Should the Permitted speed on Heritage Railways be raised ?

I'm still confused though. AWS is a system that interfaces between infrastructure and locomotive. So I can't see how it reduces risk if you fit it to the infrastructure but not the loco!

More generally, there must be quite a lot of procedural paperwork to introduce AWS. The magnets may be low maintenance, but still need a test schedule and test procedures. The equipment on the locomotives (if fitted) needs procuring, fitting and appropriate testing and maintenance procedures worked out. The rule book will need updating with the procedures to be used with AWS locos, and also for locos not fitted. Crews will need training and and the procedures included in the inspection regime. Now, except for the equipment itself, that could all be volunteer effort, I suppose. But it still seems a lot of work to go to for trains running at 25mph, especially when it must be demonstrably true that the regulatory authorities are happy with trains running at the same speed on the same railway without AWS.

Tom

 

Of course I haven't forgotten that. Part of a business case is assessing the cost of the various conditions and requirements put in place by DFT/ORR and how they might apply to the particular line in question. Heritage railways today are businesses with many people well equipped to prepare a business case including all the associated cost v benefit analysis. A "campaign" as you envisage it would be all fluff and no substance

 

If they are permanent magnets, they will work in both directions on a single line, unless there is a suppression magnet to prevent this, adding to the cost etc. I assume this is not the case.

So a magnet triggering the AWS when it doesn't apply would seem to add confusion.

The only exception of a "lonely" magnet would be on the exit route from a MPD, to test the equipment on departure.

 

Permanent magnets that work in both directions on single lines are dead common. At the moment, there are eight of them on the Esk Valley line between Grosmont & Whitby. Such things are all covered in the rules.

 

The point about a slightly higher line speed is to enable the engines to work a bit harder at certain special events. It's not to get passengers between Cholmondely town and Thingummy junction 30 seconds faster. The rail heritage product needs to be refreshed constantly and as I said previously the potential of a small speed increase - perhaps at a gala - could provide enough of a differential to bring in a greater profit. There is a diminishing return in seeing the same (or similar) engines plodding at the same speed only in a slightly different location. Heritage lines need something to encourage spmeone to come back and see something that they may have already seen - several times. You can repaint the engine, you can change its whistle, you can double head it, or you can put a funny face on it.... but if somebody has already seen (say) Brittannia chugging politely up and down at a couple of galas the only way you'll get them to come back to see it yet again is the chance to see it doing something a little different - eg a bit more noise and a lot more visual impact. This consideration would probably only have any marketing potential in the context of a special event or gala. The NYMR to Whitby product is a very different thing altogether.

 

I'd disagree with that. Obviously on shorter lines it would only be 30 seconds, but if you take the WSR for example the journey from one end to the other really is too long for little kids, they get bored and then start annoying the other passengers to relieve their boredom. if the journey time was shorter it would still be a decent length timewise but not too long, and might encourage more people to visit, at least again. I bet there have been first time visitors who haven't returned as the kids got bored half way through, so didn't bother returning, and might do if the journey time was shorter and so more enjoyable. I'd suggest the speed for speed itself is only a secondary aspect.

 

We do seem t be going round in circles on this, albeit not as fast as some would like. Surely the position is that there is no limit in primary legislation on maximum speed and the ORR could agree to a higher maximum on a case-by-case basis subject to a risk assessment indicating that there would be no significant increase in risk to the public. Such a risk assessment would include looking at the infrastructure condition, rolling stock type and condition and signalling systems. Whether a heritage railway thought it worth the trouble to go through this sort of exercise is a matter for its commercial judgement but what we do not need is people who think that any increase is unwanted everywhere trying to impose an overall prohibition. I do agree with those who envisage keeping to the current schedules in normal circumstances but having a higher permitted speed in reserve. Customers might want a full value-for-money experience in terms of time but what they do not want is a late end to their journey when there has been a delay and it is impossible to make up any time.

 

Just thinking out loud - there are some situations where a heritage railway could be used as a real transport option for the locality. I'm thinking of the Swanage Railway for one. I believe the rolling stock providing the service into Wareham is being modified to meet "proper" railway requirements and can run at higher than heritage speeds. If that rolling stock is used to provide a through service between Swanage and Wareham before/after heritage services start/end it might attact more passengers if the journey time could be reduced by running at more than 25mph for the whole journey. It might not need to be much more either to make it an attractive option and hopefully a nice little earner.

 

We are going(slowly) round in circles because there is no real mileage in it apart from the dreamers. The 25 mph (as 40kph) is a cut-off enshrined in legislation and, if you want to go faster, you have to jump through a lot more hoops. That is up to the individual railway, not the ORR, who can't agree to it on a case by case basis. If you want to run at 60 mph, providing you comply with the law, you can. That means a lot of extra paperwork and doing things. Any idea that it is only for an occasional gala so we only need to do the minimum doesn't hold water. It's all or nothing.

