Could Network Rail take over a Heritage Railway?

[DaleCooper]

An odd thought I had the other day, would it be possible for Network Rail to take back and put into use a line that is currently owned and used by a heritage railway and if so are there any candidates. In asking this I also wonder if Network Rail has retained any rights over the track/land of any such railway.

 

[pdeaves]

An odd thought I had the other day, would it be possible for Network Rail to take back and put into use a line that is currently owned and used by a heritage railway and if so are there any candidates. In asking this I also wonder if Network Rail has retained any rights over the track/land of any such railway.

Yes, it's 'possible' if there is a good business case to do so, just as Network Rail can (and has) buy land next to the line to widen the formation, or put new junctions in, or whatever.

In practice I think NR is more likely to negotiate to connect to the heritage line and have through running between the two networks.

An example that keeps popping up is Lewes-Uckfield, which would require removing or running over the Lavender Line.

 

[edwin_m]

Another example is re-opening Buxton to Matlock, as frequently proposed here, which would have to come to some arrangement with Peak Rail.

I was involved in a feasibility study a few years ago into a rather similar proposal somewhere else.

Being part of the national network would almost certainly require a heritage railway to run faster than 25mph and lose a lot of the exemptions they have from national regulations. In particular they would have to fit AWS plus TPWS or something equivalent to their track. Any trains in use at the same time as a through service would also need AWS/TPWS equipment, and probably also some crashworthiness measure such as end vehicles being Mk2 or newer or non passenger-carrying, as in charter rakes. There are probably more rigorous regulations for staff too, but I don't know much about these.

Some sort of time sharing service would be possible, but not being able to run the through train on heritage days would probably mean it wasn't a very good service.

While some perservation people would be glad to see "their" line as a fully integrated part of the national network, I'm sure many would be very concerned for reasons including the loss of heritage atmosphere and the fact that their (often unpaid) efforts have ultimately resulted in a profit for a franchised operator.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

An example that keeps popping up is Lewes-Uckfield, which would require removing or running over the Lavender Line.

My own suggestion should Lewes - Uckfield go ahead would be for NR to broker a deal between the Lavender and Bluebell Lines whereby NR would pay to restore the Ardingly branch and move the Lavender operation onto that branch.

NR would then have the Lewes - Uckfield in full as a normal railway, the Lavender people would get a line in tip top condition with an NR connection at one end and a Bluebell connection at the other end. The Bluebell would have a partner line with which resources could be shared and would finally get the junction fully operational.

Clearly, however, there would need to be some sort of through ticketing to allow visitors to use both the Bluebell main and the ardingly Lavender operation which would mean the creation of some kind of mini-ORCATS for the two lines to thrash out their fair fare shares...

 

[KendalKing]

How about the North Yorkshire Moor Railway ?

The NYMR carries more passengers than any other heritage railway in the UK and may be the busiest steam heritage line in the world, carrying around 350,000 passengers per year, and runs across the North York Moors from Pickering to Grosmont, with some journeys continuing along Network Rail tracks to Whitby.

 

[markindurham]

Interesting stuff. OK, let's expand on this theoretical 'through running' over this 'heritage line' which is being improved/taken over, including redoubling, to allow 40mph+ running. What about the signalling? Would modern signalling, including all the TPWS kit, then be required? I'm presuming that it would be; I can't see upgrading of the traditional signalling being permitted?

Genuinely curious - this may well come to pass in the future, but I just can't see how it would be permitted and still keep the 'heritage' feel.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

My own suggestion should Lewes - Uckfield go ahead would be for NR to broker a deal between the Lavender and Bluebell Lines whereby NR would pay to restore the Ardingly branch and move the Lavender operation onto that branch.

NR would then have the Lewes - Uckfield in full as a normal railway, the Lavender people would get a line in tip top condition with an NR connection at one end and a Bluebell connection at the other end. The Bluebell would have a partner line with which resources could be shared and would finally get the junction fully operational.

Clearly, however, there would need to be some sort of through ticketing to allow visitors to use both the Bluebell main and the ardingly Lavender operation which would mean the creation of some kind of mini-ORCATS for the two lines to thrash out their fair fare shares...

