Britain's Boring Preservation Movement

[signallerscot]

In my experience most preserved lines routinely exceed 25mph anyway, albeit not usually going faster than about 35-40mph. The advent of GPS has been preservation's undoing!

 

[GWRtom]

In my experience most preserved lines routinely exceed 25mph anyway, albeit not usually going faster than about 35-40mph. The advent of GPS has been preservation's undoing!

i'm sure you have proper evidence, to support this serious accusation?

 

[Cowley]

i'm sure you have proper evidence, to support this serious accusation?

No he hasn't (hopefully).

 

[markindurham]

Damn fool thing to post on line, even if it was true, which one hopes it's not. Unless, of course, he's referring to the Whitby-Battersby section of the Esk Valley route, which is cleared for regular higher speeds in places by approved locomotives and specific crews...

 

[XDM]

And Worgret junction to Wareham on Swanage railway trains,at least 45 mph. Going back to a post of Edwin m I have checked his comment that if a heritage railway goes at over 25 mph its stock will require central door locking & TPWS. That is only true if it runs on Network Rail metals, like the Esk valley & to Wareham. It is NOT true if the over 25 mph speed is on its own heritage track. The spa valley runs next to Network Rail for a mile or so to Eridge (at 25 mph) but does not need door locking or AWS/TPWS. Even if it ran at 40 mph it may not need AWS etc, as it is on it own track separated from NR. My sources are not from readinfpg the legislation, we cannot find it, but from asking two wise men high up in different heritage railways.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

i'm sure you have proper evidence, to support this serious accusation?

The mention of GPS being an "undoing" suggests that the poster had meant to place these alleged overspeeds in the past tense, though their phrasing failed to do so.

 

[Iskra]

The Great Central is cleared for 40mph is it not in places?

 

[Cowley]

The Great Central is cleared for 40mph is it not in places?

I think they can test stuff up to 60 mph, although I'm not certain. The Severn Valley and the Mid Hants have also been used for testing/running in at higher speeds over the years. But not with passengers on board as far as I know.
I seem to remember that the TPO at the Great Central can operate at 35 mph due to the equipment not working properly below that speed. Is that right?

 

[Iskra]

I think they can test stuff up to 60 mph, although I'm not certain. The Severn Valley and the Mid Hants have also been used for testing/running in at higher speeds over the years. But not with passengers on board as far as I know.
I seem to remember that the TPO at the Great Central can operate at 35 mph due to the equipment not working properly below that speed. Is that right?

GCR is 40 with passengers I believe.

I think all preserved railways can run faster for test trains where linespeed allows, I know the KWVR can do.

 

[Flying Phil]

I am sure the linespeed with passengers on the GCR is 25mph. The TPO set does mail drops and pick ups at a higher speed 50mph? but does not carry paying passengers. They do some commercial testing at up to 60mph but again, not with paying pasengers.

 

[Tomnick]

The requirement for central door locking and TPWS (or equivalent) is a piece of legislation not a standard. I'm pretty sure the exemptions allowed by this law are conditional on a 25mph maximum speed.

I'd certainly be interested in a reference to the relevant legislation. I wasn't aware of any, but I'm always open to being enlightened! I'm curious as to how it works in practice - the fact that TPWS is only provided at signals/reductions in speed where the associated risk is relatively high (what if a given railway was able to mitigate that risk in another way?) and the fact that a train can continue normally with no TPWS provided that a competent person is provided (admittedly not able to enter service in that condition) noting that most preserved railways have such a competent person on all trains, and that the restriction is only 40mph even where the driver continues alone. I'm sure that the NYMR is allowed to run up to 35mph north/west of Grosmont in certain conditions without TPWS (?) or CDL (but with a requirement for stewards to be provided?).

Most preserved railways would see a higher speed as requiring a lot more hoops to be jumped through, and the result being a lot of dissatisfied punters because their train trip doesn't take so long!

See my earlier point - it maybe wouldn't be appropriate on a normal operating weekend, or the increased running/maintenance costs might not be justified, but trains don't have to always run at an increased maximum speed. It could just be used for special events, either an attraction in its own right or to allow a more intensive service to be operated using the same resources - e.g. during the GCR's 'War Weekend' and on bonfire night, the railway is very much about providing as much capacity as possible to shift large numbers of people from one station to another, and an increased top speed might allow them to squeeze an extra round trip onto even just one diagram to provide an extra departure during the 'peak'. A recent special event saw a 'high-speed' (25mph instead of the usual 10mph!) non-stop passenger service through Quorn on the Up, which seemed to generate quite a lot of interest.

