double track at other heritage railways

LETS BE SENSIBLE -- IT LOOKS GOOD IN PHOTOS BUT WHO'S GOING TO DO IT, WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN IT, WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, DO THE PRESERVATION ECONOMICS JUSTIFY IT?

 

This is very true. The boundaries however blur when you ask the question: is preservation sensible?

Do the preservation economics justify the restoration of Class 8 express locos hauling 5 coach trains at 25mph? Or having specialist parts made for items not directly seen by the average visitor?

I think there is a relatively strong case for at least one example of all of preservation's extravagances such as double track, to keep one example of "how it was" alive for the future.

So, is anyone planning on building some water troughs next?

 

I agree with you Chris! it's a lot more silly to restore a Class 8 XP engine(built for 100 mph) limited at a very ridiculous 25 mph that to rebuild a double track
But I think that a double track is more at place on the NYMR , the NVR or the GWR
regards
Noel

 

I've always thought the East Lancs would be a nice railway to double track, its probably the "urban" stonework, canopies etc which always suggest the line was once more than a tranquil backwater!

 

mmm..If I won the euro-millions, I would love to purchase the trackbed from Bolton Abbey station to just past Lob Ghyll viaduct, put the double track back and ofcourse the telegraph poles. I reckon it would be quite scenic with the River Wharfe in the background....but we can always dream!!

 

Lets look at this from a commercial perspective

Good rail (ie second hand) is now over £60,000 per half mile, that excludes sleepers, balast, drainage and the work of putting it down.

Even some of the largest railways are making losses, you only need to at the Severn Valley loosing £240K last year. Rail wears away and then needs replacing, the speed it goes of course depends on the weight that runs over those rails each year.

You need to carry alot of passengers to be able to pay for replacing those rails. The infrastructure is getting older and needing more work and money.

Many railways will tell you they are about pleasure for the masses. IMHO I can't see the commercial argument for laying double track elsewhere. Unless for example the Gloucester and Warwickshire was suddently a through route and sharing with other operators, then life would be very different.

 

One of the few sensible posts on this thread so far. In reality most railways, already well worn, will find it an uphill financial & practical struggle just to keep up with the maintenance of their p-way & infrastructure without some of the nonsense being suggested here.

 

Can only think that the North York Moors would be viable. I think at one stage Goathland to Levisham was being considered for redoubling, but this was before Whitby became a new destination. The economics? The NYMR was at capacity as far as passenger numbers was concerned and with only two places with passing loops, the scope to run more trains was limited. With severe gradients longer trains were also out. With an extension to Whitby extra capacity has been created to a certain extent, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an extra loop or line being put in on the railway. But remember this is Britain's most successful railway in terms of passenger numbers and the NYMR definitely isn't immune to huge infrastructure bills. Any decision to effectively increase it's infrastructure costs would be therefore be considered very carefully against any future increases in passenger revenue.

 

I can't speak for the NYMR but, IMHO, double track anywhere or even an extra passing loop is unlikely to happen. Neither has running to Whitby given us extra capacity.
If an additional loop is installed in Newtondale, as has often been talked about, it will significantly shorten this section but then the Achilles heel will be the Pickering-Levisham section, which will not allow any reasonable reduction in headway. At the most, it will allow one extra train each way in the normal operating day and it is only for a few days a year that this is really necessary. Normal train lengths are kept at 7 coaches these days whilst several years ago 8 coaches was the peak season norm yet we still carry more passengers today. The Railway still has the ability to add that extra coach, if necessary although the motive power needs to be suitable for this.
Running to Whitby has made an impact on the operating day with the first trains starting at 09.00 and the final one not finishing until 19.00 on most days. It has made no difference to the hourly service, though.

 

I understand and sympathise with the view that double tracking is expensive and might just be unaffordable ... but ... if we start from square one with a view that a line is going to be double track, it is possible to look at another scenarios including one that might say that a five mile railway that is double tracked is better than a ten mile single tracked railway and is more economic. The better economics stem from the fact, and it is fact, that a five mile railway certainly has a lesser infrastructure overhead due to fewer embankments, cuttings, bridges etc and will only need to have three stations, ie, one at each end and one in the middle. The overhead on the track maintenance will be the same for a five mile double tracked railway vs a ten mile single track one, but the other overheads are very much reduced.

Might be worth debating along those lines.

Regards

 

Is a loop at New Bridge an option?

 

It is an option in theory and would be necessary if any sensible use is to be made of a loop at Newtondale. That then makes it two loops, although the New Bridge one has the benefit of an existing 'box. It doesn't give a huge reduction in headway, though, and the number of extra trains possible isn't huge. You also need to bear in mind the fact that it is only certain trains that load to anywhere near full so running more trains isn't simply a case of starting at 09.00 and fitting in as many as you can before 19.00. Extra trains also require extra locos and crews (inc guards), all of which are in limited supply. It will probably require more coaches, too, as reduced set lengths probably won't make up the additional requirement. Stabling of stock would also be a problem as it is not realistic to split and shunt sets at the start and finish of each day.

