Heritage Railway Speed Limits

[ryan125hst]

After reading the thread about the Severn Valley Railway, I was thinking about whether it would be possible to raise speed limits on heritage railways. I know it’s been discussed before, both on this forum and others, but I wanted discuss the possibilities of it myself and try to solve a few of the problems that is preventing it from happening.

I know that railways need a safety case to operate, but until yesterday, I didn’t know one was. For those that don’t know:

A Safety Case is a structured argument that presents evidence intended to demonstrate that a system is as safe as reasonably practicable. A safety case aims to show that specific safety claims are met and that risks are kept As Low As Reasonably Practicable(ALARP).

Leading on from this, I thought that I would look into the reasons that people have stated on forums as to why raising the speed limit would not be possible, and look to see if there is a way of arguing that the way in which the trains are operated is safe. While it would be of no use to shorter railways, I’m sure a higher line limit would be beneficial to the longer heritage railways, such as the Severn Valley Railway, North Yorkshire Moors Railway and West Somerset Railway. It would also be beneficial to the Great Central Railway as it would give a better sense of a mainline and would shorten journey times slightly when the "gap is bridged" to the other Great Central line.

I think a sensible speed to aim for would be around 40 to 45mph, although it would depend upon that specific railway. Some might only be able to operate at 35mph due to the curvature of the line, while it might be possible for others to safely operate at as high as 50mph.

From other forums, I’ve noticed that the main obstacles are the lack of Central Door Locking, AWS, TPWS, staff training and permanent way maintenance.

Central Door Locking: CDL is not provided on heritage railways as their current speed limit of 25mph means that it is not required. CDL is expensive to install and is visible to passengers due to the indicator light and door locking equipment. The question is why it would necessarily have to be CDL? Could it not simply be a system that automatically locked the doors above a certain speed and a detection system that applied the emergency brakes if a door was to open?

My idea would be to install a sensor on each door linked to a central box. This box would be powered by the coach battery. Below 25mph, the system would not operate and the railway would run as it has done since it first started operations. Above 25mph (or maybe 28mph to allow a 3mph tolerance), the brakes would only be held off when all the sensors were indicating that the doors are closed. If they are opened, or if there is a fault in the system due to a power failure or other fault, the emergency brakes would be applied. It would be fail safe as it would rely on a complete circuit to indicate that the doors were closed. No circuit= brakes applied. In this case, the train could still operate at the usual speed of 25mph (once the brakes are reset). There would need to be a way for the system to disable its self below 25mph (I'm not sure how this would be done). As an additional safety measure, a magnetic locking system could be wired into the system so that once the train speed rose above 25mph, the locking system applied, preventing a door from being opened and minimising the chance that the emergency brakes were applied.

The advantages of the system would be that it wouldn’t need to be wired throughout the train as each carriage would have its own system. A sensor and a magnetic lock would be needed on each door (and maybe an emergency door release?). The main box would be located under the carriage.

Would this system work? Would it be allowed? Do you think it would be cheaper to install?

AWS and TPWS: AWS is fitted to most locomotives as it was installed by BR in steam days. It would only need magnets to be installed on the track and I’m guessing that it could be connected to the signalling system quite easily. TPWS, on the other hand, is a far more modern system and would be more expensive to install. Given that the system has only been introduced in the days after privatisation, do you think heritage railways would be able to operate without it? After all, it is used on the main line where trains travel at up to 125mph and where there are many junctions. With lower line speeds, less traffic and simpler track layouts, would it be deemed safe to do without?

Staff and Permanent Way: The Great Central Railway is already capable of operating diesel locomotives at speeds of up to 75mph for testing purposes, and steam locomotives can operate at up to 60mph for the same purpose. This shows that it is possible to maintain the track on a heritage railway to the standards required for even higher speeds than I am proposing here. Signalling would be another obstacle, but many heritage railways do have full semaphore signalling and, other than possibly repositioning them to make them suitable for higher speeds, they would probably be OK in a lot of cases. Staff training is another issue, but the NYMR has shown that it is possible for volunteers to operate trains on Network Rail metals. I don’t know what extra training the volunteers who operate to Battersby at up to 45mph need, but, again, it shows that it is possible. As I am taking about heritage railways here and not Network Rail, this should make things simpler.

Finally, there would be no need to rush in with 45mph. They could increase the speed gradually at, say, 5mph at a time. They would train their staff for the speed increases and prove to the relevant authorities that they are operating safely each time. They would then be able to increase by another 5mph. Staff could operate at speeds according to their grades, so lower grades would be restricted to lower speeds and the timetable would be written accordingly (with a limited number of higher speed runs per day). As time went on and more staff were trained, the number of higher speed runs could be increased. Additionally, there would be no need to operate at the higher speed all of the time. During the winter and in the off peak summer timetables, the railway could operate at 25mph. The higher speeds are something that would be particularly useful during the full summer timetable or during gala events, so I would imagine that this is when they would be used. It would be more exiting for enthusiasts and regular passengers alike, and slower trains could run as well for people who weren't bothered about higher speeds and just wanted to enjoy the scenery. After all, a higher speed would mean that more trains would be able to fit down each section of track per hour, so it would make faster and slower trains possible (depending upon the track layout of course).

Conclusion So, what do you think? I’m no expert and my ideas have come from reading views of other rail enthusiasts online. Hopefully those who have more knowledge will be able to point out the problems that prevent higher speeds from becoming a reality, allowing myself and others to see why it can’t be done. Alternatively, maybe it is possible, and it is just a lack of funding, or a long a difficult process of certification, that is preventing heritage railways from raising their speed limits.

Thank you for reading,

Ryan

 

[Tomnick]

Central Door Locking: CDL is not provided on heritage railways as their current speed limit of 25mph means that it is not required. CDL is expensive to install and is visible to passengers due to the indicator light and door locking equipment. The question is why it would necessarily have to be CDL? Could it not simply be a system that automatically locked the doors above a certain speed and a detection system that applied the emergency brakes if a door was to open?

For what it's worth, I think your proposal would introduce more problems than it'd solve! By the time you've done the design work and obtained the (well-engineered) components necessary to install a reliable and fail-safe system, you might as well look at a conventional CDL system! That said - I've never heard of a single incident of a door being opened on a moving passenger train on a heritage railway. An increase in speed would make the potential consequences of such an incident more severe, but wouldn't increase the likelihood of it occurring in the first place. Is CDL, or any form of door locking, really necessary then?

