Heritage Railway Speed Limits

Tiny Tim · 28 Jul 2013

I think that some posters may be misunderstanding what ryan125hst is saying, he's not proposing that heritage lines should be in any way obliged to upgrade their operations to higher line speeds, simply that they should be allowed, more easily, to do so. I think this has limited possibilities. Short and wiggly lines probably have little need for it, and, however it's achieved, it's a colossal expense. Longer, straighter railways such as the Great Central, already provide some opportunity for faster running, and there aren't many other suitable lines. I also feel obliged to point out that any railway technology (such as CDL) is always much more expensive than you thought. Think of a number; Multiply by ten; That will be about half the actual cost. Staff training, similarly, is hideously expensive, and requires constant updating. Few heritage railways have either the staff or the money for this. Nevertheless, obstacles shouldn't be placed in the way of any heritage railway that can afford to upgrade; But you've got to wonder if it's worth it.
The Light Railway Act of 1896 is a curious bit of legislation. Intended at the time to give railway building a boost, it was mostly unsuccessful in this. The Act lay mostly unused and ignored until heritage railway groups in the 1960s realised it's potential to reduce the cost of running a preserved line. It's likely that the (completely unintended) consequences of this otherwise inconsequential Act are that we have any heritage railways at all.

RailUK Forums

D1009 · 28 Jul 2013

A very interesting thread. I agree that for most day to day operations on heritage railways, 25 mph max is fine. However in the case of the GC, the whole idea was to create a preserved main line. In this case, to say that passenger trains have to be restricted to 25 mph when non passenger trains can run faster, seems to me a shame. I've seen their demonstrations of mailbag exchanges at Quorn, which were certainly well in excess of 25.

Bridge189 · 28 Jul 2013

With the exeption of a few MK2 E/F rakes, very few of the mainline charters have CDL fitted and they run at higher speeds so I fail to see why it would be a factor in preservation lines going faster.

D1009 · 28 Jul 2013

This aspect was covered earlier in the thread. Main line charters using non CDL fitted stock usually have secondary door locking in the form of a simple bolt on the inside of the door, which is released by a steward (or sometimes by the passengers) when a call is made, and is locked when the train is ready to depart. For this purpose there has to be a steward in each coach, who is responsible to ensure that all the bolts are locked while the train is in motion, and this is considered sufficient to make the risks As Low As Reasonably Practical. This would not be an appropriate way of dealing with the situation on heritage railways where on gala days, trains which are full and standing are not unusual. However I'm not sure that anyone has said that to operate at over 25 mph, you MUST have CDL.

fireftrm · 29 Jul 2013

Clarification - it is NOT CDL! That would be central, with remote operation. That this is the standard on the mainline is due to the way it works, not what it has to be. It is SDL, secondary, that is a second method of locking the door and not just the handle, or press button. The idea of having difficulty in getting stewards to police the bolts on gala days is not impossible due to the crowds, rather the lack of sufficient volunteers would be the issue!

As to wanting to hear locomotives working harder come along to the NYMr and ride between Grosmont and Goathland, or either way through Newtondale. The former has a very trying gradient, where a six/seven coach train proves an admirable effort for most. The sound for the 25 is fantastic as is the 37. Sounds I can last remember hearing in the Scottish highlands. No need for higher speed, indeed doubtful they could manage much more!

paul1609 · 29 Jul 2013

[

Tomnick said:
Most posters seem to, quite rightly of course, refer to the variable costs of regularly running passenger trains at speeds in excess of 25mph, and the limited potential for any significant return on this. I think a more realistic proposal (relatively!) would be for just a limited number of trains to run at a higher speed, perhaps just a handful of 'fast' services at special events and selected weekends, which might allow the risks to be mitigated against without having to go the whole hog with TPWS, CDL and so on - in turn, that might make a relatively decent return from the enthusiast market* achievable, whilst continuing to run at 25mph for the 'normal' market. /QUOTE]

I agree with you Tomnick. It wouldn't be realistic to expect every single train on the railway to operate at higher speeds due to the higher costs involved and shorter journey times which may not be appreciated by the passengers. However, faster running on gala days and, possible, a few services during the peak timetables would certainly be possible. They could include a note in the timetable saying that it was a faster train, so the public could make a decision whether they wanted a faster journey, or whether they wanted to enjoy the scenery.

An interesting piece of information. Thank you

It's worth noting that the reason why I suggested the door system in my first post is to get around the problem of having door stewards in every carriage. This must be a nightmare due to the number of people the railway would need to make it possible.

It's encouraging that they thought about this when they reopened the line. Could this show that, on the Great Central railway at least, 45mph running is feasible for passenger trains?

