Light Railway Orders and Speed restrictions

[Domeyhead]

Most if not all preserved railways are operated under provisions of a Light Railway Order, which imposes restrictions on speed ( or does it?) I have heard tentative plans by one or two railways such as the MHR to explore ways to exceed the 25mph operating limit (legally), so what are the exact terms of the LRO and what DFT costs are involved in exceeding it on some trains?
I beleive that if one of our major preserved lines was able to run trains optionally at up to 50mph this would be a massive draw particularly at enthsusiasts weekends. Some lines could easily do this (the GCR springs to mind). For some other preserved lines with aspirations to attract commuters, tourists and shoppers traffic such as the line to Redmire, the MNR and longer lines such as the WSR and the NYMR faster speeds are a vital part of their business case.
Any thoughts or opinions on the viability of a 50mph preserved railway?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Most railways - the GCR and the MHR for instance - are allowed to run light engines at higher speeds for testing purposes - subject to a number of restrictions.

Will post a more detailed reply later, when I have more time!

 

[4SRKT]

Big drawback for the K&WVR running at 50 mph is that the journey would be over in the blink of an eye!

 

[Tomnick]

Just a quick one to confirm that we (the GC) now run test trains at up to 75mph, under fairly tight restrictions (the main one being that it's under a possession of both lines, with no others trains in that possession. We also run our 'TPO drop' at 35mph, under normal traffic but with a restriction preventing that train from passing a passenger train on the adjacent line whilst running above 25mph. Passenger trains are still limited to the magic number of 25mph though - although there's always been rumour-mill talk of increasing that (to 40mph?), I don't know what it'd involve and, more importantly, what increased safety requirements would be introduced as a result.

 

[Wyvern]

To modify the specifications inherent in a Light Railway Order would I believe involve and Act of Parliament.

Wasn't there talk a while ago of introducing easier standards for heavy rail on lightly used branch lines, as (in theory) they have to be maintained to the same level and with the same paperwork as a main express line.

 

[theblackwatch]

One thing that may well be insisted on if operating at 50 would be some form of door locking system - probably totally unviable. I don't think passengers travelling on the NYMR are bothered about doing the journey in 45 minutes instead of an hour either, despite the OP thinking it is a vital part of their business case. (Is this an assumption or has the OP seen one?) Less time on line means less money spent on trolley, day out isn't value for money given the time you're there, etc. Remember, enthusiasts make up less than 10% of the passengers on most railways - and half of them are probably using priv, HRA passes etc!

 

[Domeyhead]

I would not advocate whizzing down the line at a higher speed every week and on every train, but the option of running some trains at higher speed on particular enthusiasts weekends would be a powerful draw, and would also stimulate more revenue. It may be true that only 10% of ticket sales are to enthusiasts (and a good thing too) but that 10% is not evenly distributed across the whole calendar. Marketing managers have wisely recognised that things that attract enthusiasts do not necessarily appeal to parents of THomas fans which is why they tend to have their own weekends. Your point about the door locking system is a good one. It would be interesting to find out the actual truth around such restrictions - after all, it is not long since we ran trains with doors that could be opened at 125mph. If judicious use of higher speed running could generate (say) an extra 5,000 ticket sales over a year on certain days, would the economics make sense? I don;t have the figures but I'm sure there are some General managers out there that do.

 

[Bill EWS]

Am I missing something in regard to higher speeds on preserved railways! Isn't much oftheir enjoyment that of sitting back and enjoying the scenery and/or a meal at a leasurely pace. Most are quite short runs and if you are going to be flashing along their tracks you are not going to see much for your time and money! Just a thought. Possibly even taking photographs from the coaches would be barred too, on H&S safety grounds.

On mainline railways the cost increases considerably for every 10mph of speed they go for above the already maximum speed. I would think such costs would cripple a most of private companies, who are always desperate for more custom.

 

[paul1609]

I would not advocate whizzing down the line at a higher speed every week and on every train, but the option of running some trains at higher speed on particular enthusiasts weekends would be a powerful draw, and would also stimulate more revenue. It may be true that only 10% of ticket sales are to enthusiasts (and a good thing too) but that 10% is not evenly distributed across the whole calendar. Marketing managers have wisely recognised that things that attract enthusiasts do not necessarily appeal to parents of THomas fans which is why they tend to have their own weekends. Your point about the door locking system is a good one. It would be interesting to find out the actual truth around such restrictions - after all, it is not long since we ran trains with doors that could be opened at 125mph. If judicious use of higher speed running could generate (say) an extra 5,000 ticket sales over a year on certain days, would the economics make sense? I don;t have the figures but I'm sure there are some General managers out there that do.

