Great Western Coffee Shop

http://www.rossendalefreepress.co.uk/news/fears-been-raised-creatinon-commuter-8819167


Are there other lines / lines in our area which could be similarly threatened (is it really a threat?) -- a Shepton Mallett to Westbury service effecting Mendip Vale to Cranmore, for example?

I've long thought that, given a suitable agreement between the parties involved, heritage railways could work well with the national network. Heritage railways generally seem to run weekends only, if that, in the low-season and vary their level of service significantly according to times tourists are likely to be around to visit them. Thus when they are not using the line they could generate some revenue by allowing the local national rail TOC access to their infrustructure for the payment of a track-access charge (or in return for Network Rail paying for some maintenance of the heritage railway's infrustructure). Then, in the high-season when the heritiage railway is running trains the national rail service would stop or reduce accordingly, making units available for strengthing other services. The low speed limit on heritage railways would possibly limit the success of the service as a service rather than a tourist attraction, but perhaps the benifit of through national rail services to destinations further-afield would attract some passengers despite the slow bit on the heritage railway. These comments are not based on any specific case though.

I have thought similar ... and was rather surprised to read the concern on the East Lancs.  I suppose that the requirements placed on the lines to allow National Rail stock could put some of the shakier ones onto their back feet, but I can recall hearing recently of an FGW charter running onto a line which I've nit understood to be maintained quite up to main line standards.

I also agree that commuter times are unlikely to be leisure traffic times, and would have though that in some cases it could be a case of 2 + 2 = 6 rather than 2 + 2 = 3, but perhaps ELR know different for some reason?   Out of amusement, I wrote myself a tongue in cheek list of some new commuter services, each achieved by stabling trains at the "far end" in the evening and not with any extra stock for the national network ... to some extent echoing ATOC suggestions from a few years back

Alresford to Waterloo
Bo'ness to Edinburgh Waverley
Chinnor to Paddington
Kingswear to Exeter
Minehead to Bristol Temple Meads
Okehampton to Exmouth
Ongar to West Ruislip
Rawtenstall to Manchester Victoria
Sheffield Park to London Bridge
Swanage to Salisbury via Southampton and Eastleigh

Staffing the hours necessary are always a problem.

Re 3rd in the list.  Not sure if the Chiltern driver would like to stop at Wainhill level crossing, get down and open the gates, cross cautiously, stop, close the gates behind him/herself.  Then, ten minutes later, repeat the exercise at Horsenden Crossing.  I have regularly been rostered as crossing keeper at the weekends - not too keen on that during the week!  Could interfere with the day job!

And there's the question of the Driver booking on, and having then to get to the train many many miles away!

Indeed ... but no more of an issue than (as I understand it) getting drivers from Bristol to Hereford at present.

But, folks, my list was tongue in cheek, remember.  There may be the odd one or two it works for ...

Back to Chinnor - remember that long before Chiltern began their Evergreen programmes, M40 trains - as it was then (1990's) - seriously looked at a plan to run Marylebone commuter trains from a park-and-ride they were to build by junction 6 on said M40.  This would have involved rebuilding the Watlington branch back to Aston Rowant and relaying our railway between PR and Chinnor.  The crossings I commented on would also have been modernised.  Not sure what it would have done to our heritage feel at the weekend, but it would have been a superb piece of track - an no need for crossing keepers either! I can't imagine my lovely signalbox with coloured lights though ...  :o

Ah. One caveat I was going to add to my post, but forgot, was that the national rail service would need to be diesel (or otherwise self-powered). Electrification might be a bit risky to the heritage railway's staff, and I give them that OHLE could destroy the heritiage feel.Note my bold above. I read 'train' and assumed a Northern DMU, but having now read the link it looks like actual proposal might be Metrolink. If so, that would mean wires. They are also talking about raising the linespeed above the current 25mph on the heritage railway, which might either mean the heritage railway's maintainance staff having to meet higher standards or the heritage trains having to still be timed for 25mph, which would make timetabling a service which could be operated by either firm depending on the time of year impossible. The only way it might work is if heritage railway stock is already safe for operation at higher speeds and it is only the track maintenance which forces the 25mph limit; in which case handing responsibility for track maintainance to Network Rail could sort it. Lots of contractual interfaces though, which could spell trouble.

My guess would be that the only way any national rail trains could successfully be introduced over heritage railways would be if they are self-powered and limited to the same 25mph as the heritage railway's trains.

Actually, that reminds me of my trip on the East Lancashire Railway; I think it was that one anyway. The train waited quite some time for (I believe) somebody to come and open a level crossing for it to proceed. That said, the Vale Of Rheidol (narrow gauge) steam railway has at least one level crossing of a similar type to national rail crossings on the Pembroke Dock branch and at Fishguard Harbour (open crossings with no barrier/gate but equiped with wig-wag lights operated by the train crew pressing a button, although the one at Fishguard Harbour only seems to need the button pushing in one direction; in the other the crossing operates automatically).