That's an interesting opinion as I would have thought most enthusiasts who attend galas would prefer higher speed running so they could hear the locos working harder. With regards to the user worked crossing, work improved signage help? At the end of the day, I've read about a foot crossing between Doncaster and York with nothing protecting the line other than signs where the line speed is 125mph! As well as this, there are half barrier crossings where the line speed is 100, so I doubt crossing would be too much of a problem, as long as people were made aware of the increased line speed.

I think many heritage railways already have the network rail standard of signage at user Worked Crossings. The main Issue as I see it would be maintaining sighting distances for increased speeds, even 25 mph is already several hundred yards. There have been a whole string of incidents on heritage railways with these and the ORR have already imposed a 10 mph restriction on one of the railways in Yorkshire over all their UWCs as a result of a number of incidents. Of all the railways Ive visited I think probably only the GC is not affected by this.

cav1975 · 1 Aug 2013

How are the doors managed on the NYMR trains working over NR to Whitby?

jamieP · 1 Aug 2013

cav1975 said:
How are the doors managed on the NYMR trains working over NR to Whitby?

Se way as normal charter trains. Secondary door locks operated by stewards.

JP

fireftrm · 2 Aug 2013

Whitby services operate at 25mph maximum speed anyway, only the Battersby runs exceed that.

E&W Lucas · 2 Aug 2013

fireftrm said:
Whitby services operate at 25mph maximum speed anyway, only the Battersby runs exceed that.

No, 30 Grosmont to Whitby (the line speed), but only if sufficient door stewards available.

If there aren't, then 25 it is, which doesn't cause any problems with timekeeping. Even if 30 is allowed, there's not really any need to push the loco up to it, given the "stop - start" nature of the route.

paul1609 · 3 Aug 2013

I think that you are both right and that for all practical purposes the NYMR operate at 25 mph on this stretch. Ive never seen door stewards or the secondary door locks used.

AnonymousUser1 · 3 Aug 2013

the issue seems to be that 'heritage lines' covers such a wide variety of different lines - while a 25 MPH limit may be more than adequate on smaller lines somewhere like the GCR which could offer the full 'mainline' experience - especially when / if the two 'halves' are joined at Loughborough ...

60 mph running on 20 + mile stretches of preserved line would be nice to have and would be able to give the full 'main line' experience ( from both in and out of the train) ... out and back would still take around an hour minimum ( with loco run around at the far terminus) unless you were doing diesel hauled push-pull or using DMUs

obviously to run at those speeds you would be looking at 'proper' railway standards and you'd be looking at 'modern' rolling stock for this work ( at the very least Mk1s if not mk 2 or newer) with CDL etc ... perhaps there would be exceptions made for particular stock - e.g. the GCR's TPO rake - particularly as that seems to be more a spectator sport ( doing bag drops / pickups in traditional TPO style) than something punters ride on ....

broadgage · 3 Aug 2013

Elswhere on these forums, the pending withdrawal of some HSTS from the mainline is disscussed.
It would not suprise me to see some of these running on preserved lines, they already HAVE CDL, which though not perhaps a requirement for higher speed running, would certainly help the safety case.
It should be rembered that HSTs are borderline heritage, the first ones ran less than 10 years after the end of main line steam.

I suspect that an HST at 40 MPH is no less safe than older stock at 25.

Taking the West Somerset Railway as an example of a longer preserved line, a large part of the passenger traffic in the holiday season is people travelling from Bishops Lydeard to Minehead, for a day out.
The first train of the day to Minehead is regulary overcrowded.
SOME passengers would no doubt prefer a quicker journey so as to have a longer day in Minehead, but others would like the traditional slow service.

It could well be worth running TWO trains from Bishops Lydeard to Minehead, leaving just a few minutes apart.
The first one could consist of a preserved HST, to run at 40MPH with no intermediate stops, this should reach Minehead in less than 30 minutes.
A few minutes later could be the all stations steam hauled service, limited to 25MPH, and taking about 75 minutes.

A few years ago an HST was used during the diesel gala on the WSR and caused immense interest, especialy to some younger passengers who had only ever known modern trains.

455driver · 3 Aug 2013

broadgage said:
Taking the West Somerset Railway as an example of a longer preserved line, a large part of the passenger traffic in the holiday season is people travelling from Bishops Lydeard to Minehead, for a day out.
The first train of the day to Minehead is regularly overcrowded.
SOME passengers would no doubt prefer a quicker journey so as to have a longer day in Minehead, but others would like the traditional slow service.