I think that this is a really good idea. It could work well in all sorts of ways.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm very much in favour of NR providing practical assistance to help preserved railways relocate in these circumstances. For example, as well as paying for the land outright, there must be a lot that could be provided in terms of second hand and spare components, expertise, use of heavy machinery etc, that would assist in this process.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm very much in favour of NR providing practical assistance to help preserved railways relocate in these circumstances. For example, as well as paying for the land outright, there must be a lot that could be provided in terms of second hand and spare components, expertise, use of heavy machinery etc, that would assist in this process.

aye - if it is paid for

 

[yorksrob]

aye - if it is paid for

I suppose that could be worked out in lieu of the state of the formation they were taking over. A well kept formation with well maintained structures would presumably cost less for NR to bring into use than even a track bed thats been derelict for decades.

 

[edwin_m]

In principle it's the same as if NR or HS2 need to demolish another property - they have to provide the occupants with the nearest possible equivalent or appropriate financial compensation. If that property is a heritage railway then NR could probably do a lot more "in kind" for the same internal cost as the compensation. For example a heritage railway could be provided with secondhand rail which is no good for main lines but fine at 25mph, and laying it without the time pressures of having to finish a possession would be a good training exercise for the apprentices.

 

[martinr1]

You might like this example of mutual co-operation!

https://youtu.be/dlos1vgPZwI

 

[E&W Lucas]

An odd thought I had the other day, would it be possible for Network Rail to take back and put into use a line that is currently owned and used by a heritage railway and if so are there any candidates. In asking this I also wonder if Network Rail has retained any rights over the track/land of any such railway.

If the land has been sold off, then they don't. It becomes no different to any other private property.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How about the North Yorkshire Moor Railway ?

The NYMR carries more passengers than any other heritage railway in the UK and may be the busiest steam heritage line in the world, carrying around 350,000 passengers per year, and runs across the North York Moors from Pickering to Grosmont, with some journeys continuing along Network Rail tracks to Whitby.

It carries those passengers, precisely because it is an historical tourist attraction. Re - open it as a modern day railway, and you'll blow a £30 million hole in the local economy.

 

[fgwrich]

You might like this example of mutual co-operation!

https://youtu.be/dlos1vgPZwI

Interesting - Looks very similar to the OHLE Gantry's the GWML is using. Another line of mutual co-operation between Pres Railway and Network Rail has been the Swanage Railway ever since the Motala connection was re-instated. Slightly the opposite of what the OP is about as it is a Pres Railway taking over a branchline from Network Rail.

 

[mr_jrt]

My own suggestion should Lewes - Uckfield go ahead would be for NR to broker a deal between the Lavender and Bluebell Lines whereby NR would pay to restore the Ardingly branch and move the Lavender operation onto that branch.

NR would then have the Lewes - Uckfield in full as a normal railway, the Lavender people would get a line in tip top condition with an NR connection at one end and a Bluebell connection at the other end. The Bluebell would have a partner line with which resources could be shared and would finally get the junction fully operational.

Clearly, however, there would need to be some sort of through ticketing to allow visitors to use both the Bluebell main and the ardingly Lavender operation which would mean the creation of some kind of mini-ORCATS for the two lines to thrash out their fair fare shares...

My suggestion is similar, but slightly different. For me it would be of more use for NR to reinstate the Ardingly branch, then reacquire Horsted Keynes to East Grinstead to provide a diversionary route for the BML, whilst still retaining connections to it (i.e. Lewes to London via Haywards Heath and East Grinstead). In exchange, they would finance the restoration of Sheffield Park to Culver Junction for the Bluebell. The Lavender line could feasibly run alongside a reopened Uckfield-Lewes line, and ideally could meet the Bluebell at Culver Junction, if extended, though I suspect merging the operations on the Bluebell would make the most sense, really.

 

[Webley]

I have been told that Network Rail have looked into East Grinstead to Horstead Keynes, Ardingly, Copyhold Junction to Haywards Heath. It was turned down due to the population of East Grinstead wasn't big enough.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, the Uckfield route definitely has more day to day potential.

 

[mr_jrt]

I have been told that Network Rail have looked into East Grinstead to Horstead Keynes, Ardingly, Copyhold Junction to Haywards Heath. It was turned down due to the population of East Grinstead wasn't big enough.

That's quite interesting, thanks!

Yes, the Uckfield route definitely has more day to day potential.

Dunno about that. East Grinstead has a population of 29,084 as of 2011, and Uckfield has 15,217. By comparison, Haywards Heath weighs in with 33,845, so I'm not sure what population size would be needed for the sums to add up...would be very interesting to know though!