 

I don't buy that argument. If the WSR is too long a journey (and I have no evidence either way) then surely that is simply because it is a twenty mile long single track line with ten stations but only three intermediate passing places: no amount of acceleration between stations is going to make much more than a few minutes difference to a ca. 3 hour round trip.

I'll take a Bluebell example because I am familiar with the timetable, but the point stands for any reasonably long line with multiple stations - it is the stations that cause long journey times, not the speed between them:

A Bluebell passenger doing a SP - EG - SP round trip spends 1h 47m on a train. Of that, only 1h 11m is moving, the other 36m is stationary. Of that 36m, there are two occasions long enough for a passenger to alight, stretch legs, go to toilet, get a cup of tea etc - 19minutes at EG while the engine runs round, and 11 minutes at HK in the down direction while you wait to cross the up train. The rest of the stops are 1 - 3 minutes at each station.

That 1h11m of actual movement equates to a running average speed of about 18.5mph. When you allow for acceleration, deceleration and permanent speed restrictions, we have to run quite hard to meet those section times while staying at or below 25mph. Fortunately our intra-station distances are quite long, at least relative to some lines like the WSR, allowing several miles continuous running at line speed.

Could we give a quicker journey by running faster? Not really, because the timetable is based around the passing times, particularly at HK. If we ran faster between stations, we'd just spend more time stationary but still take 1h 47 for the round trip. Because of the relative placement of HK Station (it's a couple of miles too far south for optimum timetable - blame the Victorians!) we run a core frequency of 75minutes. 60 minutes is not possible with only two trains, and anything in between 60 and 75 doesn't connect well with the mainline trains.

So at a practical level, the journey time is governed by the stations, and how long you stay at them, and where your crossing stations are, rather than speed between them (within reason). Even if long journey times were a disincentive (and I have no evidence they are) faster speed will only make fairly marginal improvements. Maybe as preservationists we just need to rush through all our intermediate stations and allow them to decay...

Tom

 

It's a bit rich to blame the Victorians for the placement of Horsted Keynes station Tom. How would you explain to the Victorians the lack of a passing facility at West Hoathley? Because from your explanation of the problem, that's what you need...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well, actually the optimum passing place for us would be just south of Sharpthorne tunnel, not north of it!

But the more general point remains: end to end journey times on heritage railways are primarily a function of the number of stations and where they are, not how fast you can run between them.

Tom

 

No it isn't! Big Al has already pointed you at the Guidelines and policies currently operated by ORR - and that is not the same thing as being "enshrined in legislation". As I have said on this and other threads I believe that the first preserved line to test the ORR's mindfulness on a small increase even of 10mph at limited special events will steal a march on other galas. The ORR are interested in the safety case. If that can be passed then the business case can assess the commercial viability. Some lines such as those without level crossings will find it easier. Some with steeper gradients will find it quite an attraction to show engines working harder and some - especially the Swanage - may find it commercially essential to run some trains at higher speeds.

 

We are going round in circles because some people don't want to accept what they are being told.

May I suggest those who think is is a matter of ORR "Guidelines and policies" should try reading this:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2244/contents/made

It is quite short and actually unusually clear for law and regulations - it may not be an Act of Parliament but it has the same effect. I particularly refer you to clause 1 of the Schedule.

It is true that exemptions have been granted on Clauses 4 and 5 (under Clause 6) but exemptions under Clause 3 are much more limited. In theory a Railway could try but I think the point that the number of people who would attend just because the trains were going at 35mph instead of 25mph may be too small for the costs concerned even in aiming for an exemption to be seen as worthwhile.

Steven

 

Those still in denial should also look at ROGS. Those systems operating at speeds in excess of 40 kph will also need a safety certificate issued by the ORR. Guidance on ROGS is available at http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/2567/rogs-guidance.pdf Section 3 gives details of what the operator is required to do. Not impossible but a lot of hoops to satisfy the few.

 

The fact there are rules and that the rules are; Pretty Clear and cover both the present ' Light railway scenario' and one somewhat beyond that , is undeniable.
In the face of this then higher speeds would be permissable only
a) by satisfying 'the Hoops'
b) by outlining a new operating scenario with a different set of hoops with the appropriate level of research and assessment to validate the new set of hoops against the new scenario, backed up with an appropriate level of demand for the new set of hoops and to demonstrate that the old set were no longer pertinent. and thus change the rules.

Judging by the comments here b) is not ready to happen yet...

 

The SVR has 8 working Distants, but no AWS. One of my firemen, a Cross Country driver of some considerable experience, likes to "enhance" my day, (and make sure I'm still awake/alive) by using a pair of small spanners to ring an authentic tattoo on the AWS bells still fitted to a number of our engines, as we approach a green Distant. I find it quite therapeutic.

 

Watch out though for the day he sneaks an air horn onto the footplate!

 

I wonder how many of those who are advocating a higher speed limit actually work/volunteer on Pres Railways?
Just a thought..