The West Somerset Railway is a Tourist railway and has no interest in becoming a viable through route otherwise they would have extended to Taunton years ago when it would have been relatively cheap and easy.
The fact they didnt was very telling at the time plus the fact they have just spent huge amounts of money on (effectively) 2 turning triangles at BL.

All you have to do is look at the Bluebell railway (another tourist line) to see what a difference a mainline connection could make to the number of passengers that the railway carries!

fireftrm · 3 Aug 2013

paul1609 and E&W - yes the line speed is 30, but there are not the stewards, so apart from special occasions 25 it is. Makes no difference to the timetable.

paul1609 · 3 Aug 2013

455driver said:
The West Somerset Railway is a Tourist railway and has no interest in becoming a viable through route otherwise they would have extended to Taunton years ago when it would have been relatively cheap and easy.
The fact they didnt was very telling at the time plus the fact they have just spent huge amounts of money on (effectively) 2 turning triangles at BL.

All you have to do is look at the Bluebell railway (another tourist line) to see what a difference a mainline connection could make to the number of passengers that the railway carries!

I think the Bluebell case is yet to be proven, most heritage railway extensions attract a big increase in passengers the first season they open. The next year the figures generally drop back somewhat.
On the Mid Hants a similar distance from London the NR through traffic is quite small and this is typical of all heritage railways as I understand it by far the majority of visitors are families arriving by car.

AlexS · 4 Aug 2013

Operating a HST set isn't anywhere near as simple as operating a steam train with mk1 or pre nationalisation coaches. The air con, other auxiliaries and the powercars themselves are fairly complicated things to keep in working order and it's a full time job. Pootling along at 40 mph every now and then probably isn't going to do it.

Having ridden on a few GCR trains at the higher operating speeds, I would have said the regulars would get bored of it fairly quickly and the families it wouldn't make much difference to, if not cheapening the experience entirely. What could work I suppose in the future would be having the southern end run at a higher operating speed, 45 mph for arguments sake, and keeping the northern end at 25 mph for now to give a well balanced journey time.

43074 · 4 Aug 2013

I don't think journey times should be a priority for a heritage railway, mainly because of the costs involved. At the GC railway where I volunteer, there are certainly very few passengers for whom journey times are a concern. This is because most of our visitors are families or day trippers there to enjoy the nostalgia - a tiny proportion of our visitors are enthusiasts. The GCR can run test trains at 60mph, but it would be difficult to operate the regular passenger services at higher speeds.

E&W Lucas · 5 Aug 2013

43074 said:
I don't think journey times should be a priority for a heritage railway, mainly because of the costs involved. At the GC railway where I volunteer, there are certainly very few passengers for whom journey times are a concern. This is because most of our visitors are families or day trippers there to enjoy the nostalgia - a tiny proportion of our visitors are enthusiasts. The GCR can run test trains at 60mph, but it would be difficult to operate the regular passenger services at higher speeds.

I agree with your sentiments. The preserved railway product is nostalgia, combined with a relaxing day out. An escape from the modern pace of life.

Making it go faster, and obsessing over a mile an hour or five, is the preserve of the more extreme elements of the armchair or platform end enthusiast brigade. They aren't where the money is to be made, and that is what heritage outfits have to focus on.

Enjoy them for what they are. They can never recreate the full mainline experience of yesteryear.

Nym · 5 Aug 2013

ryan125hst said:
Central Door Locking: CDL is not provided on heritage railways as their current speed limit of 25mph means that it is not required. CDL is expensive to install and is visible to passengers due to the indicator light and door locking equipment. The question is why it would necessarily have to be CDL? Could it not simply be a system that automatically locked the doors above a certain speed and a detection system that applied the emergency brakes if a door was to open?

My idea would be to install a sensor on each door linked to a central box. This box would be powered by the coach battery. Below 25mph, the system would not operate and the railway would run as it has done since it first started operations. Above 25mph (or maybe 28mph to allow a 3mph tolerance), the brakes would only be held off when all the sensors were indicating that the doors are closed. If they are opened, or if there is a fault in the system due to a power failure or other fault, the emergency brakes would be applied. It would be fail safe as it would rely on a complete circuit to indicate that the doors were closed. No circuit= brakes applied. In this case, the train could still operate at the usual speed of 25mph (once the brakes are reset). There would need to be a way for the system to disable its self below 25mph (I'm not sure how this would be done). As an additional safety measure, a magnetic locking system could be wired into the system so that once the train speed rose above 25mph, the locking system applied, preventing a door from being opened and minimising the chance that the emergency brakes were applied.

The advantages of the system would be that it wouldnt need to be wired throughout the train as each carriage would have its own system. A sensor and a magnetic lock would be needed on each door (and maybe an emergency door release?). The main box would be located under the carriage.

