Future max speed of heritage railways

How wrong you are. Genuinely I cannot make my mind up about what its future should be and have said so. However when electric units fail completely and their passengers have to be rescued by steam train it is clear things cannot continue indefinitely as they are.

I was told today that the Ivatt can do its days work on one scoop of coal from the front loader and that includes climbs of up to 1 in 70. (Ffos y Fran coal if you are interested) . Tare weights need keeping under control everywhere.

Forgive me for observing that the IOWSR is the only tourist railway with an overall gold accolade from Visit England (along, inter alia, with H.M. Tower of London) under their Quality Guarantee scheme although several lines belong. Perhaps it is significant an accolade (one for "welcome") has now been gained by another small setup, the East Anglian Railway Museum. The inspections for this scheme are tough ones by a tourism professional.

PH

 

Deleted

 

Increased speed makes less of a difference to journey time than you would think.

I'll quote a Bluebell example rather than WSR, as I am more familiar with the timings in the working timetable.

In BR days, up trains from Sheffield Park to Horsted Keynes were allowed 12 minutes, and down trains 10 minutes, with a line speed of 50mph. Currently we allow 15 minutes and 13 minutes for the same journeys. In other words, halving the line speed adds only 3 minutes to the section times on a five mile long section.

The real killer to end-to-end journey times is the time spent crossing trains coming the other way. At each passing station, one of the trains will have a considerable wait (on the "first in, last out" principle) to allow for signal box work. Again, to quote a Bluebell example: an up train takes typically 41 minutes to run from SP to East Grinstead. The respective section and (station) times are 15 + (2) + 13 + (1) + 10 = 41. But the down train takes 47 minutes if it crosses a train at HK, despite faster running on one of the intermediate sections: 10 + (1) + 13 + (10) + 13 = 47. Over the two journeys, up and down, and ignoring the run-round at each end, that gives 74 minutes of running and 14 minutes stationary. We could shave a minute or two by shorter waits at HK (up) and Kingscote (both ways), but you have to bear in mind we might have hundreds of passengers on a train rather than the handful carried in BR days; a significant number of those passengers may wish to alight, and we have a disproportionately high number of elderly passengers; and passengers with young children and / or buggies. So 2 minutes at HK can still be quite tight, even though BR probably allowed 30 seconds or so

So if you did wish to run a quicker service, the place to save time is the station time, not the running time - but that is far from easy, and in any case may be completely impossible, depending on section lengths: in that regard the Bluebell is luckier than some in that the section times are broadly even between crossing points. If you have very uneven section times either side of a passing station, there may well be very little you can do in an intense service except have a train spending considerable period waiting for a service coming the other way to cross; at which point speeding up the running between stations is pretty irrelevant given the savings of time it would give.

In the end, people are out to enjoy the trip rather than get from A to B - so why rush?

Tom

 

Well it has been caused by something, which needs attention!

As for the speed limit issue, the matters have been dealt with well by Jamessquared. Regarding a "regular non-heritage passenger service" this is a regular delusion amongst railway enthusiasts of, dare it be said, an over-romantic way of thought. When the IOWSR "rescued" the people from the electric train, this "non-heritage passenger service" whizzed around the world, it was so unusual. One Australian was astonished that the rolling stock in Victoria was newer than that on Island Line!

PH

 

Found it.

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/taunton-to-minehead.html

Interestingly enough the 'non stop' takes longer than the stopper on a Saturday but its about 50 mins BL-MD

 

Presumably - assuming the Taunton and of the line didn't have any double track sections - the non-stop service leaving Taunton at 1.25 has a few minutes unadvertised stop at Bishops Lydeard to cross the 12.45 Minehead-Wolverhampton, and a longer unadvertised stop at probably Crowcombe to cross the 1.15 Minehead-Taunton.

 

Same has happened on the "north island" (GB) on more than one occasion, and with newer electric units.

