25mph+ running?

No this isn't a thread about how fast you've been on a heritage line as it would be very boring reading a string of respnses saying 25mph!

What would be involved to allow some heritage railways to run at higher speeds from time to time? The present LRO that most, if not all preserved lines, operate under dictates a maximum of 25mph for passenger carrying services. Persumably lines wishing to go faster would have to operate under a different set of regulations/orders - what are they?

Some lines manage to run at up to 60mph for testing purposes - indicating that the infrastructure is up to the job. I would go as far to say that several heritage lines have better P-Way than many higher speed sections of the NR system (the remaining jointed sections on the Henley branch are very rough at 50mph). It is obviously safe to run these trains at highers speeds otherwise it wouldn't be done, so why not with passengers? I can (but only just) understand concerns about older rolling stock not being upto it in terms of crash worthiness (including Mk1's), but lots of raiways have MkII's in their fleets now which could be used for less frequent higher speed running.

I'm not proposing that every heritage railway should be running around at 50mph with 0-4-0 Barclays - maybe just one 'fast' train a day with a larger ex BR loco that is upto the job. Faster running all the time would undoubtedly detract from the product for most punters, who want a relaxed journey through nice countryside behind steam. But it would be good to have less expesive alternative to main line running.

Although I'm not a doom and gloom merchant when it comes to predicting the longevity of main line steam, it is always good to have a backup plan ready.

 

Don't fully know myself, but I'm fairly sure one concern is central locking. Todays modern units have it electrically built in so the doors can't (or shouldn't) open in service. On Mk1 though there is no such facility as it was something created after they were built. I have wondered why can't they do something similar to some mainline specials with a bolt across the top. However presume there must be some other paperwork to be filled in.

I'm sure there was a brief discussion about this in one of the GCR threads, when we went off topic slightly. See if I can find it.

 

I understand the Light Railway Order of 1975 under which the WSR operated, allowed for 40mph for passenger-carrying DMUs. This was, of course, during the lead-up to a full daily service between Minehead and Taunton. In the event, the authorities placed a blanket 25mph on all traffic, pending certain inspections and approvals for the designated DMUs (2xtwo-car Park Royals). As time passed, the difficulties in re-opening the whole line and also gaining running rights access on BR tracks, led to those inspections not being carried out. And there it has rested for all those years, although I believe in theory, if a TOC was to run a service along the Minehead Branch, the 40mph clause might be looked at again. However, the railway infrastructure itself would need considerable investment to allow for higher speeds, especially at the approaches to signalled loops, and of course, the track maintenance/replacement programme under the present management has always worked on a 25mph maximum speed limit, so track improvements would be necessary too. Ultimately, if the long-desired daily service is reinstated, all these improvements would need to be made. One day, maybe.

[the above are my personal views/comments]

Steve
(WSW)

 

Very interesting WSW - I never knew that! Obviously if regular trains are to run again on the WSR or Swanage, speed could well become a limiting factor so perhaps in these two cases something will have to be done.

Could the signalling problem described be solved by reducing the speed limit a quater of a mile before any signal to 25mph? That would still give some reasonable streches of 40mph running.

 

I doubt it comes down to anything specific - to do it the main thing you'd need is for a change to your railway's safety case, which means things like risk assessments and mitigation measures in order to convince the powers that be to sign the thing off. But I wouldn't presume that the authorities will insist on any particular technology to allow it, that isn't their role. It's down to the railway proposing to do it to demonstrate that the risks of what they are proposing to do are ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable), given whatever mitigating measures they've proposed, and to convince someone of this.

I can't imagine, for example, that a loco-hauled train of Mk.1 stock is inherrently any less safe at 40mph than a Pacer.

The biggest obstacle I can see is whether any heritage railway's management has the necessary skills, time, money and inclination to undertake the necessary raft of paperwork. I'm sure some of the larger lines have the skills... but when you are trying to keep people on your railway a bit longer so that they buy food in your cafe, it wouldn't necessarily be a sensible thing to do. If any railway ever gets serious about offering a 'commuter' service though, things might change.

Just my thoughts.
Phil

PS: Am I right in thinking that the MHR used to have permission to run at 30mph?

PPS: Some of the German narrow gauge lines are quite fast, considering their size. Does anyone know what the maximum speed on the 'Molli' is?

 

Believe it or not, I seem to recall the real difficulty in raising the speed limit these days is that much recent Railway legislation applies only to lines where the maximum permitted speed is in excess of 25mph. This is certainly the case with secondery door locks and I believe also the ban on pre-Mark 1 Rolling Stock.

I did hear that, as originally drafted, the legislation for privatising the Railways forgot to exempt heritage lines (of any gauge) from coming under Railtrack control! National network legislation only doesn't apply to Network Rail, and heritage lines escape due to the speed limit.

