Tiny Tim
Member
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.
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.