An extra 5000 passengers on our railway would generate just under £40,000.That wouldnt pay for the increase in our coal bill let alone anything else.

 

[Domeyhead]

An extra 5000 passengers on our railway would generate just under £40,000.That wouldnt pay for the increase in our coal bill let alone anything else.

ok well it's a basis for a commercial discussion even though I do not agree with your figures. Let's say 2 enthusiast weekends per annum with 2 engines over the four days running at higher speed so a total of 8 engine-days. Bearing in mind the engines would be in steam and operational anyway, you are saying that running them on some trains at up to 50mph as an enthusiasts draw rather than trundling up and down at 25mph would burn an additional £40k worth of coal? Not sure of the delivered cost of steam coal right now - £250 per tonne seems generous, so that is an extra 160 tonnes consumed over 4 days? I'd say your assertion is spurious nonsense.
Yes higher speeds would be a draw to enthusiasts and higher speeds would consume more coal but I totally reject the notion that increased visitor numbers would not even pay the coal bill FFS!
So what is the regulatory regime that would come into play? We've had a sensible answer from the GCR (no surprise there), implying engineering and perhaps signalling costs, and there would be significant legal, regulatory and insurance liability costs which I think are the make or break issue, but preserved lines should be looking at the business and marketing case and seeing if it adds up. On my local line we wouldn't even need 50mph to offer something different on certain days. Think of the best gradient on your own line and a modest increased speed limit which gave all the engines a chance to show their abilities on some special trains. Allowing the Bulleids and the 9F even to 35mph up Medstead bank would be a test of mettle, and as for the Uries and Maunsells trying their best - it would would be a sight and sound to bring enthusists flocking to see engines worked hard.

 

[90019]

ok well it's a basis for a commercial discussion even though I do not agree with your figures. Let's say 2 enthusiast weekends per annum with 2 engines over the four days running at higher speed so a total of 8 engine-days. Bearing in mind the engines would be in steam and operational anyway, you are saying that running them on some trains at up to 50mph as an enthusiasts draw rather than trundling up and down at 25mph would burn an additional £40k worth of coal?

But would it bring in £40k of revenue?

And is it worth the extra red tape just for 4 days a year?

 

[Domeyhead]

But would it bring in £40k of revenue?

And is it worth the extra red tape just for 4 days a year?

Now that is a very good point, and I suspect the answer is a value judgement. You are standing at the interface between commercial pragmatism and the desire of enthusiasts to see engines hard at work. Perhaps the answer would depend on which side of that boundary the General Manager came from.

 

[paul1609]

Must admit that I had thought that to attract an extra 5000 passengers you would be looking at running on a few more days than 4. Coal is currently about £130 per ton by the way.
I reckon you would be looking at the following to run preserved trains at 50 mph;
no wooden bodied carriages, CDL, some sort of automatic control TPWS etc. Ultrasonic testing of the track. Risk assesment of every crossing on the line and visibility at higher speed. Visibility of signalling equipment. Enhanced maintenance routines for Locomotives and Coaching stock.
I dont think that £40,000 would go anyway near covering that.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

You would certainly be looking at AWS fitted on signals at the very least, and the signal positions may have to change.

 

[paul1609]

You would certainly be looking at AWS fitted on signals at the very least, and the signal positions may have to change.

I reckon if you were starting from scratch on a preserved railway you'd be better off installing something on the lines of LT tripcock. There is a precedent on Island Lines.

 

[Tomnick]

Not sure - at least a lot of the locos are already fitted with the AWS equipment. Aren't LU's tripcocks air-operated too?

 

[Domeyhead]

Received wisdom in the Heritage Rail industry has always been that to go beyond the restrictions of the LRO to offer "something a little different" has been impossible, yet when analysed, the reasons why it is impossible tend to vary, from straight legal impossibilty, to permanent way, signalling, Health and Safety, C&W engineering, insurance liability....any or all of the above etc etc. It;s my contention that it may not actually be impossible after all, and when the real reasons are identified, cracked open and laid bare, engineering minds that find solutions to problems as second nature will pick up individual problems and solve them one by one. This is a movement that frequently underrates its ability to overcome insurmountable obstacles. I believe that a preserved railway one day will set up a task force, create an economic business case, and take the plunge. I also believe that the uniqueness, the novelty and the hard core of enthusiasts will ensure that whichever railway is first to attempt it will recoup their investment if engineering and marketing work closely together. I've suggested two enthusiast weekends per year which is very conservative for such a unique selling point. One a month might be more like it. Good points are being made in this thread. Yes it would have to be Mk1 or Mk2 stock, possibly one train running at any time, suitable motive power, suitable gradients and profiles - all solvable. I think there are one or two chairmen out there far sighted enough to put a business case together. Who will be first?

