Double Track Heritage Railways

At the moment the Great Central is the only heritage railway in Britain that is double-track over a significant part of its length, with the aspiration of eventually becoming double-track throughout.

I was wondering, are there any other heritage lines that have proposals to become double-track? I would have thought there would be room for one or two more such lines in the country.

 

NYMR has a substantial length "siding" which could easily become a double track section. Dont know if they will or not, but i'd imagine traffic demand could dictate that in the summer.
I think any other line would be for the fun of it rather than the need of it.

 

The NYMR's 'siding' can't be more than half a mile in length - it really wouldn't be much benefit as a double track section of running line... there's been some talk of potentially putting a loop or a double track section into Newtondale or Northdale at some point in the future to accomodate more frequent trains but unless traffic figures were to keep expanding (rapidly) I don't know why they'd need to. A train on the hour every hour seems perfectly sufficeint.

 

I believe the GWSR have aspirations to reinstate some double track at some point in the future - as, similar to the GCR, it was originally a 'main line'. But they've a lot to think about before that will happen, not least the repairs at Gotherington and the northern extension to Broadway.

 

I would imagine there would need to be sound economic reasons for doing so. Do the GCR get any non-enthusiast/tourist commercial benefit from their double track, or could the 60mph test track side of things be accomplished just as well with single track? (thinking of Old Dalby)

 

In the unlikely but ever present event of a mainline steam ban i think the GCR would become very Popular for occaisionally running a 60mph train. The doubletrack helps this fit in with a concurrent stopping service but otherwise ?

 

Does anyone know weather the northern extention of the GCR is going to be double tracked once the link is made?

 

Apart from the fact that the railway must be closed to the general public when a 60mph test train is being run.

Cost/benefit analysis would be fatally flawed in running at the extra speed when there is no extra revenue stream created. Admittedly the cost/benefit of most heritage railway projects is in a similar position.

 

Even if the GCR one day becomes an 18 mile railway, would even enthuiasts want to reduce their journey time to 25 minutes or less each way?

 

If you're going to be strictly accurate, the Great Central is the only standard gauge heritage railway in Britain that is double-track over a significant part of its length. The GCR has 5.5 miles of double track, whilst the RHDR has 8 miles.

I think that the long term aspiration is to double Toddington to Winchcombe. However, as you say, they've got enough else to think about at the moment.

 

My head agrees with the posts made indicating that the figures will never add up for heritage railways to double track. After all, 90% of the bread & butter revenue for most lines must just want a sleepy steam train ride & well rounded day out on site.

But then again, my heart would certainly love to see ex double track routes such as the Gloucestershire & Warwickshire, East Lancs & Churnet Valley returned to original condition, just for the few gala events where a real show can be put on! (as the GCR has proven many times).

My hope is that, as more and more lines become more "complete" (with full signalling, covered accommodation for most if not all stock, full engineering facilities, a full compliment of restored/rebuilt stations, and other stuff like that), perhaps the profits generated could be directed at "less needy" projects such as these double track sections proposed? I think we're quite a way off that though - as few (any?) lines can claim to be as "complete" as my list above suggests!

Do others feel this could be a serious idea in 5, 10, 20 years time? Or have I slipped into the inevitable preservation dreamworld....?

 

I rather suspect that even though a heritage railway may be more 'complete', ,the requirement to maintain the infrastructure will still preclude such developments without massive capital/external investment, which as I understood was a significant reason the GCR managed it's double track; the late David Clark and grants from other connected bodies (eg the MLST).

 

The Spa Valley Railway actually bought 4 miles of double track line left in situ by BR from Tunbridge Wells West and Birchden Jn but have since singled it. The track was in poor condition and used the best parts from the double track to make one good single line. Some sections were subsequently sold to raise funds to develop the railway. A few short sections of the original second track have been used for the passing loop at Groombridge and sidings at both Groombridge and Tunbridge Wells West.

 

I read on a GCR -related site that if the two GCR groups manage to rebuild the bridge over the Midland main line at Loughborough, the hope would be to eventually have double track all the way from Nottingham to Leicester.

 

Previous discussion.

 

As I said in the original post, I think there would be a case for a few more of the longer heritage lines to become double track, if they were originally double track and the infrastructure is still in place.
Doubling would allow more trains to run, but, as with the GCR, visitors and enthusiasts could have a more main-line experience.
At the moment there seem to be a lot of lines that are planning to extend their track. Eventually the scope for extensions will run out as more and more become reality. Then, the only way to expand will be to double. Doubling would be an expensive undertaking, but would it be more costly than extending a line?

 

Dont forget that extending a line not only attracts donations and often grant funding, but when open usually increases revenue. However unless double track is urgently needed to increase capacity, or someone specifically funds it, then its a lot harder to justify financially and so a much lower priority.

Chris

 

Agreed, but it's an added attraction - otherwise the Great Central wouldn't have done it. The purpose of a heritage railway is to re-create a railway from a past era - either specifically or vaguely. After all, most heritage railways have aspired to offer more than just a single small tank engine or diesel shunter pulling a couple of carriages along a short piece of track with rudimentary 'halt' as the station - even if they started off like that. It's natural to aspire to more than the bare minimum. For example, many heritage lines have working signals and signal boxes, which have often been re-installed, sometimes from scratch - despite the fact that they could operate without them, e.g. on the 'one train in steam' principle. I agree that most heritage lines will stay single track and will be fine that way - many were never double track when the line was built. But for a few of the longer, formerly double track lines, I wonder if they will one day they will be that way again.

 

It is often overlooked that the NYMR was double track in BR days, and the preservationists were already in residence when the second track was lifted, but it is difficult to see much double track being reinstated now, apart from perhaps extended passing loops. Much of the route has been realigned to ease curves and eliminate checkrails, and I doubt whether anyone would want to go back to the old arrangements. AS I've tried to point out in a previous post, most heritage railways don't set out to sell speed , the object is more to keep the visitors on the premises as long as possible, the longer they are there the more they will buy!

 

When some railways dont even have full signalling the chances of double track are pretty slim.