I suspect that exemption from fitting TPWS (which is a legal requirement) is also speed dependent. Use of rolling stock without Central Door Locking certainly is, as is use of pre-Mark 2 stock. Remember that the GCR can only run at 60mph for test purposes if the Railway is closing to passengers, i.e. so a 60mph train cannot come into contact with a passenger train.

So, to run above 25mph, railways would probably need to spend considerable sums on equipping locos with TPWS and gain exemption from the Mark 1 ban, which would involve fitting all usable doors with door bolts and having a steward on every door in passenger use.

There is simply no business case for doing this, especially as most heritage lines are visited by passengers who want to enjoy the experience and see the scenary, which is probably better at 25mmph than 40mph. One or two of the longer lines may feel that being able to shorten journey times will make them more attractive or allow better stock utilisation, but I suspect shorter lines find they want to make the experience last to make it seem more worthwhile!

Journey time doesn't seem to be a real issue at just over an hour given that the NYMR, SVR and West Somerset are 3 or the 4 busiest lines, and certainly (and perhaps to our surprise), we have found the 1 hour 35 minute journey time from Pickering to Whitby or reserve to be perfectly acceptable to passengers in large numbers on the NYMR.

 

Is there something about the number of footpath/agricultural crossings as well, and the associated gates and signage?

 

Central door locking is indeed one of the issues. The exemptions currently in force allowing use of Mk1 coaches on the mainline, rely on the use of secondary door bolts (manually operated not centrally controlled), not carrying passengers in mark 1 coaches at the end of a train set, AND the use of AWS and TPWS. I imagine that similar rules would also apply to Heritage Lines wishing to run passenger trains at more than 25mph, but I'm not sure that this has ever been tested in practice. There are also potential implications on signalling standards eg spacing of signals and braking distances for higher speed operation. I imagine if higher speeds were ever authorised, they would only be allowed well outside of station limits.

 

I'm not certain that much of what has been written above is strictly correct. Most, but not all, Heritage Railways operate under a Light Railway Order, which is a Statutory Instrument issued pursuant to the Light Railways Act although some later lines might have a Transport & Works Order . Light Railways were allowed to have lower standards than other railways. It was usual for such orders to contain clauses along the lines of: 'shall not run any trains or engine upon any part of the railways at a rate of speed exceeding at any time that fixed by the Secretary of State for such part.' Traditionally the maximum speed laid down was 25 mph. HMRI, since its inception in 1840 have produced standards for railway safety and these standards were incorporated into a document entitled: 'Railway Construction and Operation Requirements for Passenger lines and Recommendations for Goods Lines', commonly referred to as the Blue Book. This contained a section on requirements for light railways. In recent years the safety legislation and requirements have been significantly revised and the Blue Book has been replaced with 'Railway Safety Principles and Guidance'. Section H of part 2 of this document applies to Minor Railways, a category into which virtually all Heritage Railways fall. Clause 5 of this document states: 'While bound by current railway legislation, in the spirit of the 1896 Act, government regulation is less stringent for minor railways running at a maximum speed of 25 mph than it is for the commercial operators that run at up to five times that speed. A minor railway will not normally be permitted to operate above the traditional speed limit. Any intention to operate above 25 mph should be discussed with HMRI as soon as possible.' Additionally, clause 333 states: 'If a minor railway changes its status, for instance by running higher-speed passenger services for normal commercial railway traffic, the Railway Safety Principles and Guidance (Parts A-F)2 appropriate to ordinary railways will apply.' Thus, HMRI continue to consider the 25 mph limit as being the break point between a lesser regime and compliance with the full range of railway safety requirements. The full text of Section H is at: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/r ... orrail.pdf
Railway Safety Principles & Guidance' is just that, though; guidance. It is not a legal requirement. The enforcement is contained within the Railway & Other Guided Transport Systems Regulations (ROGS) which requires any railway operating at over 40 kmph (25mph) to require a Safety Certificate and Authorisation from the ORR and this is how the more stringent requirements will be imposed through the ORR requiring the railway to comply with the guidance.
As far as I'm aware, there are no fundamental mandatory requirements for AWS, TPWS, door locking or anything similar and it would be up to the railway concerned to consider these in any associated risk assessments and in the Safety Management System, all of which would be considered in the granting of a Safety Certificate.

Having said all that, do we really want to run at more than 25 mph? Very few Heritage Railways have sufficient length to warrant it. There might be a case for the NYMR, WSR and other long lines for being allowed to run up to 30-35 mph purely to be able to regain lost time but there is no sense in scheduling trains to run at this speed. The increased maintainence and other costs associated with higher speeds are unlikely to be justifiable, though.

 

The West Coast set of Mk 2's used for the Cambrian Steam doesn't have central locking...

They get around it by having a bolt on the inside of the door, and relying on the passenger to throw it across when the door is shut.