AWS and TPWS: AWS is fitted to most locomotives as it was installed by BR in steam days. It would only need magnets to be installed on the track and I’m guessing that it could be connected to the signalling system quite easily. TPWS, on the other hand, is a far more modern system and would be more expensive to install. Given that the system has only been introduced in the days after privatisation, do you think heritage railways would be able to operate without it? After all, it is used on the main line where trains travel at up to 125mph and where there are many junctions. With lower line speeds, less traffic and simpler track layouts, would it be deemed safe to do without?

AWS installation is perhaps not quite as easy as you suggest, but it certainly shouldn't be impossible. I'd say it'd be desirable for higher speeds, as there's then an increased risk of 'missing the distant'. I'm not so sure about a need for TPWS - the signalling on most heritage railways provides quite generous overlaps (on the GC, for example: in all but one case, a 440yd clearing point in advance of the home signal), so there's plenty of room for a train to come to a stand having passed a signal at Danger. Trains are, in almost all cases, double-manned, so there's two pairs of eyes (plus the Guard) to keep an eye out for signals.

Staff and Permanent Way: The Great Central Railway is already capable of operating diesel locomotives at speeds of up to 75mph for testing purposes, and steam locomotives can operate at up to 60mph for the same purpose. This shows that it is possible to maintain the track on a heritage railway to the standards required for even higher speeds than I am proposing here. Signalling would be another obstacle, but many heritage railways do have full semaphore signalling and, other than possibly repositioning them to make them suitable for higher speeds, they would probably be OK in a lot of cases. Staff training is another issue, but the NYMR has shown that it is possible for volunteers to operate trains on Network Rail metals. I don’t know what extra training the volunteers who operate to Battersby at up to 45mph need, but, again, it shows that it is possible. As I am taking about heritage railways here and not Network Rail, this should make things simpler.

There's no doubt that the p-way on a lot of railways is in excellent condition and could probably safely cope with higher speed movements. The problem might be the higher cost of keeping it maintained to that standard if hammered by 40mph+ trains on a regular basis. The same would almost certainly apply to the locos and stock. You're right that signalling schemes might have to be looked at to ensure that they provide sufficient braking and sighting distances for the higher speed - potentially another cost, of course. Likewise for staff training - I suppose the bulk of that's in the practical handling, as the theory and the rules/regs knowledge doesn't change significantly at a higher speed.

What's the point of it all then? For a lot of passengers, I suppose speed isn't important. A round trip being a steam loco is a round trip behind a steam loco, whether it takes two hours or a little bit less. In some cases, it might all be over too quickly at a higher speed! I think that'd be a real concern on the current GCR - it's already barely 30 minutes end-to-end. There's nothing to say that everything must be timed at the higher speed though - it could be reserved for a couple of trains each weekend, and more extensively at special events (where passengers might appreciate the traction working harder for longer!). In our case, I don't think it'd release much capacity - we'd still be constrained by freight stock pootling along at 20mph or so - but it'd do a great deal for the atmosphere at the intermediate stations at special events!

 

[plannerman]

My immediate reaction is 'why'? A 60mph trip on the Llangollen Railway, for example, would be over in ten minutes. Punters generally want a nice trip out, and to see the scenery. They're not (usually) actually using the line to get from A to B, and so speed becomes irrelevant.
I think it would cause a lot of extra work for volunteer-run organisations, who would struggle to find the staff and resources to achieve it.

 

[Hove Heretic]

I'm not well up on events on the SVR, but I've previously asked the same question elsewhere following the announcement of the Worget Jnc. re-signalling. It struck me that the putative commuter service being actively discussed utilising the Swanage Railway might well be better served if differential speed limits for modern stock could be permitted.

In addition to ryan125hst's list of considerations, I'd add that braking capabilities of, say, a class 158/159 are vastly improved over pre-nationalisation stock or even MkI carriages or 1st generation DMUs. Surely such modern stock operating at 40mph would be the equal in safety terms of a vacuum braked heritage rake (steam or diesel) at 25mph?

If the aim is to provide a train service competitive with road timings, with the best will in the world, Joe Public isn't going to be attracted in the sort of numbers required to make a year-round success of such a service pootling along under an immutable 25mph speed restriction, plus, even if the SR's heritage DMUs can be made reliable enough to satisfy NR and SWT long-term, there's still the issue that it would still be a Swanage-Wareham shuttle. Is Wareham really where all those potential commuters want to go?

I realise it's not quite that straightforward, and the idea of blending commercial and heritage services will be anathema to some, but even more so than usual in these austere times, surely our heritage lines need to maximise their usefulness and therefore revenue, even at the expense of going where no man (or heritage railway) has gone before?

Where did I leave me tin hat?

 

[ryan125hst]

For what it's worth, I think your proposal would introduce more problems than it'd solve! By the time you've done the design work and obtained the (well-engineered) components necessary to install a reliable and fail-safe system, you might as well look at a conventional CDL system! That said - I've never heard of a single incident of a door being opened on a moving passenger train on a heritage railway. An increase in speed would make the potential consequences of such an incident more severe, but wouldn't increase the likelihood of it occurring in the first place. Is CDL, or any form of door locking, really necessary then?

To be honest, I was going to say that everyone was fine without it before on the national network, so why can't we be fine now? I also thought that it is possible to open a car door at 70mph (as far as I know), and there is far more traffic and far more danger on the roads. In this case, it is the responsibility of the person to decide when it is safe to open the door, so why can't this be the case on the railway?

However, I then decided that I better mention CDL as without it stewards are needed in every carriage which would never happen on a heritage railway (I know the NYMR does, but only on a very limited number of trains for the Whitby branch, and to Battersby). Of course, if a railway was allowed to run at, say 45mph, without CDL, fantastic! Sadly, I don't think that will happen.

AWS installation is perhaps not quite as easy as you suggest, but it certainly shouldn't be impossible. I'd say it'd be desirable for higher speeds, as there's then an increased risk of 'missing the distant'. I'm not so sure about a need for TPWS - the signalling on most heritage railways provides quite generous overlaps (on the GC, for example: in all but one case, a 440yd clearing point in advance of the home signal), so there's plenty of room for a train to come to a stand having passed a signal at Danger. Trains are, in almost all cases, double-manned, so there's two pairs of eyes (plus the Guard) to keep an eye out for signals.

That's a good point. I don't know how AWS is connected, but surely some sort of rail safe relay is needed (so the magnet is energised when the signal is not at a restrictive aspect). As for TPWS, i'm glad that you agree that it hopefully wouldn't be needed. Looking on Wikipedia, AWS came into service in 1956, so would have been used by the locomotives that are running on the lines. While stations are based in the 1920's for example, it would be a small price to pay having a couple of pieces of modern equipment installed. By the time they have been covered in oil, they will hardly be seen anyway!

