Should the Permitted speed on Heritage Railways be raised ?

I recall that the Weardale railway had a go at running a community rail service using a pacer unit (I think!) and eventually threw in the towel. The journey time from end to end was around an hour. Some locals did make use of the service but I think the time it took might have been a big discouragement to others. Just my speculation of course... I can't help wondering if a small increase in speed to 30 - 35 mph might have made the difference in how many people used the service. I'll be keeping a close eye on what happens with the Swanage Railway's upcoming service to Wareham.

 

To some extent. 30825 & 30926 had them fitted specifically for this and there's certainly a wish for the Lambtons to run to Whitby in many people's minds.

 

If it were a modest increase in speed you might not need AWS I suppose (depends on the risk assessment and speed uplift).

MHR has AWS throughout on distant signals and colour lights, is that unique? Which other railways have it fitted on their lines (as opposed to any NR lines they have running rights over).

 

the raising of speed limits above 25mph is not that straight foreward, for instance dont any railway then have to meet a far more stringent set of rules that in cost terms, would make it non viable? i cant think of any line that also has AWS, but then, what do joe public and their kids visit preserved railways for? a faster journey isnt that high up on the wow factor, i would say, only a select few would want to experience any greater speed, i can see the operational benefits of having a 10 mph cushion for regaining lost time where a railways civil engineering is up to a required standard, most likily on longer lines .

 

The West Somerset also has it fitted.

 

Just to distant signals, and the only stock which has it active is the DMU and the class 47 D1661. Obviously it will work with any fitted visiting locos also!

 

I'm just wondering what the benefit is of having AWS on a preserved line running at 25mph?

You say on the WSR there is AWS, which presumably added cost to the signalling system both to install and maintain. But only two items of rolling stock can actually use it. So presumably you run the vast majority of services (including all steam services) in perfect safety without needing AWS. At which point, I wonder what the cost justification is for installing it in the first place?

Tom

 

As previously stated, above 25mph, a "train protection system" is a legal requirement - AWS was not considered to fulfill this requirement on any part of the national network, presumably because, as I understand it, the warning is the same regardless as to whether a distant or home signal or a speed restriction has caused it to be issued and I don't think could be guaranteed to stop the train in the necessary distances (or, indeed, if the AWS warning is erroneously cancelled, to act at all). I am not saying that you couldn't try to make a case that AWS would provide the necessary level of protection but given that low speed branch lines are fitted with TPWS, I am not convinced that you would succeed.

The Railway Safety Regulations state that, when requiring a "train protection system", what it means by that term is:

“train protection system” means equipment which–

(a)
causes the brakes of the train to apply automatically if the train–

(i)
passes without authority a stop signal such passing of which could cause the train to collide with another train, or

(ii)
travels at excessive speed on a relevant approach;

(b)
is installed so as to operate at every stop signal referred to in sub-paragraph (a), except a stop signal on the approach to an emergency crossover, and at an appropriate place on every relevant approach; except that where it is reasonably practicable to install it, it means equipment which automatically controls the speed of the train to ensure, so far as possible, that a stop signal is not passed without authority and that the permitted speed is not exceeded at any time throughout its journey.

You will still have to overcome the ban on Mark 1 stock and hinged doors without Central Door Locking - clearly, exemptions from both do exist and I don't think the Mark 1 ban is insurmountable but the hinged door exemptions usually require manual bolts and stewards on trains that actually exceed the 25mph.

Steven

 

The AWS ramps use permanent magnets only and are therefore relatively low cost and require little maintenance. They were installed following a risk assessment which justified the cost.

David

 

Thanks. I temporarily forgot the 40kph legislative limit

As to how/why the MHR came to have AWS it was partly as a result of mainline running as a way to test and keep operable the equipment.

 

Tom
On the point of "What the cost justification is"
A number of Airfields around the UK are or were fitted with arrester gear across the runways even though the planes based there were not hook fitted.
The reason was that at some point it might be needed due to an emergency and it was cheaper to fit than lose an aircraft and maybe the crew would survive.
In a railway case the fitting of AWS may provide additional safety just in case it might be needed.

 

As I understand it, AWS does not take speed into account, so would not fit this criteria.

