Can National Rail take over Heritage Railways?

[paul1609]

I think in the past several heritage railways used to include their timetable in the National Rail Timetable but most pulled out because of the cost.

 

[AlanFry1]

If Heritage can sustain services (and many do), if they are directly linked up to the National Rail network (such as the Bluebell Line) then why not let Network Rail take over those line's, certainly it would improve connections (allowing direct services) when it comes to Transport and go some way to fixing the mistakes of Beeching...

 

[dysonsphere]

The Churnet Valley Railway has some intresting ideas when the City and Moorlands railway finish reopening the branch back to the mainline at Stoke on Trent (well just south but before the Derby line junchion). The first part Leek Brook Junchion to Cauldron low is open with the Churnet Valley having running rights. However the carrot is extending the Churnet valley to Alton Towers and having main line excursions to the Towers. The track bed is still insitu not sure about the condition of the tunnel at Oakamoor. that would be an intresting mix with the heritage running.


Check their site for their ideas.
http://www.mcrailways.co.uk/

 

[nferguso]

If Heritage can sustain services (and many do), if they are directly linked up to the National Rail network (such as the Bluebell Line) then why not let Network Rail take over those line's, certainly it would improve connections (allowing direct services) when it comes to Transport and go some way to fixing the mistakes of Beeching...

I think you need to consider the economics and motivations of private / heritage lines.

Heritage lines are not full members of the transport industry; they are more a part of the entertainment industry. They exist to provide an attraction for visitors and their whole mode of operation, not least the structure of the timetable and the range of operating dates is oriented towards providing a visitor experience, not a public transport service. Any provision of regular travel tends to be a marginal part of those railways' incomes.

Now, turn to motivation. I, for one, would not be particularly pleased to dismantle all that we have done so that Network Rail take over the line as a basic railway. There is also the small matter of whether the local TOC would be interested in providing a new service.

Heritage railways are a separate form of undertaking from the national network. Yes, let them connect and build interfaces, but that is all.

Neil

 

[AlanFry1]

I think you need to consider the economics and motivations of private / heritage lines.

Heritage lines are not full members of the transport industry; they are more a part of the entertainment industry. They exist to provide an attraction for visitors and their whole mode of operation, not least the structure of the timetable and the range of operating dates is oriented towards providing a visitor experience, not a public transport service. Any provision of regular travel tends to be a marginal part of those railways' incomes.

Now, turn to motivation. I, for one, would not be particularly pleased to dismantle all that we have done so that Network Rail take over the line as a basic railway. There is also the small matter of whether the local TOC would be interested in providing a new service.

Heritage railways are a separate form of undertaking from the national network. Yes, let them connect and build interfaces, but that is all.

Neil

If I was running this project, I would allow them to run services on this line and manaage the stations, all I am asking is that we run NR services on this line as well and they fit in their services within

Also local TOC don't really have a choice on what services they run, after all if we did have a true "privatised" railway then our rail network will consist of the WCML and little else...

 

[nferguso]

If I was running this project, I would allow them to run services on this line and manaage the stations, all I am asking is that we run NR services on this line as well and they fit in their services within

Also local TOC don't really have a choice on what services they run, after all if we did have a true "privatised" railway then our rail network will consist of the WCML and little else...

That's different and more 'doable'.

It is entirely up to the private railway to determine their interface with the national network. Just beware that many links are siding-quality, rather then full, running, connections. Fixing that costs money.

As for the TOC, yes they can be told to run addiitonal services, but that will involve a change to the terms & conditions of the franchise which will involve cost. Alternatively, the TOC may choose to take a punt and run a service, but that is a straight commercial decision. In either case, the TOC - quite rightly - cannot be compelled to run a service.

 

[AlanFry1]

That's different and more 'doable'.

It is entirely up to the private railway to determine their interface with the national network. Just beware that many links are siding-quality, rather then full, running, connections. Fixing that costs money.

As for the TOC, yes they can be told to run addiitonal services, but that will involve a change to the terms & conditions of the franchise which will involve cost. Alternatively, the TOC may choose to take a punt and run a service, but that is a straight commercial decision. In either case, the TOC - quite rightly - cannot be compelled to run a service.

Well as part of a posibble plan, then I would be fixing those connections after puchasing those heritage railways

Also with the ICWC debacle, the government has a oppertunity to create value by letting those franchises expire and then handing over to a new not-for-profit TOC, whne that happens the changes in T&C's can be done...