There's no doubt that the p-way on a lot of railways is in excellent condition and could probably safely cope with higher speed movements. The problem might be the higher cost of keeping it maintained to that standard if hammered by 40mph+ trains on a regular basis. The same would almost certainly apply to the locos and stock. You're right that signalling schemes might have to be looked at to ensure that they provide sufficient braking and sighting distances for the higher speed - potentially another cost, of course. Likewise for staff training - I suppose the bulk of that's in the practical handling, as the theory and the rules/regs knowledge doesn't change significantly at a higher speed.

What's the point of it all then? For a lot of passengers, I suppose speed isn't important. A round trip being a steam loco is a round trip behind a steam loco, whether it takes two hours or a little bit less. In some cases, it might all be over too quickly at a higher speed! I think that'd be a real concern on the current GCR - it's already barely 30 minutes end-to-end. There's nothing to say that everything must be timed at the higher speed though - it could be reserved for a couple of trains each weekend, and more extensively at special events (where passengers might appreciate the traction working harder for longer!). In our case, I don't think it'd release much capacity - we'd still be constrained by freight stock pootling along at 20mph or so - but it'd do a great deal for the atmosphere at the intermediate stations at special events!

While it would cost more to maintain the p-way if trains ran at higher speeds on a regular basis, the point is that this would only be the case during the peak season. They could run at 25mph from November (after the Autumn Steam Gala) to the beginning of May. Even then, the number of higher speed trains could be kept low except on Gala days and, in the case of the NYMR for example, the Gold timetable. With regards to rolling stock, the higher speeds may help them in some respects. I have heard that the dynamos on the coaches have had to be modified to be capable of charging the batteries at lower speeds. I'm sure low speed running has caused other problems.

The length of the railway would need to be looked at. The NYRM is 18 miles long and I believe this doesn't include the section between Grosmont and Whitby. It would be pointless increasing the speed limit of a line which is 3 to 5 miles long! With regards to the GCR, I'm sure that it would make it more exiting to passengers as it would enable trains to pass at higher speeds- it is already the countries only mainline heritage railway, a higher speed limit would make this the case further. Finally, the higher speeds would be more useful when the connection is made to the northern Great Central Railway. I believe the length of the entire line would then be around 18 miles (I need to read up on that), so it would be more worthwhile.

 

[The Decapod]

Surely such modern stock operating at 40mph would be the equal in safety terms of a vacuum braked heritage rake (steam or diesel) at 25mph?

I don't think many heritage railways would be willing to let someone else's train run on their line at 40 mph when they're limited to running their own at 25 mph!

 

[Tomnick]

That's a good point. I don't know how AWS is connected, but surely some sort of rail safe relay is needed (so the magnet is energised when the signal is not at a restrictive aspect). As for TPWS, i'm glad that you agree that it hopefully wouldn't be needed. Looking on Wikipedia, AWS came into service in 1956, so would have been used by the locomotives that are running on the lines. While stations are based in the 1920's for example, it would be a small price to pay having a couple of pieces of modern equipment installed. By the time they have been covered in oil, they will hardly be seen anyway!

I don't know the details of the science behind AWS, but there is already provision in most of the GCR's signalling for it to be installed. The trouble with single line railways (or reversible bits of double line railway) is that you either suppress the AWS for movements in the direction to which it doesn't apply (complicated!) or provide cancelling indicators in that other direction (not really desirable, but ok I suppose). AWS isn't normally provided at semaphore stop signals (only at distants), so in most cases wouldn't be visible from station platforms (Rothley on the down's the only one that I can think of).

Personally, I'd love to see it happen on a semi-regular basis. I'll concede that there's a lot of problems to overcome first though - either provision of all these extra items like CDL and TPWS, or a lot of paperwork to justify a decision not to provide them.

 

[Jonfun]

Personally, I think heritage railways are fine at 25mph. Obviously things would change if they were providing host to a commuter type service, but for standard heritage services, you just shorten the journey time which lessens the experience. It also means there's no need for ridiculously long train protection distances or the use of detonators (although granted, some choose to anyway).

Plus, on my line going along at 25 means I've plenty of time between stops - at 50 or whatever I'd barely have time to sit down before I had to do some work, never mind have time to go through with a binbag, have a chat to the visitors or grab a brew from the buffet!

You raise a few good points though, interesting post

 

[TDK]

I don't see the point in raising the speed. You need to look at the customer using the heritage railway, I don't mean the spotters I mean the general public, I think 25mph is ample to see the sights and enjoy the trip.

 

[E&W Lucas]

After reading the thread about the Severn Valley Railway, I was thinking about whether it would be possible to raise speed limits on heritage railways. I know it’s been discussed before, both on this forum and others, but I wanted discuss the possibilities of it myself and try to solve a few of the problems that is preventing it from happening.

I know that railways need a safety case to operate, but until yesterday, I didn’t know one was. For those that don’t know:



Leading on from this, I thought that I would look into the reasons that people have stated on forums as to why raising the speed limit would not be possible, and look to see if there is a way of arguing that the way in which the trains are operated is safe. While it would be of no use to shorter railways, I’m sure a higher line limit would be beneficial to the longer heritage railways, such as the Severn Valley Railway, North Yorkshire Moors Railway and West Somerset Railway. It would also be beneficial to the Great Central Railway as it would give a better sense of a mainline and would shorten journey times slightly when the "gap is bridged" to the other Great Central line.

I think a sensible speed to aim for would be around 40 to 45mph, although it would depend upon that specific railway. Some might only be able to operate at 35mph due to the curvature of the line, while it might be possible for others to safely operate at as high as 50mph.

From other forums, I’ve noticed that the main obstacles are the lack of Central Door Locking, AWS, TPWS, staff training and permanent way maintenance.

Central Door Locking: CDL is not provided on heritage railways as their current speed limit of 25mph means that it is not required. CDL is expensive to install and is visible to passengers due to the indicator light and door locking equipment. The question is why it would necessarily have to be CDL? Could it not simply be a system that automatically locked the doors above a certain speed and a detection system that applied the emergency brakes if a door was to open?

My idea would be to install a sensor on each door linked to a central box. This box would be powered by the coach battery. Below 25mph, the system would not operate and the railway would run as it has done since it first started operations. Above 25mph (or maybe 28mph to allow a 3mph tolerance), the brakes would only be held off when all the sensors were indicating that the doors are closed. If they are opened, or if there is a fault in the system due to a power failure or other fault, the emergency brakes would be applied. It would be fail safe as it would rely on a complete circuit to indicate that the doors were closed. No circuit= brakes applied. In this case, the train could still operate at the usual speed of 25mph (once the brakes are reset). There would need to be a way for the system to disable its self below 25mph (I'm not sure how this would be done). As an additional safety measure, a magnetic locking system could be wired into the system so that once the train speed rose above 25mph, the locking system applied, preventing a door from being opened and minimising the chance that the emergency brakes were applied.