Would this system work? Would it be allowed? Do you think it would be cheaper to install?

Anything is possible if you employ the right engineers, it all depends on how much of a system you'd like and what kind of skillbase you have within the railway. It would also depend on how much the beard strokers would like to actually stick their heads out and use a system that works to TUV accredited level of acceptable risk (and can be improved if required) and install such a system.

It could be a system as you have discribed there, as I beleive most heritage stock uses twin piped coaches, or it could actually be a universal style installation of CDL to a high enough standard, it isn't THAT hard to install such a system, provided the wiring passthroughs, train wires etc are available, and if not; the willingness is there to install additional train wires or an alternative system to allow communications beyond the comms cord between the carriages.

AWS and TPWS: AWS is fitted to most locomotives as it was installed by BR in steam days. It would only need magnets to be installed on the track and Im guessing that it could be connected to the signalling system quite easily. TPWS, on the other hand, is a far more modern system and would be more expensive to install. Given that the system has only been introduced in the days after privatisation, do you think heritage railways would be able to operate without it? After all, it is used on the main line where trains travel at up to 125mph and where there are many junctions. With lower line speeds, less traffic and simpler track layouts, would it be deemed safe to do without?

AWS and TPWS aren't the only options, there are other ways you can impliment ATP in a proven way with a 'black box' that can be installed on the unit, or several black boxes, that can then be overlapped with any interlocking lever box, digital signalling system or any other heratige system you'd care to mention.

Conclusion So, what do you think? Im no expert and my ideas have come from reading views of other rail enthusiasts online. Hopefully those who have more knowledge will be able to point out the problems that prevent higher speeds from becoming a reality, allowing myself and others to see why it cant be done. Alternatively, maybe it is possible, and it is just a lack of funding, or a long a difficult process of certification, that is preventing heritage railways from raising their speed limits.

Thank you for reading,

Ryan

I do think that you could be on to something here as there are options for implimenting 'work arounds' or improvments to systems to allow for higher linespeeds on heratage railways.

Tomnick said:
For what it's worth, I think your proposal would introduce more problems than it'd solve! By the time you've done the design work and obtained the (well-engineered) components necessary to install a reliable and fail-safe system, you might as well look at a conventional CDL system! That said - I've never heard of a single incident of a door being opened on a moving passenger train on a heritage railway. An increase in speed would make the potential consequences of such an incident more severe, but wouldn't increase the likelihood of it occurring in the first place. Is CDL, or any form of door locking, really necessary then?

To be honest, I'm in the process of designing a SIL-3 accredited system for speed based interlocking and it honestly isn't that hard...

Tomnick · 5 Aug 2013

Two things from the above before I return to the real world

- most (all?) heritage stock works on a single-pipe brake system, and the communication cord doesn't run between vehicles. Any non-standard signalling (or other) kit wouldn't be ideal either, in a world of visiting and mainline-registered locos.

headshot119 · 5 Aug 2013

Tomnick said:
Two things from the above before I return to the real world - most (all?) heritage stock works on a single-pipe brake system, and the communication cord doesn't run between vehicles. Any non-standard signalling (or other) kit wouldn't be ideal either, in a world of visiting and mainline-registered locos.

First Gen DMUs have twin piped brake systems. Class 141s which run on a couple of preserved lines have pass coms which beak the train wires so that runs between vehicles.

Quite a few first gen DMUs that are preserved already have AWS fitted, and working. I've also driven a first gen DMU along a preserved line which had TPWS fitted as well, and CDL.

fireftrm · 5 Aug 2013

headshot119 said:
First Gen DMUs have twin piped brake systems. Class 141s which run on a couple of preserved lines have pass coms which beak the train wires so that runs between vehicles.

Quite a few first gen DMUs that are preserved already have AWS fitted, and working. I've also driven a first gen DMU along a preserved line which had TPWS fitted as well, and CDL.

In my real world heritage railways generally run locos (sorry it said locks before!)and hauled coaching stock.DMUs are a rarity,not widely loved by the public and 141 pacers are very limited, thank god. 1, 2, 3, back in the room.

E&W Lucas · 5 Aug 2013

Tomnick said:
Two things from the above before I return to the real world - most (all?) heritage stock works on a single-pipe brake system, and the communication cord doesn't run between vehicles. Any non-standard signalling (or other) kit wouldn't be ideal either, in a world of visiting and mainline-registered locos.

Correct, it's called The Automatic Vacuum Brake!

There's a few lines that have standardised on air, but it's single pipe AFAIK.