All in all, a lot of work for little return. It would only happen if there was a benefactor wanting to fund it all.

The big need is to get more trains into and out of Whitby. That is being worked on.

 

Yes, but think of it from a passenger point of view. All other things being equal (scenery, rolling stock, etc etc), which presents better value for money for a passenger - 10 miles or 5 miles? It's irrelevant to 95% of our visitors whether we are single or double; all that matters is what they are sitting on. So 5 miles of double track may be marginally cheaper to maintain, but this would be outweighed by the fact that the line with 10 miles of single track presents a better "experience" and therefore can command a premium fare.

Besides, in your scenario (5 miles with an intermediate station), you could run (assuming about 8 minute section times and a suitable time to run round / take water) a two train service with ca. 30 minutes gap between departures even on a single track. It's doubtful you could run much more frequently even with a double track - you could probably have 20 minute departures, but only if you had three trains running. But that is a fantasy world; how many 5 mile lines could justify having three trains running all day? More trains means more coal, more oil, more maintenance - and more wear and tear on the track. It's just not justified by the amount of money that can be generated by the available passenger numbers.

The real answer to taking more passengers is not double track, but bigger trains. Which preferably doesn't mean heavier trains, but means more vintage stock, with a higher ratio of seats per ton. To take an example, on the Bluebell a five coach Mk 1 set weighs 178 tons for 66 * 1st, 151 * 3rd, 12 wheelchairs. The four mets + the people's millions LCDR wheelchair accessible saloon takes 48 * 1st; 190 * 3rd, 6 wheel chairs for about 90 tons. Half the weight, more seats (and a lot shorter than 5 mark ones, so nothing like the limit on platform length either). OK, the Mets are a pretty extreme example of packing them in, but the general principle stands: if I had a spare few million floating round and I wanted to increase line capacity, the business case is much stronger for restoring more vintage carriages than for making some or all of the line double track.

Tom

 

I wasn't about to suggest that the Bluebell be double tracked! I am interested in your comments re vintage coaching stock and perhaps it's something that needs to be added to the mix, but I disagree with your view re frequency of service on double tracks. Surely the service would reflect the amount of passengers not the maximum capacity of the line. I would have thought that an hourly service would suffice even for the peak period - excepting that is, galas.

One of the issues concerning long lines is the fares that have to be charged, and I do wonder just how many passengers do actually travel the whole distance. I once got on a full train at SF, a train that was formed of the Ashbury stock, and the experience was such an uncomfortable one that I got off at HK! There is a limit where 'packing them in' is concerned. Most vintage carriages were built when the passenger was a lot smaller than they are now. In the experience recounted above I was sitting next to a bloke who was wearing a WWII USAAF uniform and it was a lot too small for him!

The whole point about a five mile double tracked railway is that it reduces costs, because it reduces the maintenance overhead. It also needs fewer volunteers to run it. If it is in a tourist area then the passengers will come, and it is a great shame that the only double tracked railway so far is in a non-tourist area.

Regards

 

I suppose the point is though - if you are not doing double track to increase frequency, what's the point? in other words, if you can run a service at a frequency that matches the passenger demand on a single track, why go to the expense of doubling? You might be right that 5 miles of double track would be cheaper to maintain than 10 miles of single track - but in that case, 5 miles of single track would be even cheaper!

I don't think we (preserved railways) are really much different from mainline railways: you want the smallest infrastructure that still allows you to reliably run your peak service. For most (I might suggest all, but I don't really know the situation at the GCR) lines, that means a single track with passing places.

tom

 

As a minor point, the section of the Severn Valley between Bewdley North and south Boxes is technically double track, being a complete block section, rather than a main line and loop, which is how the regular feature of the time table of the up train departing Bewdley before the down train arrives, occurs.

 

The Nene Valley are looking at, at some point the long term re-instatement of the double track section between Orton Mere and Ferry Meadows stations. This would fit in with the re-development of the Ferry Meadows site with the TPO Museum and would hugely benefit the operational aspects of the railway. Orton Mere is the junction station for the Fletton Loop which is the NVR's NR connection and is effectively double tracked anyway.

ON another tack, the Wansford Tunnel is double tracked halfway through with the Oundle side used for stock storage, extending this through to Yarwell would give an interesting double track experience with trains passing in the tunnel which I don't think is possible on other preserved railways?

Pictures actually exist of the double track still in situ at Ferry Meadows with 73050 passing through the manually operated level crossing gates.

Would any of this really be of fiiscal benefit to the railway? Well, probably not in many ways although the other benefits could actually bring in additional income.

 

Monty had the right idea. Get the middle aged "middle management" officers to do regular PT and if you had a heart attack and died then they that was just tough titties.

 

Are the nene valley going to extend from yarwell junction?

 

Sadly unlikely, due to substantial river bridges missing on both forks shortly after the old junction, and a perceived lack of 'destination' within a reasonable distance (it's very rural out that way!)