The advantages of the system would be that it wouldn’t need to be wired throughout the train as each carriage would have its own system. A sensor and a magnetic lock would be needed on each door (and maybe an emergency door release?). The main box would be located under the carriage.

Would this system work? Would it be allowed? Do you think it would be cheaper to install?

AWS and TPWS: AWS is fitted to most locomotives as it was installed by BR in steam days. It would only need magnets to be installed on the track and I’m guessing that it could be connected to the signalling system quite easily. TPWS, on the other hand, is a far more modern system and would be more expensive to install. Given that the system has only been introduced in the days after privatisation, do you think heritage railways would be able to operate without it? After all, it is used on the main line where trains travel at up to 125mph and where there are many junctions. With lower line speeds, less traffic and simpler track layouts, would it be deemed safe to do without?

Staff and Permanent Way: The Great Central Railway is already capable of operating diesel locomotives at speeds of up to 75mph for testing purposes, and steam locomotives can operate at up to 60mph for the same purpose. This shows that it is possible to maintain the track on a heritage railway to the standards required for even higher speeds than I am proposing here. Signalling would be another obstacle, but many heritage railways do have full semaphore signalling and, other than possibly repositioning them to make them suitable for higher speeds, they would probably be OK in a lot of cases. Staff training is another issue, but the NYMR has shown that it is possible for volunteers to operate trains on Network Rail metals. I don’t know what extra training the volunteers who operate to Battersby at up to 45mph need, but, again, it shows that it is possible. As I am taking about heritage railways here and not Network Rail, this should make things simpler.

Finally, there would be no need to rush in with 45mph. They could increase the speed gradually at, say, 5mph at a time. They would train their staff for the speed increases and prove to the relevant authorities that they are operating safely each time. They would then be able to increase by another 5mph. Staff could operate at speeds according to their grades, so lower grades would be restricted to lower speeds and the timetable would be written accordingly (with a limited number of higher speed runs per day). As time went on and more staff were trained, the number of higher speed runs could be increased. Additionally, there would be no need to operate at the higher speed all of the time. During the winter and in the off peak summer timetables, the railway could operate at 25mph. The higher speeds are something that would be particularly useful during the full summer timetable or during gala events, so I would imagine that this is when they would be used. It would be more exiting for enthusiasts and regular passengers alike, and slower trains could run as well for people who weren't bothered about higher speeds and just wanted to enjoy the scenery. After all, a higher speed would mean that more trains would be able to fit down each section of track per hour, so it would make faster and slower trains possible (depending upon the track layout of course).

Conclusion So, what do you think? I’m no expert and my ideas have come from reading views of other rail enthusiasts online. Hopefully those who have more knowledge will be able to point out the problems that prevent higher speeds from becoming a reality, allowing myself and others to see why it can’t be done. Alternatively, maybe it is possible, and it is just a lack of funding, or a long a difficult process of certification, that is preventing heritage railways from raising their speed limits.

Thank you for reading,

Ryan

It sounds as if all the other material you have read, has explained why heritage railways operate at 25MPH. That, after 40+ years in some cases, they still do, should tell you something.

One reason you've not identified. COST.

Rather than theorising on the internet, can I suggest that you find a project that interests you, and go and get stuck in with it. That way, you will come to understand the realities of the heritage environment?

 

[DarloRich]

Why run up massive costs for little or no return.

Would incurring the expenditure and on going day to day running costs of raising the speed limit on a heritage line:

a) Generate more revenue for the railway by way of increased passenger numbers ( or as i suspect drive passengers away!) than leaving the current speed limits in place

and/or

b) Develop a revenue stream, from outside parties wishing to test their vehicles on your line, which not only meets the increased investment and running costs of the higher speed line but turns a good enough profit to get investors interested.

Try this for some light reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost–benefit_analysis

 

[ffm]

As E&W says the reason is cost, the increase in line speed would mean greater track, stock and locomotive maintenance, as well as higher fuel consumption. As you may note there is already a severe issue around the cost and availability of coal for steam. Lack of funding means that there are a number of speed restrictions on the NYMR as it is (15 in places) and these need to be dealt with years before anyone would consider increasing speeds above 25 mph. Many passengers feel that the train is moving quite fast at 25, the old stock, jointed track and sounds of heritage traction make the effects they like.
There is simply no cost benefit in increasing speeds.
If you are interested in helping a heritage line succeed perhaps to would like to volunteer? I would be delighted to have you join me on the NYMR, I could always do with help in my role there. A great feeling doing something to help and there are some good personal benefits of being a member and volunteer.
PM me if interested.

 

[Hove Heretic]

I don't see the point in raising the speed. You need to look at the customer using the heritage railway, I don't mean the spotters I mean the general public, I think 25mph is ample to see the sights and enjoy the trip.

I'd agree with this for heritage services (even though I timed a late running service on one preserved line - which had probably still better remain anonymous! - at 37mph many moons ago), although, perhaps some at the GCR might see things differently!

Just to clarify my earlier post, I'm only talking about the possibility of higher speeds for commercial operations over a heritage line where this would clearly be useful as an adjunct to current 'big railway' services. I know this sort of through operation has been mooted for the SVR and at Swanage, but lines which could potentially be the case are in the minority.

So far as cost goes, that's clearly a financial decision. If it's of benefit to a line, and can be achieved without prejudice to it's core purpose, then why not? With 50 years of hindsight, it's clear certain closures were more flawed than others, and if the opportunity exists to mitigate the difficulties which inappropriate closures caused, again, why not?

I honestly doubt any one line or scenario could be claimed to represent the whole heritage sector. Several operations have sought to provide 'real' transport in the past, but the 25mph limit (amongst other reasons) has almost invariably rendered proposals unworkable.

 

[ffm]

For interest secondary door locking came in because it wasn't all fine on the national network. Passengers were being killed falling from moving trains. Fact.

 

[Ploughman]

To be honest, I was going to say that everyone was fine without it before on the national network, so why can't we be fine now? I also thought that it is possible to open a car door at 70mph (as far as I know), and there is far more traffic and far more danger on the roads. In this case, it is the responsibility of the person to decide when it is safe to open the door, so why can't this be the case on the railway?

