Heritage line threatened by potential re-opening for commuter services?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

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

Railway bosses have claimed a commuter train service from Rossendale to Manchester would ^destroy^ a popular heritage line.

East Lancashire Light Railway Company (ELLRC) volunteers say opening up a historic line to deliver commuters to the city would conflict with existing heritage services.

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?

[Rhydgaled]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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.

[grahame]

I've long thought that, given a suitable agreement between the parties involved, heritage railways could work well with the national network. ...

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^▸ (First Great Western) 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^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) 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

[ChrisB]

Staffing the hours necessary are always a problem.

[Oxonhutch]

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!

[ChrisB]

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

[grahame]

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 ...

[Oxonhutch]

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^▸ (Public Relations) 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 ... 

[Rhydgaled]

Alresford to Waterloo

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.

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

Railway bosses have claimed a commuter train service from Rossendale to Manchester would ^destroy^ a popular heritage line.

East Lancashire Light Railway Company (ELLRC) volunteers say opening up a historic line to deliver commuters to the city would conflict with existing heritage services.

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?

Note my bold above. I read 'train' and assumed a Northern DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), 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.

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!

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).

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

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^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) to be used.

[PhilWakely]

Hasn't the Swanage Railway planned for many years to run commuting trains services over its line? I believe that Dorset C.C. puchased some old DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) to be used.

Indeed.... and looking at SWTs^▸ (South West Trains) latest proposals for additional services (see 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 ? 

[Andy]

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.

[ellendune]

I read 'train' and assumed a Northern DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), but having now read the link it looks like actual proposal might be Metrolink.

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.

[grahame]

An article about 2 months old from The Bury Times hit my inbox on Christmas Day

CONCERNS have been raised over the impact a commuter tram/train service could have on the East Lancashire Railway.

Consultants have been commissioned by Rossendale Council to look at the early strategic case for investment in the Rawtenstall-to-Manchester corridor.

A rail study is being undertaken to investigate whether Bury, Ramsbottom, Heywood, Rossendale and other towns could be connected with the national rail network.

Rossendale Council said any solution would need to ensure full integration with the East Lancashire Railway (ELR).

Mike Kelly, chairman of the East Lancashire Railway, said: "The ELR, of course, understands the ambitions of Rossendale Council to improve transport links, in particular, a rail connection from Rawtenstall to Manchester.

"The ELR is a major and popular regional leisure attraction built up by thousands and thousands of volunteers over the past 30 years.

"We have to be concerned as to the potential impact of a commuter service on the continuation of our heritage operations, visitor economy and crucially retaining the passion and loyalty of our many hundreds of volunteers, where many have become disconcerted by previous transport studies commissioned by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM^▸ (Transport for Greater Manchester. )) in 2008 and by Lancashire County Council in December, 2016.

"The results of which found a commuter service to be wholly uneconomical."

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.

[Red Squirrel]

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) 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.