svr speed limits

How can you have a diesel gala that is mixed traction?

 

Highly unlikely. TPO limit is 35mph (with other restrictions), as per another post. As an RVP member I've been on a few of them and have never known them to run at anything like those sorts of speeds. Many of our drivers are quite adept at making a good noise and a good spectacle at 35mph, these things can be deceptive.

Phil

 

I'm not sure that you're quite right in what you are saying (but happy to be told I'm wrong!). There is nothing in the Light Railways Act 1896 that stipulates 25 mph, nor do Light Railway Orders made under the Act generally stipulate a maximum speed. They do however require the Board of Trade and their successors, now the ORR, to give permission for the railway to operate and lay down conditions. It is these conditions that generally stipulate 25mph. There is no reason why a different speed limit could not be imposed.

The great and good Major Olver said that to more than one railway! He was probably one of the best allies that the Heritage Railway movement had in its early days. He often ignored the letter of the law and applied common sense principles. Alas, running up to 40 is something that is now very much frowned upon in these safety conscious days. It is a great shame that he is no longer around to guide us.

 

What a foolish attitude to take. No wonder HMRI have great concerns with some outfits.

 

Major Olver was indeed a very great friend to the heritage railway movement. He retired a number of years ago, but sadly died earlier this year and I don't really think his passing was marked in the way it should have been by the movement.

Steven

 

You can't but it’s the only way that diesel traction will be used on the MHR apart from when a steam loco is unavailable to work service trains. The last diesel gala was a complete failure and didn't make a penny for the railway. The MHR lost money on the diesel gala when you included the transport costs and hire fees.

 

I've found this from the HRA http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/lg/inquiries/tranworks/twb-HeritageRailway.pdf which on page 2 says the Light Railways Act 1896 was abolished in England & Wales in 1992 by the Transport & Works Act

I'm not trying to be clever but something in the back of my mind tells me the SVR's limit was under firstly an exemption from a safety cases, and later in a safety case itself, rather than a LRO. The above seems to confirm it.

Can anyone add any more?

Thanks

Patrick

 

Stand to be corrected but I believe the TWA1992 abolished LRO's for new applicants. Those with pre existing LRO's retained them but were made to apply for Safety Case Exemptions under the new act so as to bring them in line with the TWA.

 

Yes, as I understand it, existing Light Railway orders continue in force but, since the Transport & Works Act, any new lines require a Transport & Works Order if they cross a public highway at any level. That is entirely different from a Safety Case (or exemption) Even these have now been superseded under the Railway & other Guided Systems Regs (ROGS) and most railway operators have to have a Safety Management System and hold a Safety Certificate issued by the ORR. Essentially, the LRO or TWO allows the railway to exist. The SMS and SC allow it to operate. The whole legislation under which the various heritage railways operate is quit complex.

 

I make no claims to expertise in this area, but the Class 47 which was based at Swanage for a brief time was dangerously over 25mph during a Swanage diesel gala imho. And as for the Class 52 on the Mid Hants a few years ago .........

I'm not a speed merchant, and have always thought the 25 mph limit gives passengers a longer journey, which is a good thing in my view.

 

.....based on supposition, hearsay, gossip or first hand experience (ie on board the things)? Or, as usual with these things, did you hear it from someone who heard it from etc. etc?

 

Sorry to disappoint you, but my post was based on first hand experience, on board the trains as a fare paying passenger. I did qualify my original post with an acknowledgement of my lack of expertise in the area of assessing speed. I merely report that both runs felt wrong. Sorry if I have offended anyone by recalling the experience.

 

Fair enough, you were on the train - BUT given your own admission 'of lack of expertise in the area of assessing speed' I struggle with your assertion that 'the Class 47 which was based at Swanage for a brief time was dangerously over 25mph'.

Why post statements such as this?

 

I will bring your attention to the fact that all these comments in this thread are quite dangerous People do read these bords and im not on about public perhaps a little care is needed

 

1. I accept that perhaps I ought to have said "felt dangerously over 25 mph to me."
2. Out of interest, were you on board the train?
3. I posted as part of a discussion of speed on preserved lines. I thought this internetwebby thing was supposed to facilitate such discussions?
4. My post included a very clear caveat admitting to my lack of expertise in this area. It's just an opinion.

 

Even if you are not an expert, everone has been on various forms of transport and knows what certain speeds feel like. If you are on a preserved line and the leaves are blurred you are probably going too quickly!

 

Depends how much you've hit the buffet...!

 

Very true! Didn't think of that!

 

Is it bright to be making posts stating loco a did x mph ?, whether it's truthfull or not is not the issue, rather who could be reading and make calls for draconian measures.

When in a hole stop digging.

 

I'm still struggling with your terminology - why 'dangerous'? What constitutes dangerous? I'm a bit baffled by this. As to being on that particular train, no I wasn't, I just used that to illustrate the contradiction in your post. However, regarding your aside re the 52 at the MHR gala, I could comment with some authority on this if I so desired as I had the misfortune to be a pilotman on that day (I am a driver on the MHR) - but I shan't be.