However, I then decided that I better mention CDL as without it stewards are needed in every carriage which would never happen on a heritage railway (I know the NYMR does, but only on a very limited number of trains for the Whitby branch, and to Battersby). Of course, if a railway was allowed to run at, say 45mph, without CDL, fantastic! Sadly, I don't think that will happen.



That's a good point. I don't know how AWS is connected, but surely some sort of rail safe relay is needed (so the magnet is energised when the signal is not at a restrictive aspect). As for TPWS, i'm glad that you agree that it hopefully wouldn't be needed. Looking on Wikipedia, AWS came into service in 1956, so would have been used by the locomotives that are running on the lines. While stations are based in the 1920's for example, it would be a small price to pay having a couple of pieces of modern equipment installed. By the time they have been covered in oil, they will hardly be seen anyway!



While it would cost more to maintain the p-way if trains ran at higher speeds on a regular basis, the point is that this would only be the case during the peak season. They could run at 25mph from November (after the Autumn Steam Gala) to the beginning of May. Even then, the number of higher speed trains could be kept low except on Gala days and, in the case of the NYMR for example, the Gold timetable. With regards to rolling stock, the higher speeds may help them in some respects. I have heard that the dynamos on the coaches have had to be modified to be capable of charging the batteries at lower speeds. I'm sure low speed running has caused other problems.

The length of the railway would need to be looked at. The NYRM is 18 miles long and I believe this doesn't include the section between Grosmont and Whitby. It would be pointless increasing the speed limit of a line which is 3 to 5 miles long! With regards to the GCR, I'm sure that it would make it more exiting to passengers as it would enable trains to pass at higher speeds- it is already the countries only mainline heritage railway, a higher speed limit would make this the case further. Finally, the higher speeds would be more useful when the connection is made to the northern Great Central Railway. I believe the length of the entire line would then be around 18 miles (I need to read up on that), so it would be more worthwhile.

Before proposing an increase in any speed limits on lines such as the NYMR It may be worth checking what the speed limit was when the line was operated by BR and predecessors.
I am fairly certain that the speed over the NYMR then was actually 30 mph 5 more than present. Mainly due to the severity of the curveature.

 

[ryan125hst]

My immediate reaction is 'why'? A 60mph trip on the Llangollen Railway, for example, would be over in ten minutes. Punters generally want a nice trip out, and to see the scenery. They're not (usually) actually using the line to get from A to B, and so speed becomes irrelevant.
I think it would cause a lot of extra work for volunteer-run organisations, who would struggle to find the staff and resources to achieve it.

I agree with you that, for shorter railways such as the Llangollen Railway, at just 8.5 miles in length, a line speed increase wouldn't be worth it. What I am suggesting this for is heritage railways that are longer. For example, the West Somerset Railway is the longest in the UK at 20.5 miles long excluding the Norton Fitzwarren branch. I believe that a higher line speed will make longer railways more enjoyable for rail enthusiasts and passengers alike. For enthusiasts, t would be more enjoyable to see steam and diesel locomotives work harder and at a higher speed, and for other passengers, it might allow them to spend more time at their destination or at the intermediate stations.

I'm not well up on events on the SVR, but I've previously asked the same question elsewhere following the announcement of the Worget Jnc. re-signalling. It struck me that the putative commuter service being actively discussed utilising the Swanage Railway might well be better served if differential speed limits for modern stock could be permitted.

In addition to ryan125hst's list of considerations, I'd add that braking capabilities of, say, a class 158/159 are vastly improved over pre-nationalisation stock or even MkI carriages or 1st generation DMUs. Surely such modern stock operating at 40mph would be the equal in safety terms of a vacuum braked heritage rake (steam or diesel) at 25mph?

If the aim is to provide a train service competitive with road timings, with the best will in the world, Joe Public isn't going to be attracted in the sort of numbers required to make a year-round success of such a service pootling along under an immutable 25mph speed restriction, plus, even if the SR's heritage DMUs can be made reliable enough to satisfy NR and SWT long-term, there's still the issue that it would still be a Swanage-Wareham shuttle. Is Wareham really where all those potential commuters want to go?

I realise it's not quite that straightforward, and the idea of blending commercial and heritage services will be anathema to some, but even more so than usual in these austere times, surely our heritage lines need to maximise their usefulness and therefore revenue, even at the expense of going where no man (or heritage railway) has gone before?

Where did I leave me tin hat?

To be honest, I was going down the route of increasing the heritage trains themselves rather than increasing the line speed to allow service trains to access the line. However, increasing the line speed to support services such as the one that you have mentioned may allow the railway to increase the line speed for their heritage operations as well.

 

[DarloRich]

but what would be the possible benefit? Where is your business case?

Thy are heritage lines - people want a nice relaxing day out for all the family. They dont want or care about locos working hard, and neither, i would venture, do most heritage loco owners want their expensively acquired and maintained assets working hard!

 

[ryan125hst]

I don't see the point in raising the speed. You need to look at the customer using the heritage railway, I don't mean the spotters I mean the general public, I think 25mph is ample to see the sights and enjoy the trip.

Personally, I think heritage railways are fine at 25mph. Obviously things would change if they were providing host to a commuter type service, but for standard heritage services, you just shorten the journey time which lessens the experience. It also means there's no need for ridiculously long train protection distances or the use of detonators (although granted, some choose to anyway).

Plus, on my line going along at 25 means I've plenty of time between stops - at 50 or whatever I'd barely have time to sit down before I had to do some work, never mind have time to go through with a binbag, have a chat to the visitors or grab a brew from the buffet!

I disagree as I'm sure that the increased line speed would be preferred by enthusiasts as the locomotives would be working harder. As well as this, I'm sure some families find that it is difficult to keep their children happy for a two to three hour round trip, especially if they are young, so faster trains would appeal to them too. However, I do agree with you and others about having time to see the scenery, have a drink from the buffet ect. so if the line speed was raised on any heritage railway, 25mph should also be included in the timetable to give passengers the best of both worlds.

You raise a few good points though, interesting post

Thank you

It sounds as if all the other material you have read, has explained why heritage railways operate at 25MPH. That, after 40+ years in some cases, they still do, should tell you something.

One reason you've not identified. COST.

I understand that there are many problems to overcome to operate a heritage railway at high speed. I'm sure this, and the fact that railways are operating profitably without high speeds, are way it hasn't been attempted. Cost is certainly a big factor, but Tornado cost £3 million to build. The money was raised and the project was successful. Likewise, the Vulcan costs around £30,000 a week to fly, but it is still airworthy at the minute (I only saw it fly a couple of weeks ago). It is difficult to raise enough money, yes, but it certainly isn't impossible. Just looking at NYMR fundraising pages shows that large sums of money can be raised.