 

[B&W]

That's quite interesting, thanks!



Dunno about that. East Grinstead has a population of 29,084 as of 2011, and Uckfield has 15,217. By comparison, Haywards Heath weighs in with 33,845, so I'm not sure what population size would be needed for the sums to add up...would be very interesting to know though!

Uckfield route
Edenbridge, Crowborough, Uckfield and Lewes all potential traffic flows between each other and to/from London and Brighton (assuming loop is built along the A27 to avoid awkward reversal at Lewes)

East Grinstead route
East Grindstead, Haywards Heath potential flows. To be useful and therefore used any EG trains should continue onto Brighton stopping at intermediates like Burgress Hill as well. However might be capacity problems with many more trains south of HH with the conflicting junction for the Plumpton line.

Which ever route is chosen the trains must continue onto Brighton. I use the A27 from West Sussex and up the A26 several days a week and having to change other than at Brighton would be enough to keep me in my comfortable car rather than change to train even if the 377s were re-seated.

Brian

 

[yorksrob]

Uckfield route
Edenbridge, Crowborough, Uckfield and Lewes all potential traffic flows between each other and to/from London and Brighton (assuming loop is built along the A27 to avoid awkward reversal

This - to which I would add potentially Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and West Kent.

 

[Tom B]

In principle it's the same as if NR or HS2 need to demolish another property - they have to provide the occupants with the nearest possible equivalent or appropriate financial compensation. If that property is a heritage railway then NR could probably do a lot more "in kind" for the same internal cost as the compensation. For example a heritage railway could be provided with secondhand rail which is no good for main lines but fine at 25mph, and laying it without the time pressures of having to finish a possession would be a good training exercise for the apprentices.

I wonder if any of these sorts of schemes operate anyway? I suppose it depends on the proximity of a NR training centre to a suitable heritage railway. I also assume that since so much is up to contractors rather than NR the amount of stuff being disposed of is minimal.

As to through ticketing I think the KWVR had a scheme whereby you could purchase tickets to Oxenhope from certain ticket offices on the national network.

 

[steamybrian]

I wonder if any of these sorts of schemes operate anyway? I suppose it depends on the proximity of a NR training centre to a suitable heritage railway. I also assume that since so much is up to contractors rather than NR the amount of stuff being disposed of is minimal.

As to through ticketing I think the KWVR had a scheme whereby you could purchase tickets to Oxenhope from certain ticket offices on the national network.

Several heritage railways are used to train staff or equipment for example
the Spa Valley Railway is used particularly with Paddock Wood NR training centre only 5 miles away.
Through tickets are available to Spa Valley Railway stations from many "Southern" stations.

 

[freetoview33]

The most likely line to be taken over as I see it is Exeter - Okehampton FGW do run a few summer services there. But if the route is going to be brought back into use as a way of avoiding Dawlish

 

[yorksrob]

The most likely line to be taken over as I see it is Exeter - Okehampton FGW do run a few summer services there. But if the route is going to be brought back into use as a way of avoiding Dawlish

It would be easier as it is still part of the National Rail Network, so whilst the heritage railway would need some help relocating, the infrastructure is already owned.

 

[221129]

It would be easier as it is still part of the National Rail Network, so whilst the heritage railway would need some help relocating, the infrastructure is already owned.

The infrastructure to Okehmpton is not owned by Network Rail. The NR Limit is I think Coleford Junction.

 

[yorksrob]

The infrastructure to Okehmpton is not owned by Network Rail. The NR Limit is I think Coleford Junction.

That surprises me. Who owns it?

 

[221129]

Aggregate Industries I think, Although it may have been sold off to the Dartmoor Railway who leased the railway from them.

 

[yorksrob]

Aggregate Industries I think, Although it may have been sold off to the Dartmoor Railway who leased the railway from them.

I suspect it would probably be easier to purchase it from the quarry if they still own it in that case.

Certainly seems a strange decision to have sold it off anyway.

 

[DarloRich]

I have been told that Network Rail have looked into East Grinstead to Horstead Keynes, Ardingly, Copyhold Junction to Haywards Heath. It was turned down due to the population of East Grinstead wasn't big enough.

are you sure that is what you were told?

 

[Webley]

DarloRich I am quite sure I was told that Network Rail looked into East Grinstead-Copyhold Junction. I he it happens. I will be surprised if it does