What consideration should be given to heritage railways when proposing reopenings?

[sprunt]

From the thread about the proposed Cheltenham Racecourse station:

By the way, how would this co-ordinate with the heritage railway?

Is it excessively harsh to say that the existence of heritage railways should take a low precedence in the list of things to worry about when considering if lines should be re-opened? While I'm sure they are something that forum users think on the whole are a good thing, I think it's reasonable to suggest that where a potential re-opening is considered important enough on its merits to go ahead, a heritage railway shouldn't be allowed to block that.

If I'm wrong, I'd be interested to hear why.

 

[duffield]

From the thread about the proposed Cheltenham Racecourse station:



Is it excessively harsh to say that the existence of heritage railways should take a low precedence in the list of things to worry about when considering if lines should be re-opened? While I'm sure they are something that forum users think on the whole are a good thing, I think it's reasonable to suggest that where a potential re-opening is considered important enough on its merits to go ahead, a heritage railway shouldn't be allowed to block that.

If I'm wrong, I'd be interested to hear why.

Surely the answer is 'It depends'? For example, railways like the NYMR and the Bluebell are clearly *major* tourist and heritage assets which it would be very difficult to justify closing. With no disrespect to the Lavender line**, (on the possible Uckfield to Lewes reopening route) it is clearly nowhere near in the same league.

** Not trying to pick on this line but it's just a good example of a minor heritage railway which is in the path of a long-mooted significant reopening.

In the specific case of the GWSR, in theory there is no reason it couldn't co-exist with a National Rail service to Bishops Cleeve - one platform each at Cheltenham Racecourse, parallel single track lines for 2 miles from Racecourse to Cleeve, 25mph running on this section for a mere 2 miles wouldn't be much of an issue.
Not that I think there's any real likelihood of this happening.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

It's an issue when it come to the possible reopening of Carmarthen > Aberystwyth with part of the track bed occupied by the Gwili Railway. In that case, it would probably be possible to relocate the heritage railway to one of the route's disused branches and the cost of doing so would be fairly minor in the context of the overall scheme.

Again, it's an unlikely plan that certainly wouldn't happen on such a rural route in England. If the Welsh Parliament is hung after the 2021 election though, it's very likely to be a Plaid Cymru demand in coalition talks.

 

[Bald Rick]

They are a business like any other that might be located in the way of a proposed new line. Planning law requires that they are treated in exactly the same way.

 

[Meole]

Appears that Weardale Railway is to become a commuter feeder to Darlington as Auckland project buys it :
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/n...ct-wants-re-connect-historic-line-darlington/

 

[HSTEd]

They are a business like any other that might be located in the way of a proposed new line. Planning law requires that they are treated in exactly the same way.

If the new line was to be authorised by a hybrid bill, rather than attempting to compulsorily purchase all the assest of the company individually, wouldn't they possibly nationalise the heritage railway's legal entity itself?

For example the way that steel was nationalised the first time - essentially compulsorily purchasing the share certificates rather than the assets of the company.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the new line was to be authorised by a hybrid bill, rather than attempting to compulsorily purchase all the assest of the company individually, wouldn't they possibly nationalise the heritage railway's legal entity itself?

For example the way that steel was nationalised the first time - essentially compulsorily purchasing the share certificates rather than the assets of the company.

Either way, it’s still compulsory purchase, for which the owners would receive fair compensation.

 

[Belperpete]

Look what happened to the line to Ashburton when it was decided it was in the way of road improvements.

 

[Mogz]

There are many ways round it:

One platform each
Dual running (like NYMR to Whitby)
Heritage at weekends only
Parallel lines

 

[RT4038]

Look what happened to the line to Ashburton when it was decided it was in the way of road improvements.

But IIRC, the line was owned by British Railways, who had to give Local Authorities first refusal of any line sale, and this was taken up on the Buckfastleigh-Ashburton section. The line was not compulsorily acquired from DVR.