Why run up massive costs for little or no return.

Would incurring the expenditure and on going day to day running costs of raising the speed limit on a heritage line:

a) Generate more revenue for the railway by way of increased passenger numbers ( or as i suspect drive passengers away!) than leaving the current speed limits in place

and/or

b) Develop a revenue stream, from outside parties wishing to test their vehicles on your line, which not only meets the increased investment and running costs of the higher speed line but turns a good enough profit to get investors interested.

Try this for some light reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost%E2...nefit_analysis

This is a good point. I suppose a feasibility study would need to be done for every railway that wanted to increase there speed limit to see if it was financially viable. As another way to prove that large investments are feasible, look at the NYMR Pickering to Rillington Junction document. I know that nothing is being done at present and for the foreseeable future, but it shows that it is feasible. If this large project can be done, why not speed limit increases?

I don't know the details of the science behind AWS, but there is already provision in most of the GCR's signalling for it to be installed. The trouble with single line railways (or reversible bits of double line railway) is that you either suppress the AWS for movements in the direction to which it doesn't apply (complicated!) or provide cancelling indicators in that other direction (not really desirable, but ok I suppose). AWS isn't normally provided at semaphore stop signals (only at distants), so in most cases wouldn't be visible from station platforms (Rothley on the down's the only one that I can think of).

Personally, I'd love to see it happen on a semi-regular basis. I'll concede that there's a lot of problems to overcome first though - either provision of all these extra items like CDL and TPWS, or a lot of paperwork to justify a decision not to provide them.

I'm pleased that someone else is with me on this. I forgot about that limitation of AWS, but I'm sure it would be sorted out.

Rather than theorising on the internet, can I suggest that you find a project that interests you, and go and get stuck in with it. That way, you will come to understand the realities of the heritage environment?

If you are interested in helping a heritage line succeed perhaps to would like to volunteer? I would be delighted to have you join me on the NYMR, I could always do with help in my role there. A great feeling doing something to help and there are some good personal benefits of being a member and volunteer.
PM me if interested.

I would love to volunteer on the NYMR. Sadly, it is about a two hour drive away from me, and given that I am currently at sixth form with no job and no car, it isn't an option for me at the minute. It is something that I would love to do when I get a bit older though, so I would be interested to hear from both of you.

As E&W says the reason is cost, the increase in line speed would mean greater track, stock and locomotive maintenance, as well as higher fuel consumption. As you may note there is already a severe issue around the cost and availability of coal for steam. Lack of funding means that there are a number of speed restrictions on the NYMR as it is (15 in places) and these need to be dealt with years before anyone would consider increasing speeds above 25 mph. Many passengers feel that the train is moving quite fast at 25, the old stock, jointed track and sounds of heritage traction make the effects they like.
There is simply no cost benefit in increasing speeds.

Before proposing an increase in any speed limits on lines such as the NYMR It may be worth checking what the speed limit was when the line was operated by BR and predecessors.
I am fairly certain that the speed over the NYMR then was actually 30 mph 5 more than present. Mainly due to the severity of the curveature.

Where are the 15mph restrictions? I am aware that the NYMR speed limits were low in BR days. In fact, I had a look at this earlier which is why I posted that some railway's speed limits would be lower. Maybe the NYMR isn't the ideal railway for line speed increases after all, as sad as it is as it is a fantastic railway (I've been a few times and loved it! ) That sad, I've red that some curves were eased when the line was single tracked, so this may help raise the limit slightly. It probably wouldn't be enough to make it justifiable though. :cry:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For interest secondary door locking came in because it wasn't all fine on the national network. Passengers were being killed falling from moving trains. Fact.

Have you got any links to accident reports? I would be interested in having a look. Were the accidents quite common? Given that trains used to operate at 125mph with no CDL, it only take one idiot to open the door and there could be serious consequences.

 

[Jonfun]

I'd agree with this for heritage services (even though I timed a late running service on one preserved line - which had probably still better remain anonymous! - at 37mph many moons ago), although, perhaps some at the GCR might see things differently!

As the oft quoted saying goes, 'Well, sir, my one in the van says we're doing a steady 21...'

I disagree as I'm sure that the increased line speed would be preferred by enthusiasts as the locomotives would be working harder. As well as this, I'm sure some families find that it is difficult to keep their children happy for a two to three hour round trip, especially if they are young, so faster trains would appeal to them too. However, I do agree with you and others about having time to see the scenery, have a drink from the buffet ect. so if the line speed was raised on any heritage railway, 25mph should also be included in the timetable to give passengers the best of both worlds.

I see what you're saying, but I think you're assuming (and it's an often misunderstood thing) that most visitors to heritage railways are enthusiasts. In reality, generally enthusiasts make up a relatively small proportion of visitors, and an even smaller proportion of a heritage line's profit. On a typical shift at the railway that I am a Guard at (and, in the past did various other roles), I'll probably come across a handful of 'regulars' who are there just because they can, a couple of groups of enthusiasts, and the rest are families. Obviously on enthusiast or family events, it skews the figures, but the principle's there.

I think also, the families that visit heritage railways wouldn't go if they weren't able to keep their kid entertained for the duration, so that's probably a moot point - and decreasing the journey time reduces the time they'll spend buying drinks from the buffet, spending money on site etc.

I can see you've obviously put a lot of thought into bits, but there's also a lot you're missing - as has been suggested, why not get involved in your local heritage line, if not the NYMR? It's a great way of getting some experience (which would help you get a job), especially if you do something customer facing such as on the stations or guarding. It'd also give you an appreciation of some of the inner workings of the whole thing - heritage lines are a living museum, and if you start trying to pretend you're Network Rail mini, things don't quite work, unfortunately!

Cheers

Jon

 

[Tomnick]

Most posters seem to, quite rightly of course, refer to the variable costs of regularly running passenger trains at speeds in excess of 25mph, and the limited potential for any significant return on this. I think a more realistic proposal (relatively!) would be for just a limited number of trains to run at a higher speed, perhaps just a handful of 'fast' services at special events and selected weekends, which might allow the risks to be mitigated against without having to go the whole hog with TPWS, CDL and so on - in turn, that might make a relatively decent return from the enthusiast market* achievable, whilst continuing to run at 25mph for the 'normal' market.

* - which some railways rely on more than others. The GCR has much less in the way of tourist traffic, so special events are more important - the 'main line' atmosphere counts for a lot at some of these, and the TPO workings (pass Quorn at a mere 35mph) attract a lot of interest...so yes, I'd suggest that there's the potential to attract more revenue.

Why run up massive costs for little or no return.