 

[nferguso]

What if those railways don't want to be purchased? Also, the concept of a not-for-profit franchise is a bit fanciful.

 

[D841 Roebuck]

Some heritage lines have connections to NR, and serve reasonably populous or popular destinations. However there's no reason why NR would have to take over the heritage line for through services to run.

For example FGW or an open access operator might wish to operate a daily Minehead to London service. They just negotiate paths and track access charges with the WSR in the same way as with NR.

 

[nferguso]

Correctamundo! It's called making a commercial decision and assessing the risk against the potential reward.

 

[AlanFry1]

What if those railways don't want to be purchased? Also, the concept of a not-for-profit franchise is a bit fanciful.

Despite the fact I would be offering a generous deal and allowing to continue to run services and manage the stations?

Also we already have not-for-profit companies running the infrasurcture, why not the trains as well?

 

[Tomnick]

I don't think many heritage railways would be interested, at any price, in handing over their infrastructure to Network Rail. That'd presumably then result in restrictions on the locos and stock that could operate (TPWS/OTMR/GSM-R for starters) and traincrew that could work them, and remove the ability for the railway to plan its own timetables in relative isolation. It's easy to talk about 'fixing' connections to the national network too, but that's not likely to be cheap either...

 

[Wath Yard]

Despite the fact I would be offering a generous deal and allowing to continue to run services and manage the stations?

If you want to offer a generous deal then go ahead and offer it, but although many people simply refuse to believe it many lines that closed, and have been reopened as heritage railways, did so because they run through the middle of nowhere and were not sustainable as a business. The heritage railway business model is not the same as the national railway's one.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

The Churnet Valley Railway has some intresting ideas when the City and Moorlands railway finish reopening the branch back to the mainline at Stoke on Trent (well just south but before the Derby line junchion). The first part Leek Brook Junchion to Cauldron low is open with the Churnet Valley having running rights. However the carrot is extending the Churnet valley to Alton Towers and having main line excursions to the Towers. The track bed is still insitu not sure about the condition of the tunnel at Oakamoor. that would be an intresting mix with the heritage running.


Check their site for their ideas.
http://www.mcrailways.co.uk/

Oakamoor Tunnel looks ok
http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums...Sidings-amp-Oakamoor-Tunnel-Staffs-March-2011

Part of the South Devon Railway (formely Dart Valley Railway) had part of it taken over for use as the A38. Asbuton (A very pretty Terminus Station) and the line to Buckfastleigh was closed. In exchange they had the finance to reopen Buckfastleigh to Totnes Riverside section, and good access/ signage from the A38.

 

[dysonsphere]

I recall the "Bodmin Steam Railway" ran a freight service to Fitzsgerald lighting, the wagons were swaped in the sidings at Bodmin Parkway I cant remember the method but I think it involved the Mailline dieseland hertiage working at the same time. Nodoubt someone will know the answer. Was allways a small operation2or 3 wagons at a time sadley no longer running.

 

[eps200]

Surely the best start would be to include them in ticketing and rout planning with a big heritage warning the same way it tells you a given section is a bus.

Any with decent connection may get to odd passenger using it like a branch line I guess running over NR track to useful interchanges/ filling gaps in Sunday services might be handy at that stage.
Any with two connections like festiniog should definitely be incorporated into national ticketing and gauge permitting have some agreements that they can serve as diversionary routes if stuff breaks elsewhere. The other though on anything with two connections, any places where a non stop/ requests only may have it's place?

But running them as part of NR seems a pointless expense.

Also i want to see the look on a tourists face who hears "the next service to depart platform 4 is the xx:xx to Y" and a steam train pulls in alongside all the modern EMUs

 

[Chrisgr31]

On the subject of the Spa Valley railway, there are/were recently plans to, if the Lewes - Uckfield line was re-instated, run through services from Tunbridge Wells to Brighton. Personally, I would think this is quite unlikely, what with a Sainsbury's in the way between the current main station and TWW, as well as lack of capacity at Tunbridge Wells.

I believe that the only part of the Sainsbury store that is on the old trackbed is the toilet block, which was an extension to the store. Rumour is that under the planning consent if the line is reopened then this part of the store has to be demolished.

Mind you the stores car park entrance goes over the old trackbed, and the old trackbed goes right through the middle of the service yard so reopening the line would present some challenges.