In any case nearly all our preserved railways (with a handful of exceptions such as the GCR) were former branches or minor main lines where historic speeds would rarely have got much above 25mph anyway. For those that want a run at speed behind a big loco there is the main line excursion.

Agreed for the non-exceptions - it just feels right to pootle steadily along behind a small-ish loco on former branch lines like the South Devon Railway.

I am sure the linespeed with passengers on the GCR is 25mph. The TPO set does mail drops and pick ups at a higher speed 50mph? but does not carry paying passengers. They do some commercial testing at up to 60mph but again, not with paying pasengers.

25mph for passenger trains, 35mph for TPOs within tightly specified limits around Quorn only (with the opposite line blocked to passenger trains) and up to 75mph for testing work (with the opposite line blocked to all traffic - effectively requires the railway otherwise closed).

 

[edwin_m]

I'd certainly be interested in a reference to the relevant legislation.

After some digging, I present for your delectation The Railway Safety Regulations 1999

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2244/contents/made

Regulation 3:

(1) No person shall operate, and no infrastructure controller shall permit the operation of, a train on a railway unless a train protection system is in service in relation to that train and railway.
...
In any proceedings against a person for an offence for contravening paragraph (1) it shall be a defence for that person to prove that–
(a) at the relevant time the train protection system ... or a relevant part had failed, or had been taken out of service, because of a fault;
(b) in the case where the fault is in equipment on the train, the train had commenced its journey before the discovery of the fault or is being driven without passengers to a place for the purpose of repair;
(c) it was not reasonably practicable to remedy the fault sooner; and
(d) suitable measures had been taken after the discovery of the fault to mitigate the risk of trains colliding or derailing.

Regulation 4:

(1) No person shall operate, and no infrastructure controller shall permit the operation of, any Mark I rolling stock on a railway.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to rolling stock which at the relevant time is being exclusively operated other than for the carriage of fare paying passengers or by London Underground Limited, Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive, Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive or Serco Metrolink Limited.

Regulation 5:

(1) No person shall operate, and no infrastructure controller shall permit the operation of any rolling stock on a railway if the rolling stock has hinged doors for use by passengers for boarding and alighting from the train (other than doors which have a means of centrally locking them in a closed position).
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to rolling stock which at the relevant time is being exclusively operated other than for the carriage of fare paying passengers.

Regulation 6:

(1) The Executive may, by certificate in writing, exempt any person or class of persons, railway, part of a railway or class of railways, train or rolling stock, or class of train or rolling stock from any prohibition imposed by these Regulations and any such exemption may be granted subject to conditions and to a limit of time and may be revoked by a certificate in writing at any time.
(2) Before granting an exemption the Executive shall consult such persons as it considers appropriate.
(3) In deciding whether to grant any such exemption the Executive shall have regard to–
(a) the conditions, if any which it proposes to attach to the exemption;
(b) any other requirements imposed by or under any enactment which apply to the case;
(c) all other circumstances of the case.

But as usual the devil is in the detail, in this case the "Meaning of Railway" - a slightly different definition from that used in other safety legislation such as ROGS:

“Railway” means a system of transport employing parallel rails which provide support and guidance for vehicles carried on flanged wheels and form a track which either is of a gauge of at least 350 millimetres or crosses a carriageway (whether or not on the same level), except that it does not include–
(a) a tramway;
(b) any part which runs along and at the same level as a street or in any other place to which the public has access (including a place to which the public has access only on making a payment);
(c) any part where the permitted speed is such as to enable the driver to stop the train in the distance he can see ahead in clear weather conditions;
(d) any part normally used other than for the carriage of fare paying passengers; or
(e) such a system if on no part of it there is a line speed exceeding 25 miles per hour.

My bold. Lots more I haven't quoted, including dates on which the regulations become valid.

From this it can be seen that railways operating at under 25mph aren't actually railways for the purposes of these regulations. Hence they are not forbidden from running passenger-carrying Mk1 stock, and not required to fit train protection or central locking. Any railway wanting to enjoy these freedoms at higher speed will have to obtain permission - I'm not quite sure how but I guess by obtaining a statutory instrument. In a quick scan however I can't see any statutory instruments that grant this sort of permission for a heritage railway.