Would incurring the expenditure and on going day to day running costs of raising the speed limit on a heritage line:

a) Generate more revenue for the railway by way of increased passenger numbers ( or as i suspect drive passengers away!) than leaving the current speed limits in place

and/or

b) Develop a revenue stream, from outside parties wishing to test their vehicles on your line, which not only meets the increased investment and running costs of the higher speed line but turns a good enough profit to get investors interested.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but in the second case - yes! The GCR, for one, has a fair bit of commercial testing work as a result of its ability to run trains up to 75mph. Once you've got the ability to do that, it makes the case for (a) - subject to my thoughts above - look at least a little bit more appealing, no?

 

[edwin_m]

On AWS and TPWS fitment: AWS was introduced in the 1950s so most locos that run regularly in preservation would have had AWS during their service on BR, or at least a design would exist somewhere for fitting it to that class. TPWS was designed to be an easy upgrade from AWS so may not be as difficult as some imagine, for example the combined AWS/TPWS receiver replaces the existing AWS receiver. It does however require an electric power supply which many steam locos probably don't have.

On accident reports: There are hundreds at www.railwaysarchive.co.uk and also a search feature which allows accidents of specific types or arising from specific causes to be listed.

I agree any heritage railway could seek to put in place a Safety Management System (SMS, basically the replacement for safety cases) to allow passenger operation at higher speeds. However there are various standards which they are automatically exempted from due to the 25mph limit, and they would either have to follow these or try to argue that even at the higher speed it is either unnecessary on safety grounds or not reasonably practicable to do so. The latter course would have a high risk of failure, especially as RAIB has investigated several heritage railway incidents which have thrown up deficiencies in the SMS and there is a concern in the industry that some heritage SMSs may not be adequate.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but in the second case - yes! The GCR, for one, has a fair bit of commercial testing work as a result of its ability to run trains up to 75mph. Once you've got the ability to do that, it makes the case for (a) - subject to my thoughts above - look at least a little bit more appealing, no?

No. I think the costs and hassle would outweigh any benefits.

I think the increase of speed to general passenger services on a heritage railway would drive away the family group who are the life blood of preserved railways as you then transform the attraction from a nostalgic day out for all the family with a decent value for money aspect to an expensive, quick shuttle up the line. Perhaps even with a price increase to cover the costs of your upgrade works.

I appreciate the GCR make money from testing. My point there is would the return that testing brings to your preserved railway be worth the investment needed to enhance and maintain the PWay to the required standard, along with the necessary investment in signalling and other associated bits and bobs.

Also is there a big enough market for testing rolling stock to enable you to have a decent share of that market? Would you be able to take business of the exiting higher speed preserved railways and established test tracks? To do so might mean creating more facilities meaning a greater cost.

Finally it isn't good enough merely to generate some revenue you have to generate enough revenue to recoup the investment and turn a profit. I dont think you would ever make your money back let alone make a profit.

 

[Mvann]

The 25mph was set by arps (who were the forerunners to the HRA) when the definition of a light railway was revised with hmri. Prior to that NVR used to run 30mph from wansford to orton mere.

There are railways that have lower speeds written into there light rail orders/two for various reasons. There are probably very few railways where a higher speed is necessary. Costs and the loss of safety exemption cases are the main reasons for not going faster. As for running test trains at higher speed, hmri can put in various stipulations but as long as you tell them and send them the logs of what's happening and the civil engineer signs his name to the track being fit, everything should be fine.

 

[steamybrian]

The 25mph was set by arps (who were the forerunners to the HRA) ........

It is my understanding that the majority of heritage railways (but not all !) which are operated under the Light Railways Act of 1896 stipulated a maximum speed of 25mph.
Those that opened since around 1993 are operated under the T&WO.

 

[Tomnick]

I think the increase of speed to general passenger services on a heritage railway would drive away the family group who are the life blood of preserved railways as you then transform the attraction from a nostalgic day out for all the family with a decent value for money aspect to an expensive, quick shuttle up the line. Perhaps even with a price increase to cover the costs of your upgrade works.

Yes - I'll agree with that! I think that there's little to be gained from regular running in excess of 25mph: certainly not enough to cover the cost of it. There'd be a much better case for occasional higher-speed running though - especially if the occasional nature of the operation meant that you could get away with much less in the way of additional controls and safeguards (stewards instead of CDL or a traction inspector instead of TPWS, for example).

I appreciate the GCR make money from testing. My point there is would the return that testing brings to your preserved railway be worth the investment needed to enhance and maintain the PWay to the required standard, along with the necessary investment in signalling and other associated bits and bobs.

I can't speak for other railways, but it works for the GC. The testing work is done when the railway's closed to all other traffic, and is beyond the maximum speed dictated by the signalling installation (obviously with suitable controls to deal with that). Obviously the p-way takes more of a hammering, but the revenue from testing must be sufficient to account for this otherwise we wouldn't still be doing that sort of work!

Also is there a big enough market for testing rolling stock to enable you to have a decent share of that market? Would you be able to take business of the exiting higher speed preserved railways and established test tracks? To do so might mean creating more facilities meaning a greater cost.

Dunno about you, but I'm specifically referring to the GC . I think the NYMR is a bit of a red herring that's crept into the debate!

Finally it isn't good enough merely to generate some revenue you have to generate enough revenue to recoup the investment and turn a profit. I dont think you would ever make your money back let alone make a profit.

That depends how much money you have to put in, I suppose, which depends - going back to the first part of this post - how many additional safeguards you have to provide, and what you've already got to work with. The GC's infrastructure's already up to a decent standard, has provision for AWS to be readily fitted and has signalling provided to (with possibly a couple of exceptions) suit a 45mph line speed - so rather different to a hypothetical railway with knackered p-way that's just about fit for 25mph and signalling which would need a lot of work to provide braking distances for anything greater than that!

 

[cav1975]

It is my understanding that the majority of heritage railways (but not all !) which are operated under the Light Railways Act of 1896 stipulated a maximum speed of 25mph.
Those that opened since around 1993 are operated under the T&WO.

The Light Railways Acts allow "the minister" to set a maximum speed. 25 mph is not in the act but it was commonly written into LROs in the 1960s, by the 1970s they were more vague merely confirming that "the minister" could set a maximum speed.

There are other similar anomolies, Light Railways are exempt from the need for communication cords or their equivalent. By the 1970s that exemption was
cancelled for lines authorised by newer LROs.

 

[Hove Heretic]

To be honest, I was going down the route of increasing the heritage trains themselves rather than increasing the line speed to allow service trains to access the line. However, increasing the line speed to support services such as the one that you have mentioned may allow the railway to increase the line speed for their heritage operations as well.