Hasn't the Swanage Railway planned for many years to run commuting trains services over its line? I believe that Dordet C.C. puchased some old DMUs to be used.

Indeed.... and looking at SWTs latest proposals for additional services (see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=15428.0 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=15428.0) ), a 159 set is proposed to operate a Saturday Waterloo to Wareham service 'to serve the Swanage Railway'.  If it is just to provide a connection at Wareham, why use a 159 and not a 444 ? 

If the connection in the right direction were still there, I'd add Bodmin General all stations to Plymouth to the list. There was talk of a year-round peak connecting shuttle service from Bodmin General to Bodmin Road/Parkway a while back but this has gone quiet, it would seem.

They talk about a service to Manchester Victoria it would be difficult to use the metrolink platforms (no turnback as I recall).  A connection to the mainline would be easier.  Self powered would be necessary.

An article about 2 months old from The Bury Times (https://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/16993879.concerns-over-impact-of-rail-plans-on-east-lancashire-railway/) hit my inbox on Christmas Day


The business cases of a heritage railway and a national network passenger railway are as different as the traffics they're designed to attract and make difficult bedfellows.  Yet looking at suggestions of running both on the same infrastructure corridor feels so attractive, both in first level logic of "could we not share for the general good" and at the second level of "we could share all those burdensome maintenance costs too".

Many, or even most, of the current heritage / preserved lines are ones where the original closure to passenger traffic was one of the later closures, and they may be amongst the best cases to re-open for the regular traveller of and in the area - to get to work, to school and college, to go shopping, to get to medical appointments and to access the wider rail network from towns and townships which are not the most affluent, even if they were such during the railway era.  Perhaps they could be that way again during the new railway era - remember that there are now more passenger journeys than ever before ...

I understand the fear of a well established, if not stinking rich, heritage operation seeing a new pretender poking at it and saying "I wonder if ...".   I understand the reserve of the team that works (paid or unpaid) on that heritage operation and does so in pleasant weather (for the most part) without any desire or motivation. for doing so on a freezing wet February morning, and for a service that would need both operational compromise / change, and financial support wider that just the farebox from the line.  But I also understand the desire of the communities which cherish the heritage line and its benefits which is in their midst, yet really want to join the new railway era completely and for their daily lives.

Not so long ago there was a debate at the National Railway Museum because the curator at the time wished to preserve, rather than conserve, a historic locomotive. The distinction is important, and the debate was heated: 'preserving' it meant keeping it exactly as it was, which in turn meant that under no circumstances could it move again under its own power. 'Conserving' it, on the other hand, meant that (like the farmer's broom) original parts would wear out and eventually it would become a new thing, with no connection to its original maker other than its shape.

Heritage railways are not, and cannot be, 'preserved' as such; wooden sleepers and 60-foot bullhead rail are slowly dying out, traditional-looking signalboxes are connected with electronic telecoms and station gaslamps are converted to LED lighting. Some heritage lines make a decent fist at being 'conserved' railways though. In this context it seems to me that it ought to be possible to operate these as 'conservation lines', rather like areas of historic towns are granted 'conservation area' status. This would involve preparing a Character Appraisal report (like this (https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/33832/city-and-queen-square-character-appraisal-red-1.pdf/28a3fc89-f7a7-4588-8205-5ed94fc578b5)) detailing what was important and how it should be managed, allowing all stakeholders to contribute to improving and operating the line.

At with conservation areas, this approach could be applied irrespective of who owns the assets of the railway - it would work just as well on the West Somerset as on the Settle and Carlisle.

There would be challenges to overcome, not least in signalling: it is highly desirable from an aesthetic viewpoint to retain semaphore signals, but there are obvious cost implications with this. Light railway restrictions might need to be overcome to run modern trains at sensible speeds. And volunteers might find it hard to adapt. But with the right regulations and encouragement, this approach could give a massive boost to a number of heritage lines.

Couldn't agree with you more.

As I pointed out above, it nearly happened to my heritage line, the Chinnor & P. Risborough (https://www.chinnorrailway.co.uk) back in its infancy when the first thought of the subsequent 'Evergreen' programme started to materialise in the minds of - then - M40 Trains; predecessors to the current Chiltern Railways.  When we were still running over a very short stretch of line, there came a proposal to rebuild the line back to a massive Park & Ride at Aston Rowant (Junction 6 on the M40) and run commuter expresses through to Marylebone on weekdays whilst we would have a beautifully rebuilt railway to play with at the weekends.  I was not in country at that time but it raised considerable passion among the membership.  On the one hand, we would have a magnificent piece of infrastructure but I don't think the heritage character could be there without our hand operated level crossing gates, wayside halts and semaphore signalling. We would however been running trains between Aston Rowant and Princes Risborough - our stated final goal - some 20 years ago.

Obviously it all fell through, not least the well heeled burghers of Aston Rowant that wanted nothing to do with a huge West Oxfordshire Park & Ride outside of their lovely village. Oxford Parkway - né Evergreen 3 - now fills that niche and with the help of our sponsors, supporters and volunteers, we finally have our mainline connection.  With the continuing support of Aston Rowant for a heritage railway terminus we will hopefully reach that objective, but without a miracle - not in my lifetime.