 

[Tomnick]

possibly one train running at any time

If (and, as I'm sure you intended, it's definitely an 'if') we - or to a lesser extent, any other railway, I suspect - were limited to effectively blocking the other line to run these higher-speed passenger services, then I think it'd be a no-goer, as the intensive service that we can run is part of our unique attraction (even more so for the folk that this sort of thing would be targetted at, I'm sure). Can't see anything else in your post that couldn't be overcome with enough money, time, effort and paperwork!

 

[mallard]

I don't know how strictly the 25MPH limit is kept to anyway. I know for a fact that I've been at least 45MPH on a preserved line (GPS recording and the fact that the catering vehicle blew a fuse).

I'm sure this is technically illegal and somebody got "told off" for it, but I didn't have any safety concerns when it happened. I have fond memories of travelling in Mk1 stock without door locking (SR EMUs) at speeds up to 90MPH and charters still do high(ish) speeds using the exact same stock and locomotives that you find on preserved lines. IMHO, if the metals and the stock are up to it a legal way to do it should be found, even if it is only for special trains during gala weekends.

 

[E&W Lucas]

longer lines such as the WSR and the NYMR faster speeds are a vital part of their business case.
Any thoughts or opinions on the viability of a 50mph preserved railway?

Flawed assumption.

95%+++ of the paying visitors to the major preserved lines are Joe Public, with the wife and kids, out for a family day out. Enthusiasts only make up a tiny proportion of their customers. The former are quite happy with a leisurely journey. As for the NYMR, the line speed was only ever 35mph anyway.

Practical objections have been pretty much covered. AWS, TPWS, Maybe OTMR, overhaul standards/ having to demonstrate the training of the people doing the work (nightmare), signal sighting, signalling overlaps, track layout as a result of that, pway standards, lineside fencing, review of level crossings & occupation crossings, maybe a requirement to adopt a more secure block system (many lines use the cheap and cheerful Staff & Ticket system), having your crew training & record keeping put under the microscope... Some form of door locking, even if it is manual, with door stewards, is mandatory for 25mph+ running. Probably cost a few expensive salaries as well, to get people with the necessary bits of paper.

Can't see it happening.

 

[Spagnoletti]

Practical objections have been pretty much covered. AWS, TPWS, Maybe OTMR, overhaul standards/ having to demonstrate the training of the people doing the work (nightmare), signal sighting, signalling overlaps, track layout as a result of that, pway standards, lineside fencing, review of level crossings & occupation crossings, maybe a requirement to adopt a more secure block system (many lines use the cheap and cheerful Staff & Ticket system), having your crew training & record keeping put under the microscope... Some form of door locking, even if it is manual, with door stewards, is mandatory for 25mph+ running. Probably cost a few expensive salaries as well, to get people with the necessary bits of paper.

Can't see it happening.

There is also the somewhat onerous transport & works order process that would have to be negotiated. That costs a few quid too.

 

[Domeyhead]

Flawed assumption.

95%+++ of the paying visitors to the major preserved lines are Joe Public, with the wife and kids, out for a family day out. Enthusiasts only make up a tiny proportion of their customers.

You are assuming that the passengers on every train on every day are proportionate to the annual averages. Of course they aren't. I deliberately stated previously that faster trains are catering for the enthusiast market, because quite clearly they don't benefit Thomas, Ivor, wine and dine, real ale trains Santa Specials etc etc. so higher speeds would never be used on those services or those weekends. Enthusiasts don't go to Thomas or Santa weekends and mums tend not to be interested in freight train weekends! You don't mix up your markets but you do cater for them individually and develop them if you can. In marketing terms higher speed running would be a new (and initially unique) marketing opportunity aimed at the enthusiast end of the market, not just for the speed itself but to give engines the chance to be worked harder - and that is what the real appeal would be. And I agree with what you say about market size so I suggested no more than a handful of weekends in any year.
From informed opinion I suspect that the regulatory costs and the machinery of bureaucracy may be too high to be worthwhile not to mention things like general liability insurance, but the infrastructure and rolling stock costs are probably containable.
Make no mistake though, there is a market out there for a preserved railway running some trains at higher speeds on some weekends. I'm just surprised nobody seems to have done a cost/benefit analysis and come up with actual figures.