 

[Cowley]

Good effort Edwin m.

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks, very enlightening indeed! There's no doubt, then, that a maximum speed of 25mph exempts a railway from the provisions of those Regulations. Any railway wishing to run some or all of its trains at a higher speed, and thus requiring an exemption, could do so as detailed in Regulation 6, surely? The NYMR's Whitby operation certainly must fall under the definition of "railway" given (the line speed is greater than 25mph, even if their trains don't exceed 25mph - but I understand that they sometimes, legitimately, do). Arguably the GCR does too, running an admittedly very limited number of non-passenger trains (the TPOs) at a greater speed with suitable mitigation.

 

[XDM]

Thanks Edwin m for that research, which I have now studied.
That legalisation was signed off by John Prescott by the way. The 'executive', who can give exemptions is the Health & Safety executive, & railways can be issued with exemption certificates if they can show how the risks of running with mk1 coaches, no central door locking & no AWS at speeds higher than 25 mph can be mitigated. Incidentally if non fare paying passengers are carried (society members?) then the legislation does not apply.
When I asked you to provide the evidence, which you have brilliantly done, I did say that Mr Grayling could increase the speed at which central door locking & AWS are not needed, from 25 to say 35 mph at the strike of his minister's pen. And that is true, he could just make a ministerial order amending this 1999 act. Incidentally mark 1 coaches are running on the main line at over 25mph aren't they? So some operators must have applied for & been granted exemption by elf & safety.

 

[StephenHunter]

The Mark 1s that do run on the mainline have steward operated bolts fitted to the door and these days a ban on vestibule riding.

 

[yorksrob]

The Mark 1s that do run on the mainline have steward operated bolts fitted to the door and these days a ban on vestibule riding.

There's no ban on standing in the vestibule on the tours I travel on using mk1 stock. If there were, I would describe it as a bit OTT.

 

[VEP3417]

as above, i stood up on the fawley forester thumper tour and wasnt told that i couldnt....sure one chap really....diddnt like it and kept checking on everyone every 5 minutes tho see they wasnt sticking their head out the window or anything....he diddnt gain many fans but he diddnt say to anyone that they couldnt stand, just not to stick your head out of the window.....

 

[theblackwatch]

Any increase in speed is going to cause more wear & tear on any locos, coaches and track, not forgetting the track, as well as, I would expect, a higher insurance premium. Locos also use more diesel or coal at higher speeds. Clearly this would have to be paid for - would people be happy to pay, say, £20 for a journey instead of £15? Would this put off the general public (who are the vast majority of punters at a pres railway), if, not only does their fare increase, but their 1.5 hour 'experience' reduces to an hour?

 

[Dougal2345]

Locos also use more diesel or coal at higher speeds.

I'm not sure about this, but I would've thought that, while say a diesel will obviously be burning more fuel travelling at 50mph than at 25mph, it will only be burning it for half the amount of time to travel the same distance.

I imagine most locos, like cars, have a speed at which they are at peak fuel-efficiency...

 

[mushroomchow]

I'm not sure about this, but I would've thought that, while say a diesel will obviously be burning more fuel travelling at 50mph than at 25mph, it will only be burning it for half the amount of time to travel the same distance.

I imagine most locos, like cars, have a speed at which they are at peak fuel-efficiency...

... and unless you're it sure isn't 25mph!

Most small-engined cars tend to have an efficiency peak at around 50-55mph, so I doubt a train pootling around at notch 1 is really going to use much more fuel if it gets the chance to speed up a bit above that. In fact, in most cases, you have to fight with a locomotive and dance on the brakes to keep it's speed that low anyway, and all that accelerating and breaking itself could add up in maintenance costs. Just ask any mainline loco crew that has taken a HST onto a heritage line.

It's a bit different for a kettle, since the fuel use is there to keep up steam pressure, but from the amount of times I've been half deafened by locos letting off spare pressure when entering stations, or been able to enjoy a cylinder cock show on departure for no reason other than the crew having obscene amounts of spare steam, I'd say that there would be very little increase to the fuel consumption for steam traction - coal or water. It's a bit different if you're behind a Terrier to a Black Five, but on the whole most ex-mainline locomotives, steam or diesel, were not designed to coast around all day at 25mph with 5 or 6 coach passenger trains.