Before running off to the 'colonies' after uni, I was bought up in Lancashire and the East Lancs was always one of my local heritage lines that I took a great deal of interest in. Again, a late closure of questionable justification and if the whole line through to Accrington with its branches up the Rossendale Valley have survived the 80s slump, I am of no doubt that it would be part of an important and thriving local transport system under the support and care of Greater Manchester and TftN. It is one of those lines in an area of high population density with a good, but still overloaded, road network that could add value if integrated into the local transport network and get people to and from their jobs in Manchester out of their cars. 

It really is a matter of how. Local authority money going into permanent way infrastructure - with professionally contracted renewals and repairs - would be welcome on any railway. There is never enough money for that. But operations wise, even if one can run a commuter service a greater than 25 mph, operational hubs like Ramsbottom signal box and level crossing would have to be manned permanently by professional signallers and then there is the infrastructure to integrate with the rest of the Manchester network - presumably Metrolink. A new platform and link at the Bury Interchange overbridge ? - think gradients. Cross platform at Buckley Wells - think money. It could be a valuable community benefit for both the locals and the railway but I see it being placed in the 'Too Difficult' box unfortunately.

These are precisely the kinds of conundrum that face urban conservation areas: how do you maintain and enhance the character of a line whilst continuously adapting it to keep it relevant?

Signalling is probably the biggest challenge. Semaphore signals will hopefully be extinct on the big railway before too long, but they form an essential part of the atmosphere of a heritage line as does the whole working infrastructure of signalboxes, manual level crossings, tokens, point rodding and so on. My instinct is that with goodwill and pragmatism it ought to be possible to find a way to retain much of this atmosphere, allowing a line to operate as both a modern railway and a museum.

We must remember that semaphore signalling works perfectly well and has done on the big railway with speeds well in excess of 100 mph. ATP can be integrated with signalling system; it is the fact that it is extremely manual, and thus expensive to run in a commuting environment and the signal spacings might not be right for 40 mph running rather than 25 mph.  The big issue is the manning costs while keeping the heritage equipment.

The biggest restriction heritage railways have is the number of people it takes to operate a service; most have geared themselves to represent a 1930 to 1950's type of railway operation.  To convert themselves to a modern 21st century type of operation whilst this is feasible they would loose the ethos that many exist for, loose their attraction that many visitors want; for perhaps very little revenue in return.

That's where goodwill and pragmatism would be required - to adapt the signalling and safety-critical equipment to allow modern trains to run using modern systems (i.e. switching out the heritage signalboxes etc and running it all from a Signalling Centre) but retaining the old kit for its atmosphere, potentially allowing some or all of it to be switched-in on heritage days if that is practical.

When NR modernise, they tend to be fairly efficient at removing old kit - but on a heritage line there are plenty of volunteers who would be happy to keep it oiled and painted and looking good...

This is the crux of the problem challenge: if the old signalling exists, it must be obeyed by everyone - heritage and modern; you couldn't sign-off a safety case, if not.  One either automates the heritage equipment (complex and very expensive) or one uses it as nature intended (manually and expensive). Heritage railways get away with the expensive part because trained people like me do it for free.

Are we thinking of running a mix of heritage and modern services simultaneously, or or we planning to have 'heritage days'? My crayons and I can't see a mixed service working very well, for all sorts of reasons. However if you had (say) modern trains Mon-Sat and heritage trains on Sunday, might it be possible to swap systems? Semaphore signals could  be marked inactive during the week, and a simplified modern signalling system (without run-rounds, engine release roads and so on) could be operated; on heritage days the LED signals could be switched out and the X's would come off the boards... I can see that there might be a strong argument that this is not as safe as running a single system, but then rusty old slam-door Mk.1's aren't as safe as modern stock - that's the price we pay for hanging on to the past.

It is easy to say switch out one system and switch in another, technically hardware wise its possible expensive but possible; the difficult part is not the hardware its the softer issue of regulations / rules would be the challenging bit, things like who would be the operating authority the heritage railway, NR an third party (eg a TOC)?

A Token / key controlled type of operation is achievable to give access to a heritage line from the national network and this currently available on quite a few heritage lines now for occasional movement of "specials"; however for regular access by trains the heritage line as the owners (and operator) of the infrastructure would be required to have staff on duty (just as NR has staff on duty) to control the railway and for incident management.

Also heritage railways operate under the "light railway" regulations where the permitted max speed is 25 mph, there is nothing to stop a heritage railway to apply for higher speed but their costs would increase considerably due to the levels of maintenance and inspections required also a much higher requirement than they currently have demonstrating that they have the systems and competence (of staff) in place to manage the railway

And just for info: right now, that largest user of of heritage signalling equipment in Great Britain is - ...

Network Rail!

The Swanage Railway did have a timetabled through service from Waterloo this last summer, ran by SWR, it did a run, albeit only a few times due to our friends at the union..