYMR is one line where there is at least space, with typically 4 - 5 miles between stations; the Bluebell has stretches of five miles and four miles between stations, though quite uphill. I don't know the NYMR situation very well, but on the Bluebell at least we have numerous foot crossings, so it is not simple to imagine running at higher speeds without thinking about the how you would handle those.

So I'm afraid that, like with double track, I'm in the "what's the point?" camp, at least for about 99% of lines. The costs and complexities are formidable while delivering no passenger benefit, and in lots of cases, a passenger dis-benefit.

Tom

 

Agreed, and even the GCR as it is has stations at roughly 2 mile gaps, and only 5 miles between Rothley and Loughborough, which hardly seems worth the effort.

 

But the bits that are uphill on the lines mentioned are surely downhill 50% of the time? Or is this some new track geometry I wot not of?

 

Hill on the GCR

 

It will be interesting to what the train times were pre closer as for starters WSR August 1952 were 13 minuets quicker between Minehead and Watchet than now.

 

When the GWSR gets longer it might be advantageous to go faster. CRC to Winchcombe is 7 miles (although Gotherington request stop is slap bang in the middle), and Toddington to Broadway is 5 miles, and if we do eventually make it to Honeybourne I'd suggest the only viable way of running a railway of that distance would be increased speed.

 

Surely it's difficult enough to convince punters that the experience is worth their twenty quid or whatever...if it's over and done with in ten minutes then it would be even harder.

 

I'm sure comments that say "the train was boring because it was too slow" probably equal the number of comments that say "the train journey wasn't long enough." You can never please everybody! I think it would only be useful for the longer lines where a round trip takes a large amount of time.

 

I don't think I have ever heard a passenger comment that the trip was too slow, either on the Bluebell or earwigging other passengers on the dozen or so other lines I've visited on regular (non-gala) days. I suspect higher speeds, like double tracks, is one of those things that is only of concern to a very narrow section of enthusiasts, and I simply can't see the expense would be justified by the number of extra passengers.

Tom

 

Alright, perhaps not equal then, but I've definitely seen and heard comments saying that the train was too slow, some on tripadvisor I think, so presumably not from enthusiasts who will know that there isn't a huge amount that can be done to solve it..

 

Bean Counter has already said that legislation effectively puts a block on running at greater than 25 mph. There is also the requirement for a Safety Certificate under ROGS. Complying with all this comes at a significant price. The logic behind the 25 mph ceiling was to remove heritage railways from a majority of the legislative requirements without really affecting their status quo.
As for the NYMR, it would certainly prove advantageous to have a higher line speed, not for reducing section times or giving the thrill(?) of a higher speed but to enable any lost section time to be regained when required. However, line speed in BR days was only 35 mph mainly due to curvature so any increase in speed is not going to be significant. People may also not realise that the line speed from Grosmont to Whitby is only 30 mph and the constraints laid down for operation of slam door stock mean that most trains are only authorised to operate at 25 mph.

 

Not forgetting the additional wear/tear on locos and stock, from more intense use. Think the only way increase in speeds will be solved is by following NYMR Battersby program, and offering a select numbers of days to satisfy the few who are actually bothered. But then it's which lines are suitable, as you don't want it all over and done with within 5/10 minutes!

 

It really is horses for Courses,
Wouldn't make Much sense on any of my Local lines at Present either, but for the potentially extended GCR and GWSR, NYMR as mentioned as well as others keen to extend, it makes potentially long stretches without stops a bit more interesting ? a bit less long ? is a USP ?

I know this is ALL a bit of a 'what if' but the issue with the regulations always has potential to change, either a relaxation (Unlikely, though the number of incidents of people falling out of Heritage railway trains moving at speed is... what? and intuitively not likely to increase if the trains move faster) or to become more restrictive. In which; case if automatic or supervised locked doors become standard ( which could happen tomorrow if an unfortunate incident prompts such a recommendation) ....

Im not sure if End to End XP services doing 60mph plus as a regular feature is going to work anywhere... (barring a completely reinstated wensleydale railway, with seriously improved crossings) but a short sprint on an open stretch.... thanks for the Coffee guys.

 

The only problem on the NYMR is that the line has a number of curves that restrict the speed.
Historically the speed was around 35 - 40. Which would be an improvement from 25 but we would still have a couple of 15 mph restrictions, Kingthorpe for one.

Realistically it will require some additional engineering work as all works over the years on relays etc have been designed to suit 25mph or possibly a bit more up to 30 or so but curves will need recanting to get the extra MPH. That will involve design work, stone tipping, Tamping and regulating etc.
How many curves are there on the NYMR ?
They will all need assessing individually.

Add to that the modifications and requirements to stock and locos and manning requirements. Would it be worth it?

 

From extensive personal experience, there are a number of stretches of the SVR which are very suitable for 30 - 35 mph and where it is very easy to reach these speeds without straining engines or stock.

I have received much feedback over the years and it is surprising how much more comfortable and "interesting" that 30 mph is than 25. The rhythm of the rail joints at 30mph feels "just right," or so I'm told.

 

Do we know that the comments actually relate to a 25 mph journey? Whilst visiting some lines significant parts of the journey have been at speeds well below 25 mph - GWSR included.

 

Personal View here. As a pax I don't really think you gain much more from a 75 MPH experience than you do from a 25 mph experience. Most of the pleasure on board a mainline train is taken from pulling a load from standstill or slogging 11+ up a grade at 45mph. As a linesider view tho, the view of a loco at high speeds is incomparable, 75mph if possible, with whistle and doppler, 90 was stunning. Preserved lines are really not suitable for faster running, nor do the pax appreciate it. 30mph as a max would be good tho, and just as safe as 25mph.