Fair enough, though for purely heritage lines & services, there'd be a big safety issue with wooden bodied stock. It took the best part of a decade following Harrow & Wealdstone for BR to dispose of obsolete stock from the mainline, and I can't see the 'powers that be' wanting that rolled back in any way, nor in my opinion, should it be. True, that's not so with post war, MkI or later carriages, but that would lead to operational nightmares where both types exist!

That said, while I wouldn't want to go tearing through the Rother levels or the Isle of Wight, where a leisurely 25mph max is perfectly appropriate, a line like the West Somerset shouldn't be prevented from raising speeds where it is safe to do so, if they considered it in their and their customers' best interests. I believe there are those involved with the WHR(C) still hankering after 'upping' the 25mph limit - though not I suspect for 'Bug-boxes' or round the 'S' bends at Beddgelert - to make through journey times between Porthmadog and Caernarfon more attractive.

Horses for courses, I guess

 

[DarloRich]

@Tomnick - i had discounted the GC from my posts - i was referring to other railways aiming for the same kind of operation.

 

[mumrar]

Raining the speed would make it far harder to get multiple photos at a gala, but it increased risks with things like user worked crossings where often the approach to safety by the vehicle user is lax already - plenty of evidence of this on the SVR. Then you have the issues of vehicle readiness and fitness at higher speeds - at 25mph some sections of line seem very bouncy or the coaches suspension does. You'd have to increase permanent way maintenance, loco and stock maintenance too most likely for little reward in return.

 

[ryan125hst]

I see what you're saying, but I think you're assuming (and it's an often misunderstood thing) that most visitors to heritage railways are enthusiasts. In reality, generally enthusiasts make up a relatively small proportion of visitors, and an even smaller proportion of a heritage line's profit. On a typical shift at the railway that I am a Guard at (and, in the past did various other roles), I'll probably come across a handful of 'regulars' who are there just because they can, a couple of groups of enthusiasts, and the rest are families. Obviously on enthusiast or family events, it skews the figures, but the principle's there.

I think also, the families that visit heritage railways wouldn't go if they weren't able to keep their kid entertained for the duration, so that's probably a moot point - and decreasing the journey time reduces the time they'll spend buying drinks from the buffet, spending money on site etc.

I can see you've obviously put a lot of thought into bits, but there's also a lot you're missing - as has been suggested, why not get involved in your local heritage line, if not the NYMR? It's a great way of getting some experience (which would help you get a job), especially if you do something customer facing such as on the stations or guarding. It'd also give you an appreciation of some of the inner workings of the whole thing - heritage lines are a living museum, and if you start trying to pretend you're Network Rail mini, things don't quite work, unfortunately!

Thank you for your reply. I do appreciate that many visitors to heritage railways are not rail enthusiasts, but maybe I thought that there were more enthusiasts than there is in reality.

I would love to volunteer on a heritage line, but I would be looking at a good hour drive each way at the minute (I live in Retford) to get to my nearest line. As I don't currently have a car or a job and am studying at sixth form, it isn't really possible at the minute. That said, it is certainly something that I would like to do in the future.

Most posters seem to, quite rightly of course, refer to the variable costs of regularly running passenger trains at speeds in excess of 25mph, and the limited potential for any significant return on this. I think a more realistic proposal (relatively!) would be for just a limited number of trains to run at a higher speed, perhaps just a handful of 'fast' services at special events and selected weekends, which might allow the risks to be mitigated against without having to go the whole hog with TPWS, CDL and so on - in turn, that might make a relatively decent return from the enthusiast market* achievable, whilst continuing to run at 25mph for the 'normal' market. /QUOTE]

I agree with you Tomnick. It wouldn't be realistic to expect every single train on the railway to operate at higher speeds due to the higher costs involved and shorter journey times which may not be appreciated by the passengers. However, faster running on gala days and, possible, a few services during the peak timetables would certainly be possible. They could include a note in the timetable saying that it was a faster train, so the public could make a decision whether they wanted a faster journey, or whether they wanted to enjoy the scenery.

On AWS and TPWS fitment: AWS was introduced in the 1950s so most locos that run regularly in preservation would have had AWS during their service on BR, or at least a design would exist somewhere for fitting it to that class. TPWS was designed to be an easy upgrade from AWS so may not be as difficult as some imagine, for example the combined AWS/TPWS receiver replaces the existing AWS receiver. It does however require an electric power supply which many steam locos probably don't have.

On accident reports: There are hundreds at www.railwaysarchive.co.uk and also a search feature which allows accidents of specific types or arising from specific causes to be listed.

I agree any heritage railway could seek to put in place a Safety Management System (SMS, basically the replacement for safety cases) to allow passenger operation at higher speeds. However there are various standards which they are automatically exempted from due to the 25mph limit, and they would either have to follow these or try to argue that even at the higher speed it is either unnecessary on safety grounds or not reasonably practicable to do so. The latter course would have a high risk of failure, especially as RAIB has investigated several heritage railway incidents which have thrown up deficiencies in the SMS and there is a concern in the industry that some heritage SMSs may not be adequate.

An interesting piece of information. Thank you

There'd be a much better case for occasional higher-speed running though - especially if the occasional nature of the operation meant that you could get away with much less in the way of additional controls and safeguards (stewards instead of CDL or a traction inspector instead of TPWS, for example).

It's worth noting that the reason why I suggested the door system in my first post is to get around the problem of having door stewards in every carriage. This must be a nightmare due to the number of people the railway would need to make it possible.

The GC's infrastructure's already up to a decent standard, has provision for AWS to be readily fitted and has signalling provided to (with possibly a couple of exceptions) suit a 45mph line speed

It's encouraging that they thought about this when they reopened the line. Could this show that, on the Great Central railway at least, 45mph running is feasible for passenger trains?

Raining the speed would make it far harder to get multiple photos at a gala, but it increased risks with things like user worked crossings where often the approach to safety by the vehicle user is lax already - plenty of evidence of this on the SVR. Then you have the issues of vehicle readiness and fitness at higher speeds - at 25mph some sections of line seem very bouncy or the coaches suspension does. You'd have to increase permanent way maintenance, loco and stock maintenance too most likely for little reward in return.

That's an interesting opinion as I would have thought most enthusiasts who attend galas would prefer higher speed running so they could hear the locos working harder. With regards to the user worked crossing, work improved signage help? At the end of the day, I've read about a foot crossing between Doncaster and York with nothing protecting the line other than signs where the line speed is 125mph! As well as this, there are half barrier crossings where the line speed is 100, so I doubt crossing would be too much of a problem, as long as people were made aware of the increased line speed.