The divergence between those of us who are actually involved in Preservation, and the "sit and look at a computer for too long" brigade, is somewhat marked!

Tomnick · 6 Aug 2013

Ta, it was some of the air braked stuff that I wasn't sure about. Unless the steam heat is the second pipe that someone's been looking at

.

fireftrm · 6 Aug 2013

First gen DMUs had twin pipe vacuum brakes to speed up the application and release of brakes, as they were intended for stop-start journeys, where the time for braking and moving off again are more critical than on a long distance train. Twin pipe, or not, vacuum, or air, a braking system link with a CDL system would not be as simple as Ryan may think. It would require actuators fitted into the brake system and controls in the cab/guards compartment. The whole thing is a pointless discussion as no line is going to spend the many thousands of pounds to fit a CDL system to heritage coaching stock just to go a little faster. Secondary locks are more than adequate on the mainline already (should they be required for 25+ as on the Esk Valley), but these do require stewards, though they would be volunteers so free. Main line Mk1 charters charge a lot of money for their services. so can pay for stewards, heritage railways don't, so can't.

E&W Lucas · 6 Aug 2013

Tomnick said:
Ta, it was some of the air braked stuff that I wasn't sure about. Unless the steam heat is the second pipe that someone's been looking at .

They probably look the same on Train Simulator

Jonfun · 6 Aug 2013

Air braked (BR) passenger stock is generally twin piped. One is your train pipe (equivalent of the train pipe on a vacuum braking system) and the other is the main reservoir pipe, which is used to top up the brake reservoirs on each individual vehicle. It is possible to run with a single train pipe, though it's more efficient to have both in operation.

D1009 · 7 Aug 2013

455driver said:
The West Somerset Railway is a Tourist railway and has no interest in becoming a viable through route otherwise they would have extended to Taunton years ago when it would have been relatively cheap and easy.
The fact they didnt was very telling at the time plus the fact they have just spent huge amounts of money on (effectively) 2 turning triangles at BL.

All you have to do is look at the Bluebell railway (another tourist line) to see what a difference a mainline connection could make to the number of passengers that the railway carries!

As far as I know the West Somerset has always wanted to run to Taunton, as it was why the railway was preserved in the first place. In the early years one of the main objectors to it was the National Union of Railwaymen. After the line had been closed by BR, some of the redundant drivers got jobs as bus drivers and retained their NUR membership. The union saw the restoration of train services as a threat to their jobs. I'd be surprised if there are not drivers on that route who continue to be represented by the RMT. As far as the WSR is concerned I'm sure they want to make money in any way they can, and that is why in the last few years a fully signalled connection to the WSR at Norton Fitzwarren was put in, controlled by Exeter panel. Freight trains conveying stone for the sea wall defences near Watchet have already run, and FGW run a shuttle from Taunton to Bishops Lydeard during the larger WSR galas. There have also been many charter trains running through. Through trains to Minehead on a regular basis run by main line TOCs have been discussed for a number of years, and I'm sure if the line speed were raised where track geometry permits, it would make all these operations much easier. They would generate track access revenue for the WSR, and would not preclude the railway's own trains running as they always have.

WSW · 7 Aug 2013

D1009 said:
As far as I know the West Somerset has always wanted to run to Taunton, as it was why the railway was preserved in the first place. In the early years one of the main objectors to it was the National Union of Railwaymen. After the line had been closed by BR, some of the redundant drivers got jobs as bus drivers and retained their NUR membership. The union saw the restoration of train services as a threat to their jobs. I'd be surprised if there are not drivers on that route who continue to be represented by the RMT. As far as the WSR is concerned I'm sure they want to make money in any way they can, and that is why in the last few years a fully signalled connection to the WSR at Norton Fitzwarren was put in, controlled by Exeter panel. Freight trains conveying stone for the sea wall defences near Watchet have already run, and FGW run a shuttle from Taunton to Bishops Lydeard during the larger WSR galas. There have also been many charter trains running through. Through trains to Minehead on a regular basis run by main line TOCs have been discussed for a number of years, and I'm sure if the line speed were raised where track geometry permits, it would make all these operations much easier. They would generate track access revenue for the WSR, and would not preclude the railway's own trains running as they always have.

Absolutely right! The six-figure investment by the WSR into the Norton Junction upgrade underlines the WSR's desire to maintain a link with the main network. Indeed the link is used on most weekdays.

As for changing the speed limits, the LRO actually allowed "DMUs" to travel up to 40mph on the Minehead Branch. Some believe this exemption stands. But there is no plan to change from the current 25mph limit.

Steve

Heritage Railway Speed Limits

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member