 

I'm sure the lovers of 'thrash and clag' would be in their element if a way was found for occasional dispensation. But it would only take one photographer who 'knows what they're doing' (we've all seen them) to hang around a fraction of a second too long and misjudge the increased approach speed (not to mention members of the public through whose manor the line passes) and the effluent would hit the air conditioning like never before...

 

Photographers would be banned from the wrong side of the fence, just like the big railway.

 

Just one other thing I would add is complete ownership of real estate, equipment, rolling stock and motive power. (The latter was aided by extraordinary generosity on the part of private individuals)

PH

 

Has the Railway Company ever investigated the case for having a contract with a local coach company operating an non stop MD -TN service in the peak season to catch additional trade if ran say at 9.00 and did two trips it would be faster than the train and could also connect with the last train at BL to ferry any pasangers wanting Taunton and if the coach company had vintage coaches in its fleet could be an additional income stream.

 

As I said in my original post , " I found it thrilling " . I'm not saying it should be applied to all lines but having the option has to be good .

 

OK , I give in .

 

I nearly started a new thread, but found this. Apologies for resurrecting it. Most of my questions are now answered, but one has occurred:

Remember steam on the Met, on the London Underground? Wooden bodied, wooden underframed (I think?) coaches, running around 50-60mph. Not sure what safety systems the LUL use, other than tripcocks, but I know there are differences. Point is, it has been done.

Regards people being put off by slow speeds-I certainly am. Plodding along slower than I can ride my bike down my street, especially on a long line, with a timetable that gives you over an hour at a station in the middle of nowhere...not keen. How many people must go home thinking "No wonder they scrapped them, they're s Mainline steam doesn't really interest me either. I had a trip on one of Mr Hoskings trains, and whilst the whole experience was to the highest standard, a full day sat a few hundred yards behind one engine was a bit much for me. I do recommend it if you're into that sort of thing, though.
The best trips I've had are two London Underground ones, one of the Steam on the Met trips in 2013 (with the above mentioned tree based coach), and last weekend on the 1938 stock. In both cases, there was ample time to watch the trains go past, then enjoy a ride at a satisfyingly brisk pace. Were somewhere like the GCR to offer a gala running at just 40mph, I'd be straight there.

One final thought-how long can the sub 25mph derogations last? Surely there will come a point where no door locks and antique signalling systems will attract closer scrutiny?

 

I believe LUL's lines are not considered part of the National System. Indeed I further believe that LUL are not actually a nationally licenced operator, having some kind of restricted licence covering their own lines only. Although TfL now run some lines which are part of Network Rail's system, they are not operated by LUL, but by separate TOCs. Although nationally approved TOCs can operate over LUL lines I think they have to comply with LUL rules and operating procedures when doing so. How wooden bodied coaches fit into their licence is another matter.

 

Correct Chiltern have to use lul rules and regulations on the met line and then national rail rules once back on network rail infrastructure

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Tapatalk

 

Nothing to do with being part of the national system or not. The relevant legislation is the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 which requires that:
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.

and goes on to say:
(3) It shall be sufficient compliance with paragraph (1) if the train is being operated on a railway–
(a)which immediately before the coming into force of this regulation was used (exclusively or not) by London Underground Limited, Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive, Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive, or Serco Metrolink Limited; and
(b)in relation to which there is in service equipment which causes the brakes of the train to apply automatically if the train passes a stop signal without authority.
the LUL tripcock system meets this requirement.
The requirements for coaching stock are covered by Cl.4, which states:
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.

Mark 1 rolling stock is defined as "rolling stock which has a structural underframe which provides its own longitudinal strength and has a passenger compartment created on the underframe which relies mainly on the underframe for its longitudinal strength." My interpretation of this is that it does allow LUL to operate wooden bodied and even wooden frame coaches.

Even without these clauses there is power for the ORR to issue exemptions from the Regulations.

Heritage railways are exempt from all this because the schedule to the regulations defines a railway as:
"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–
such a system if on no part of it there is a line speed exceeding 25 miles per hour"