Should the Permitted speed on Heritage Railways be raised ?

Didn't Met No. 1 hit 50MPH+ during trials for Steam on the Met? Between Bewdley and Kidderminster Town IIRC.

 

Yes but such tests are only possible with special dispensation & by definition when the public/photters etc are not present so probably not what this thread is intended to be about.

 

Surely the main issue is that, so far as regulation is concerned, heritage railways are viewed as different to main lines. Most existing HRs were established under the old Light Railways Act and the more recent ones have been granted Transport & Works Orders which impose similar restrictions, most notably a speed restriction of 25 mph or less. The speed restriction is critical; it allows a range of derogations of all sorts of regulations, not just on the use of slam-door stock and so on, but also on general maintenance standards, signalling, level crossings, etc, etc....

So far as the regulators are concerned, HRs are lines of 'minor or local interest' ( that was the original definition of a Light Railway) , operated largely by amateurs using old equipment that has been discarded by mainline railways and generally for leisure purposes, 25 mph being regarded as reasonable in those circumstances.

Move away from that principle and you are into another world, with greatly increased regulation and costs which would wipe out any benefit to be gained from the ability to run at higher speed. IMO the only real loss if main line steam ends is the opportunity for really high-speed running- 60-75 mph- and there's no way that you will get that on any heritage railway!

 

All depends on the rail lengths used on the line.
Standard rail length of 60ft does not always apply.

 

So perhaps the easier solution would be to make rail lengths shorter to make it seem faster?

 

The WSR has a 40mph limit in its original LRO for dmus but I'm not sure if this is still available. No-one seems to have asked what is magical about 25mph. It was a figure adopted empirically in the Light Railways Act 1896 and has been perpetuated ever since. No-one has, to my knowledge, done a risk assessment to measure it against possible higher limits. I suspect that it would be difficult to show any real difference in a rise to say 30mph which is a figure that would help quite a few heritage railways. One can see trains running above 25mph; look on U-tube and time them across viaducts with arches of a known span.

 

Afficionados of the Titfield Thunderbolt will recall that the run only just made it within the time allowed for 25 mph. running - even after all the problems that had been encountered. It suggests therefore that the train had exceeded 25 mph. at some points which I am sure happens now.
So, let sleeping dogs lie is my advice!

 

Are you suggesting that HR's repair screw couplings with a length of rope?

 

25 -> 30 may not sound like much, but its a 20% increase with consequent increases in braking distances and severity of impact with foolish motorists etc.

 

My post had no mention of rolling stock; it was all about timings. However, who knows what well intentioned folks have done in the past when confronted with a problem that needed to be sorted out quickly. I doubt they would admit it here.

 

As has been said already, 25 mph (40kph) is now enshrined in legislation. If the WSR wanted to run DMU's at 40 mph, there would be a lot of hoops to jump through, even if the LRO allows it.

When asked about raising speed limits the great and good Major Olver's response was, 'We know that you do 40 mph with a 25 mph speed limit so if we raised it further, you would go faster still.' Today's HMRI say that up to 27.5 mph (i.e. + 10%) is OK; anything else and questions should be asked by those in authority. People doing more than this are risking a lot.

 

I can assure you that it's been done, though of course, I could never condone the use of such irresponsible methods!

 

When the original LRO legislation was passed through parliament, the railways for which it was intended to apply were lightly built and using all sorts of second - hand locomotives and stock, so the speed limit was no doubt appropriate. Plus, of course, large parts of the road system were little developed from the stagecoach era and any improvement on the speed of a horse was considered an advance.

Since then, a lot of our larger preserved railways, both standard - and narrow - gauge have been extensively, or, completely, relaid, with much higher quality rails and sleepers and a lot of the structures have been rebuilt, or improved, as part of a continuous programme to ensure the Railway's survival in the long term.

My own Severn Valley Railway has, in my 44 year volunteer career, been completely relaid, with concrete sleepers and new, or relatively new rail, including several long sections of flat - bottom rail on pre - stressed concrete sleepers on deep ballast beds, which would not be out of place on the main line, which has been pointed out by visiting main line drivers, both as footplate guests on steam engines and drivers bringing ballast trains on to the railway.

All the old ash beds have been ballasted and many of our smaller bridges and some of our larger ones, have been extensively refurbished. We are not what we were. It is no exaggeration to say that the Severn Valley Railway is, structurally speaking, in better condition than it has ever been.

We regularly host Bulleid Pacifics, Duchesses, A4s and Kings, for Crissakes, and when 2007 is complete, I've no doubt we'll see a P2, (thinks, that should straighten Highley out!)

I'm only blowing the trumpet I know most about, I'm well aware that the others are not standing still either and good luck to them all.

The point is, perhaps a small increase in line speed may be appropriate in many individual cases. We have a long and inglorious track record in this country of not changing restrictive legislation. (Think the licensing laws, brought in during WW1 to get munitions workers back on the line, packing shells, after lunch, sober, or relatively so, not repealed until a few years ago.)

jtx

 

This seems to raise the spectre of the "Nelsonian Eye" in that it appears to be a speed limit observed on most occasions with occasional lapses that are tolerated - until a serious incident occurs. That said I believe that raising the limit to 30 mph would be acceptable to most lines given the improved nature of many heritage line's infrastructure.

 

I raised the question of risk assessment but I am aware that this process doesn't work out very meaningfully in areas where experience of measurable incidents is low. For example, if one looks at the risk of serious injury or death from trains travelling at various speeds, one might get the theoretical result that it is, say, 1 in 1,000,000 at 25mph and 1 in 900,000 at 30mph. This makes it very difficult for any organisation to even try to follow the path to a higher speed because "it would put the public at greater risk", even though the figures are beyond the comprehension of most people. Looking back on my professional career there were many such parallels. One of the favourites was the risk of a flood once in 100 years. Of course one didn't know if the selected year would be 2016 or 2114. if the former all hell would be let loose for "irresponsible decisions"; if the latter there would be no-one left to remember. I currently do risk assessment for cycling. The irony is that I have never known an accident result from one of the hazards that I have identified; they have all been as a result of the one in a million chance where a driver does something careless on a totally harmless stretch of road.

 

I think the case for a modest rise in the speed limit would have to be on a case by case, line by line basis. Clearly some wont want to, some wont be capable, but the risk may be lower on some lines. Problem is, we have a more or less across the board arbitrary limit that takes none of the practical factors into consideration. Much easier from a national regulation point of view of course.

 

No. No. No.

Who wants to raise the preserved railway speed limit above 25 mph? I know a few:-
1. Diesel enthusiasts who want to hear "thrash" from ridiculously over powered diesels hauling 4 coaches on the level.
2. A small minority of preserved railway drivers who rue the day they didn't try to be a driver when it was easy to get in - under BR.
3. People who think preserved railways could offer an alternative to buses, but are too slow.

 

This is a non-argument. The option has always been there to apply for the raising of speed limits and still is, provided that the line applying is prepared to comply with the applicable regulations. There has to be a line in the sand somewhere and 25mph although arbitrary is no more arbitrary than, say, 30mph or 35mph.

 

Question - at what max speed do locos on heritage lines travel. Answer - what the driver thinks is 25MPH , given that many locos dont have speedos. This might occasionally be more than 25MPH.

Do I think it should be a regular occurence. Not really as the timetable has to have some slack. Standing waiting for time for 3 mins rather than 1 is not my idea of fun. What however would be useful is a dispensation to make up lost time. A bit like the early days of AC electrics which were limited to 100MPH but were allowed 110MPH if late. Iwas a passenger on a train which leftEuston 10 late and was 5 early at Stafford.