 

[E&W Lucas]

You are assuming that the passengers on every train on every day are proportionate to the annual averages. .

But the railways only run galas on 3- 4 weekends a year. The costs of high speed running, that have been explained by several of us above, will be there every day of the year.

Do you have any evidence that there's a business case for, essentially, converting preserved lines into mainline railways? (Because that is what higher speeds will mean). The management of these lines are all keenly striving to raise their incomes, yet none has taken the course that you suggest. In the case of those that were higher speed routes, eg the GCR & MHR, I am sure that they have considered the prospect at some length.

The nearest thing to this has been the NYMR's Whitby running, but that has only incurred the bureaucracy, loco & coach costs. Little infrastructure work required, as it's hiring someone else's railway.

The market for higher speed steam is the mainline charters. Again, it's hard to make money on that. An informed source of mine said that if they put on an eight coach charter, they didn't break even until they had sold 6 1/2 of them!

 

[Spagnoletti]

Make no mistake though, there is a market out there for a preserved railway running some trains at higher speeds on some weekends. I'm just surprised nobody seems to have done a cost/benefit analysis and come up with actual figures.

I'm sure there's a market, but as a proportion of the total passenger trips made it's most likely tiny.
I can't really see any benefit - just cost.
Any heritage railway management who decided to risk the entire business for the sake of an unidentified number of enthusiast passengers would be raving bonkers, IMO.

 

[Old Timer]

Heritage Railways which operate passenger trains at up to 25mph (40Kmph) are excluded from the need to hold a Safety Certificate under the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems Safety Regulations.

Above this speed, the operation would come within the full remit of the Regulations, in the same way as a mainline railway, unless agreement can be reached with HMRI for higher speed operations to be restricted to a number of occasions a year, say.

With higher speeds comes a higher level maintenance regime, as well as increased safety and hazard profiles which would require attention. There is also then the question of the management and inspection of the track, which would need a suitably qualified person with appropriate capabilities to determine what was an acceptable track condition for safe running.

 

[ungreat]

I reckon if you were starting from scratch on a preserved railway you'd be better off installing something on the lines of LT tripcock. There is a precedent on Island Lines.

Island lines has tripcock equipment because they operate ex tube stock..and they aren't a preserved line.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Island lines has tripcock equipment because they operate ex tube stock..and they aren't a preserved line.

Anyone ever tried fitting it to a steam loco?

In reality, HMRI would insist on TPWS & AWS.

 

[Domeyhead]

At the risk of steering this in a new direction what interests me about this thread is that it exhibits what I think of as "Engineering Leadership", as distinct from "Market driven Leadership". Interesting because British Rail itself had this same dilemma in the seventies and eighties, and indeed almost every preserved railway when it first started out was Engineering-led and Engineering thought, albeit unconsciously. And in every single instance without exception it failed. It failed when each railway came to recognise that diversification, new markets, separation of markets, and repeat business were the only routes to survival, let alone success. This was when General Managers from outside the hierarchy came to be appointed, Santa Specials, Catering trains, Thomas, Ivor and the rest came into being.
The enthusiast market is being underestimated and misjudged here because it is being regarded as an absolute statistic and not analysed for underlying characteristics. Just for starters the enthusiast market has greater distance independence. Secondly it is resilient for repeat visits. Thirdly it is loyal to the movement as a whole. I could even go on to analyse the disposable income characteristics of the enthusiast market but I'm sure you can imagine the demographic characteristics by observing how many families go on heritage diesel raitours
Technical challenges are there to be overcome. I repeat again that I have yet to see a properly conducted cost benefit or market analysis of the potential for selective higher speed running. My basic market propostion is that
1) the great lure of higher speed running is to allow preserved engines to work harder, not necessarily to shorten journey times.
2) Higher speed running on a preserved line offers visitors the chance to see and experience the engines at work from multiple vantage points inside and outside the train. You can travel on a railtour and not enjoy the variety of locomotive experiences from a day on a suitable provisioned railway. In fact they are complementary experiences.
3) The characteristics of the enthusiast market mean that the income stream is more certain - unlike huge investments made for the benefit of the casual visitor markets.
4) The characteristics of the enthusiast market mean that it is possible to greatly increase both numbers and ratios by offering it a new experience. (eg Tornado)
5) Freight train weekends are an example of an operation aimed solely at the enthusiast market and would not exist if railways took the statistical approach outlined by others above. That is not the way to do business. Railways still cater profitably for enthusiasts even though they form less than 5% of annual passenger figures, because they are concentrated on some weekends when that proportion is reversed.