 

On the mainline there is a requirement for a number of train staff to act as "Door Stewards" and they are responsible for doing the "Secondary Door Locking". On the subject - look at the Hastings Diesels site - they have fitted CDL to their vehicles and done a fantastic job of blending it with heritage.

 

While I do not claim to be an expert, I was under the impression that one issue with +25mph running is that of ultransonic exams on all stock. As I understand it carriages and wagons (not sure about locos) have no requirements for their axles to have ultrasonic testing on them uner a LRO. I am led to believe that for certain filming jobs on the Nene Valley when high speeds have been required, one of the only demands made for a temporary speed-limit exemption was that all stock used must have their axles tested.

TBH I don't see much of a case for higher speed running except on the big three (SVR, WSR & NYMR) during galas and special weekends.

 

In the early 80s there was an article on this issue in Steam Railway. It came about when the Mid Hants reported that keepind speed down with their Bulleids meant frequent braking. This caused dust from brake pads to be almost continually thrown up which in turn was damaging the paintwork of the leading coach in each formation. The MHR queried 40mph running and Steam Railway followed this up. Then (possibly now as well?) if the locos, rolling stock, track, infrastructure and operating staff were allup to the task then speed can be legally raised.

Presumably the hard bit would be proving to the authorites all criteria are met.

 

How does the GCR's mail train get around this legislation? I was once told that the apparatus only worked above 35mph. But here we have non-mainline registered locos and stock running above the 25mph limit with the line open (even if strictly supervised). I remember the GCR was investigating a limit of 45mph for their passenger services, what happened to this? As far as the SVR is concerned (being my local line) I can't see any need for 25mph plus being pursued as the average visitor is there for the scenery not performance and driver's seem to know how to make up time without pushing limits. 40mph would be nice for gala days however and as far as infrastructure is concerned the line was passed for 50mph 10 years ago for testing of class 175 dmus. From a totally biased point of view (!) as far as i'm concerned the SVR has the best maintained carriages on any preserved line that i've travelled on and all locos are maintained (even if not certified) to mainline standards so there shouldn't be any problem there safety or capability wise for higher speeds. As an aside Hugh McQuade and the C&W team at Kidderminster & Bewdley have worked miracles in raising standards in the SVR carriage fleet over the last decade which numbers over 50 working vehicles and deserve massive congratulations.

 

There is a special dispensation to run the mail train at a higher speed, we also have to effectively 'double block' between Loughborough and Rothley to ensure clear signals at Quorn, and 'Line Clear' is only given when the foot crossing at Quorn is manned (& locked, I think). There may well be other restrictions I'm not aware of.

I don't think it's true that the equipment doesn't work at lower speeds, but you would tend to 'drag' the mail bags off the hook rather than 'snatching' them off, which I imagine would cause them more wear/damage.

Higher speeds for passenger trains are currently on the 'back burner' I believe; in my view there isn't really much point unless we extend northwards, although it would be nice.

I thought the SVR had some 15mph speed restrictions in a few places? Or were they dealt with after the recent rebuilding?

 

The SVR does indeed still have some 15mph restrictions notably at Sterns (which until a couple of years ago was 5mph) and over structures at Victoria Bridge and Hoo Brook. There is also a long 20mph restriction between Highley and Hampton Loade near the old colliery sidings (due to subsidence i think). Ironically the landslips did not take place at either of the long term problem sites at Sterns or the colliery sidings area so were not dealt with in the rebuilding, though there was a slip close to Sterns by the cottage. I am sure there are better qualified people on the forum to say how these areas are progressing long term but I believe it is thought that Sterns maybe more or less settled after the depositing of vast quantities rock down the bank of the river bend that was causing the problem some years ago, hence the raisng of the line speed here. Incidently I believe that there was a restriction here even in steam days. I am not sure how these restrictions affected the testing of the 175's in 1999, whether it was felt that Loco hauled trains were more of an issue or whether the units had to abide by the restrictions as well. Certainly there are long lengths of the SVR which are unrestricted which would of allowed, certainly with swift acceleration, 50 mph running.

 

I agree with all the above on SVR, that accords with my understanding. Additional:

Additional signage was required on public rights of way warning of increased speeds when 175s were tested

IIRC one of the carriage bods at SVR commented that travel above 25mph would very much increase wear on carriages

SVR and other lines have converted the 'pulley' thing that charges batteries to work at lower speeds and would need changing back

Patrick

 

Somewhat off topic but: some vehicles have been fitted with an electronic gizmo that reduces the hysteresis of contactor closure/opening thus charging more effectively at low speed. The great beauty of this is at higher speeds it has no material effect. A smaller dynamo pulley might cause the dynamo to over-volt.

 

Ah Brian, I knew you'd fill in all the techie-stuff!

Patrick