 

I have suggested before that some lines would benefit from having the option to run trains at higher speeds at special events especially galas. It's less to do with journey times and it doesn't mean the line can't run at 25mph most other times, but this is a marketing and revenue issue. Preserved lines need variety and they need innovation and new product. Enthusiasts and even casual visitors like to hear engines hard at work. On the Mid Hants for instance where big engines are usually to be seen, how do you persuade railfans to visit a line two or three times a season if all they do is watch the same engines ambling on first valve and low cut off at the same speeds in the same places with ample power to spare? I do not think it would be necessary to run any train above 40mph in order to offer a very different product and experience that would attract a significant number of visitors. I believe it could even justify a completely separate event outside of existing galas.
I asked previously whether any line has ever prepared a business case to examine the costs of applying for higher line speeds against the prospective interest that would be generated. From the random responses it was clear the answer was no, and as others have suggested the actual governance requirements are still not clear to all.
Railways either have to find new markets for their product or new ways to extract more revenue from existing customers. A modest speed increase is in my opionion something that should be explored and costed because the first preserved railway to crack this 25mph "steam ceiling" on its own metals could potentially steal a very lucrative march in a competitive market.

 

The to the last post is that it doesn't work particularly. Bean Counter might disagree, but when the NYMR does it on the Esk Valley line at galas it is definitely part of the wider offering but doesn't particularly drain passengers from the NYMR itself, it effectively just spreads the available customers more widely. I could be wrong of course, and maybe it isn't marketed as clearly as it could be, but that's my impression.

 

On the big railway, trains can run on single yellows/distant signals on for mile upon mile if they are chasing another train. TPWS can't accommodate this so AWS is still both a requirement and a need. It simply reminds the driver that he is being cautioned at every signal and, if he doesn't acknowledge that, applies the brakes.

 

It's a generally accepted figure that 5% of visitors to heritage railways are enthusiasts. If the lure of higher speed doubled this number of enthusiasts I doubt that the 5% overall increase in passenger numbers would justify the extra cost. It doesn't take many sheets of paper and complex calculations to reach that conclusion.
The NYMR might be an exception as it already jumps through the hurdles and pays the price for faster running on the EVL so adding on the NYMR proper shouldn't be onerous or expensive. Perhaps Bean Counter can produce figures or comment? It should be noted, though, that the majority of EVL trains only run at 25 mph because running at higher speed is too onerous.

 

The AWS ramps may only be permanent magnets requiring virtually no maintenance but the equipment on the loco is a different matter. If it's fitted, it needs to work so has to be kept operational and there is a cost implication there.

Like Tom, I can't see the real benefit of having AWS on a heritage railway. The majority of distant signals are going to be fixed distants because of the nature of the railways so you are going to expect that and be reacting accordingly. You also have a fireman and, if the driver didn't slow down for the station/loop, I'm pretty certain that he would react, whether he had sighted the signal, or not. Then there's the guard, who will also be expecting the train to slow down......

 

I admire your persistence with this but you keep forgetting IT IS THE ORR THAT SET THE REQUIREMENTS for running at greater than 25mph. You can prepare all the business cases you like but until the ORR decide they would be willing to relax their minimum requirements all you are proposing doing is wasting Heritage railways money.

If you really want higher speeds then you need to be campaigning to the ORR directly and convince them that any change from the current situation will not degrade passenger safety in any way.

The NYMR is a special case because the line from Grosmont to Whitby is fully signalled with AWS and TPWS any way (all NYMR locos MUST have this equipment fitted and in working order, plus be 'main line' certified) while the p-way + signalling equipment and has a inspection / maintance regime that fully meets national standards.

 

I would agree it doesn't drain passengers from the NYMR but not necessarily that it spreads the available passengers more thinly! It was noticeable that when it was only Sundays we could run to Battersby, it boosted Sunday takings without detracting from the other days - people were, presumably, coming for two days - one on Pickering - Grosmont- Whitby and one to include the Battersby run. The extra business may not have been noticeable on Pickering to Grosmont trains because it was in effect 200 plus people on the Whitby to Battersby service (connecting at Grosmont). Since the Battersby trips have had to be a single trip each day on Friday and Saturday, Sunday Gala takings have dropped again.

However, this is not to say that the additional income would justify fitting TPWS to a length of Railway that didn't have it, or to locos that were not already fitted. The NYMR running to Battersby uses equipment already in place for other reasons and hence does have a true marginal cost of track access and other running costs on the day. Paying for TPWS fitment just to do a handful of "fast" runs per year would be a very different business case to make - and anyone risking it would surely have to hope they remained the only line to do so!

Steven