You can probably tell I'm a consultant by trade as well as an enthusiast by choice, and the preserved railway movement can and must do a whole lot more if it is to fuel the kind of ambitions that many of us still dream about yet dare not utter.

 

[Tomnick]

5) Freight train weekends are an example of an operation aimed solely at the enthusiast market and would not exist if railways took the statistical approach outlined by others above. That is not the way to do business. Railways still cater profitably for enthusiasts even though they form less than 5% of annual passenger figures, because they are concentrated on some weekends when that proportion is reversed.

That's probably the part of preserved operations most comparable to these 'high-speed' passenger workings - they don't directly bring in any revenue, but they're a key part of the atmosphere and the attraction at many special events. Indeed, I suppose you could argue that the GC's intensive passenger service is a waste of money as you could probably get the same number of passengers on a 45-minute or hourly frequency service. But then wouldn't Virgin's 3tph service to Manchester be a waste of money on the same basis? The increase in frequency, the higher speeds (not the same as Virgin's case, where the attraction is the reduced journey time!) or just all the steam-hauled freight traffic pootling up and down all day - I don't think we'd be anywhere near as popular without attractions like those.

 

[E&W Lucas]

At the risk of steering this in a new direction what interests me about this thread is that it exhibits what I think of as "Engineering Leadership", as distinct from "Market driven Leadership". Interesting because British Rail itself had this same dilemma in the seventies and eighties, and indeed almost every preserved railway when it first started out was Engineering-led and Engineering thought, albeit unconsciously. And in every single instance without exception it failed. It failed when each railway came to recognise that diversification, new markets, separation of markets, and repeat business were the only routes to survival, let alone success. This was when General Managers from outside the hierarchy came to be appointed, Santa Specials, Catering trains, Thomas, Ivor and the rest came into being.
The enthusiast market is being underestimated and misjudged here because it is being regarded as an absolute statistic and not analysed for underlying characteristics. Just for starters the enthusiast market has greater distance independence. Secondly it is resilient for repeat visits. Thirdly it is loyal to the movement as a whole. I could even go on to analyse the disposable income characteristics of the enthusiast market but I'm sure you can imagine the demographic characteristics by observing how many families go on heritage diesel raitours
Technical challenges are there to be overcome. I repeat again that I have yet to see a properly conducted cost benefit or market analysis of the potential for selective higher speed running. My basic market propostion is that
1) the great lure of higher speed running is to allow preserved engines to work harder, not necessarily to shorten journey times.
2) Higher speed running on a preserved line offers visitors the chance to see and experience the engines at work from multiple vantage points inside and outside the train. You can travel on a railtour and not enjoy the variety of locomotive experiences from a day on a suitable provisioned railway. In fact they are complementary experiences.
3) The characteristics of the enthusiast market mean that the income stream is more certain - unlike huge investments made for the benefit of the casual visitor markets.
4) The characteristics of the enthusiast market mean that it is possible to greatly increase both numbers and ratios by offering it a new experience. (eg Tornado)
5) Freight train weekends are an example of an operation aimed solely at the enthusiast market and would not exist if railways took the statistical approach outlined by others above. That is not the way to do business. Railways still cater profitably for enthusiasts even though they form less than 5% of annual passenger figures, because they are concentrated on some weekends when that proportion is reversed.

You can probably tell I'm a consultant by trade as well as an enthusiast by choice, and the preserved railway movement can and must do a whole lot more if it is to fuel the kind of ambitions that many of us still dream about yet dare not utter.

I think we're probably going to go round in circles here. Have you any involvement in railway preservation at all?

You've not been given a list of engineering obsticles, as they can mostly be overcome. What's above is a list commercial difficulties, due to the sheer cost of implementing them.

You've not recognised that these costs will be in place every day. You can't just "up" the standard of your track, signaling, train protection systems, locos, etc. just for a gala weekend.

As for enthusiasts having higher disposable incomes, what makes you think that? What I do know is that "my" railway's retail team hardly bother with enthusiast lines, eg books, dvd's, etc, as they are slow turnover, low margin, and of no interest to most visitors.

The leading lines have been on the go for 40 years now. They've targeted the general public market for that time, and are still in business. That suggests that such a market is very durable. The enthusiast market is, however, notoriously fickle. There is also the danger of putting an expensive event on, and only attracting the lineside freeloader brigade.

i'll add one final technical point. Preserved lines will still for the most part too short to get a loco properly hot, and keep it that way. If you introduce hard, mainline style acceleration, you will absolutely kill boilers. Boiler overhauls are very, very expensive!