Having said all that it appears that part of the trackbed between the Sainsbury store and the Hastings lie is for sale, so that would scupper reopening the line.

 

[steamybrian]

I believe that the only part of the Sainsbury store that is on the old trackbed is the toilet block, which was an extension to the store. Rumour is that under the planning consent if the line is reopened then this part of the store has to be demolished.

Mind you the stores car park entrance goes over the old trackbed, and the old trackbed goes right through the middle of the service yard so reopening the line would present some challenges.

Having said all that it appears that part of the trackbed between the Sainsbury store and the Hastings lie is for sale, so that would scupper reopening the line.

To reopen- Tunbridge Wells West to Central is a far bigger job that it initially appears considering it is less than a mile of abandoned line to Grove Junction.
From the buffer stops of the Spa Valley Railway station working westward would involve-
Removal of Spa Valley Railway station platform, demolition of/or construction above "Homebase" garden centre to build new trackbed.
Closure of part of Sainsburys car park including removal of the recycling centre.
Closure of the access road to Sainsburys Car Park and construction of a new access road.
Removal of the car park for the "Smith and Western" restaurant occupying the original station building
Demolition of the public toilets in Sainsburys.
Demolition of the bus terminal serving Sainsburys including removal or reconstruction of public walkway to "Sainsburys".
Demolition of the lorry unloading bay for Sainsburys and construction of a new one on an alternative site.
Excavation of the partially filled cutting on the west side of Grove Tunnel. The cutting was partially infilled as the cutting was showing signs of earthslipping so strong retaining walls will have to be inserted if the ground was excavated.
Purchase of trackbed back from local residents east of Grove Tunnel who purchased it for garden extensions after the line was closed.
Reinstatment of the the overbridge across Cumberland Walk which was removed about 10 years ago.
I understand the land recently sold at Grove Junction has a covenant saying that IF the line was ever reopened then space must be made available for the railway.
Relaying and resignalling Grove Junction which in 1985 was estimated at one million pounds so your guess of todays cost.

 

[yorksrob]

I believe that the only part of the Sainsbury store that is on the old trackbed is the toilet block, which was an extension to the store. Rumour is that under the planning consent if the line is reopened then this part of the store has to be demolished.

Mind you the stores car park entrance goes over the old trackbed, and the old trackbed goes right through the middle of the service yard so reopening the line would present some challenges.

Having said all that it appears that part of the trackbed between the Sainsbury store and the Hastings lie is for sale, so that would scupper reopening the line.

Super market schmuper market. An off the peg architectural flatpack which can easily be relocated once compulsorily purchased.

 

[12CSVT]

In the 1980s (before the Nene Valley were running to Peterborough N V R station), there was a DMU shuttle between Peterborough (British Rail station) and Orton Mere via the Fletton curve.
Does anybody know if this was operated by British Rail or chartered by the Nene Valley Railway ?

 

[steamybrian]

In the 1980s (before the Nene Valley were running to Peterborough N V R station), there was a DMU shuttle between Peterborough (British Rail station) and Orton Mere via the Fletton curve.
Does anybody know if this was operated by British Rail or chartered by the Nene Valley Railway ?

I remember travelling over it operated by BR train crew (and I think picked up a NVR pilotman at the junction near Orton Mere) but I do not know who paid for it.

There was also a BR operated shuttle service between Kidderminster and Bewdley which operated on a limited number of dates when the SVR only operated from Bewdley to Bridgnorth. I attach scan of my ticket dated11 July 1981.

 

[LE Greys]

Surely the best start would be to include them in ticketing and rout planning with a big heritage warning the same way it tells you a given section is a bus.

Any with decent connection may get to odd passenger using it like a branch line I guess running over NR track to useful interchanges/ filling gaps in Sunday services might be handy at that stage.
Any with two connections like festiniog should definitely be incorporated into national ticketing and gauge permitting have some agreements that they can serve as diversionary routes if stuff breaks elsewhere. The other though on anything with two connections, any places where a non stop/ requests only may have it's place?

But running them as part of NR seems a pointless expense.

Also i want to see the look on a tourists face who hears "the next service to depart platform 4 is the xx:xx to Y" and a steam train pulls in alongside all the modern EMUs

I would back all of that. They should also appear on national maps, in the NRT and on timetable planning websites. One possible way of doing it would be a modified version of a Transport & Works Order, call it an Independent Railway Order or whatever. Provided the stock available was up to it, they could also increase speed to (say) 45 mph where it is safe. However, they would have to operate 52 weeks of the year, and so may have to take on paid staff to do so. Still, I would love to be able to buy a return from Holt to Corfe Castle one day.

 

[steamybrian]

...

Also i want to see the look on a tourists face who hears "the next service to depart platform 4 is the xx:xx to Y" and a steam train pulls in alongside all the modern EMUs

At Eridge Spa Valley Railway Heritage Steam and Diesel trains do run alongside modern Turbostar DMUs. You should see the startled look on tourists faces sitting on the DMU and seeing a steam train on the adjacent track. Here as well as at Matlock (Peak Rail) can be seen standard gauge heritage services on adjacent tracks to NR. without intervening fencing or platforms.
The Spa Valley Railway is shown on National Rail maps certainly here in the South East. There are also through ticketing from many Southern Stations.

 

[tsr]

At Eridge Spa Valley Railway Heritage Steam and Diesel trains do run alongside modern Turbostar DMUs. You should see the startled look on tourists faces sitting on the DMU and seeing a steam train on the adjacent track. Here as well as at Matlock (Peak Rail) can be seen standard gauge heritage services on adjacent tracks to NR. without intervening fencing or platforms.
The Spa Valley Railway is shown on National Rail maps certainly here in the South East. There are also through ticketing from many Southern Stations.

The Bluebell Railway is also shown on some maps. I'll be interested to see if the local communities there will find the new East Grinstead extension as an opportunity for a trial of regular commuter and other NR-style services on the whole of that line, but sadly I strongly suspect the populations of the villages served wouldn't be sufficient to provide a trigger for that sort of thing.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

From the buffer stops of the Spa Valley Railway station working westward would involve-
Closure of part of Sainsburys car park including removal of the recycling centre.
Closure of the access road to Sainsburys Car Park and construction of a new access road.
Demolition of the public toilets in Sainsburys.
Demolition of the bus terminal serving Sainsburys including removal or reconstruction of public walkway to "Sainsburys".

I have quoted the parts of your posting above that specifically refer to the Sainsburys store. How do you feel that this organisation would regard these proposals and can I ask, has there been a precedent established for this scale of impingement on a major national retail chain store in recent years ?

 

[steamybrian]

I have quoted the parts of your posting above that specifically refer to the Sainsburys store. How do you feel that this organisation would regard these proposals and can I ask, has there been a precedent established for this scale of impingement on a major national retail chain store in recent years ?

At the time Sainsbury's bought the abandoned Tunbridge Wells West station site they were given instructions that a route through the site was to be left clear of development for any future railway reopening. It would appear that the only "development" on their proposed route for railway would be the public toilets. The remainder of the route is the bus terminal, access roads, lorry unloading depot or car parking but having said that I would stress that it would be a major rebuilding work to create a new railway route through the site.
Sainsbury's did make a major financial contribution for the Spa Valley Railway in restoring the locomotive shed (75F), construction of the station platform and installing perimeter fencing.
I feel that Sainsbury's regard the railway reopening as rather "pie in the sky" with little chance of it happening. IF (repeat a big IF) it does happen at sometime in the far distant future then their supermarket may be due to be modernised or even relocated elsewhere so construction work will be necessary.
I do not know anywhere else a major retail chain has been rebuilt to accommodate a railway.

 

[Chris125]

Having said all that it appears that part of the trackbed between the Sainsbury store and the Hastings lie is for sale, so that would scupper reopening the line.

If necessary the land can be compulsory purchased, as may well be needed at Groombridge anyway, so not a big issue in the grand scheme of things.

While it's rarely mentioned, surely the biggest challenge is the Spa Valley Railway? Compensation will no doubt be involved and perhaps relocation too, especially if the line is electrified - whatever the answer i can't see it being cheap.

Chris

 

[MK Tom]

The Bluebell Railway is also shown on some maps. I'll be interested to see if the local communities there will find the new East Grinstead extension as an opportunity for a trial of regular commuter and other NR-style services on the whole of that line, but sadly I strongly suspect the populations of the villages served wouldn't be sufficient to provide a trigger for that sort of thing.

I always find it interesting how some heritage lines make it onto service maps and others don't. I've seen the Severn Valley turn up on maps on multiple occasions but never the Ecclesbourne Valley, even though both provide services to places unreachable otherwise and both connect to the national network.