 

[Halifaxlad]

There are many ways round it:

One platform each
Dual running (like NYMR to Whitby)
Heritage at weekends only
Parallel lines

I have had similar thoughts for other lines such as the Embsay Railway where you could lay either use their line or lay a parallel line and bypass the stations.

I think in future years the sharing of lines will be seen as beneficial to both parties, say for establishing mid week services that aren't provided by the heritage line whereby track access charges could bring in much needed revenue. I would quite like to see something like this on the North Yorkshire Moors railway provided that the line from Malton is reinstated.

 

[HSTEd]

Unfortunately I doubt there is sufficient space in many alignments for the two lines to be separated by a fence, so I am not sure having parallel separated lines is particularly viable.

 

[mwmbwls]

I doubt if there is a one size fits all solution. I think that Peak Rail is an interesting example to debate. There is/was interest in commercialising and extending the line north of Rowsley in order to divert freight trains from the quarries in Buxton - freeing up paths on the Hope Valley and Midland Main Lines. Setting aside for the moment securing a satisfactory resolution for the concerns of existing stakeholders (users of route for leisure purposes) and the opposition of others who took over the track bed - for example behind Haddon Hall - Could the creation of new public/private joint ventures be the way forward? Another solution could be facilitated re-location or merger - again could Peak Rail co-locate with the Ecclesbourne railway. I recognise that this type of solution is fraught with difficulties - if you want to run a railway to modern health and safety standards - is it fundamentally compatible with heritage technology? Who will set up and pay for a safety compliant infrastructure?

 

[HSTEd]

In many ways the easiest solution would be to contract with the heritage railway to move a rake of wagons from one end to the other of it's track, where it can be turned over to a regular FOC locomotive and crew.

Whether or not many heritage railways have sufficient equipment to reliably move a stone train (for example) is another question.

 

[Halifaxlad]

In many ways the easiest solution would be to contract with the heritage railway to move a rake of wagons from one end to the other of it's track, where it can be turned over to a regular FOC locomotive and crew.

Whether or not many heritage railways have sufficient equipment to reliably move a stone train (for example) is another question.

Surely the easiest way would be for the line to contract out the track maintenance? In future years they might have to do this anyway ?

 

[HSTEd]

Surely the easiest way would be for the line to contract out the track maintenance? In future years they might have to do this anyway ?

The cost of maintaining their trackwork to NR standards would probably break them.
The contract would probably have to pay for it entirely by itself.

 

[mwmbwls]

In many ways the easiest solution would be to contract with the heritage railway to move a rake of wagons from one end to the other of it's track, where it can be turned over to a regular FOC locomotive and crew.Whether or not many heritage railways have sufficient equipment to reliably move a stone train (for example) is another question.

Surely the easiest way would be for the line to contract out the track maintenance? In future years they might have to do this anyway ?

The recent expansion of the run round sidings at Nun Brook in Buxton increased the trailing load to 2500 tonnes consisting of 26 hoppers(548 metres). I doubt that Peak Rail have any locomotives capable of pulling and more importantly braking that sort of load. Splitting trains and remarshalling for the onward run down the MML would require a yard/sidings somewhere before the junction with the MML at Ambergate/Belper. I also suspect that there would have to be a major upgrade to match Network Rail's current track and signalling standards. There would also need to significant work on existing bridges, viaducts and tunnels. As the mineral companies would in all probably be funding the project either in whole or in part, their views, and those of Network Rail, as to track availability would be liable to prevail over lightly capitalised preservationists' concerns. This takes us back to the original exam question as to how much political/managerial weight preserved lines would exert in terms of the MOSCOW hierarchy of influence (Must have.Should have,Could have,Would like to have). I believe that their options would fall into the last(least important) "Would like to have" category - and that is before the almost inevitable clamour to reinstate national/regional passenger services that would follow the introduction of freight trains.

 

[HSTEd]

The recent expansion of the run round sidings at Nun Brook in Buxton increased the trailing load to 2500 tonnes consisting of 26 hoppers. I doubt that Peak Rail have any locomotives capable of pulling and more importantly braking that sort of load. Splitting trains and remarshalling for the onward run down the MML would require a yard/sidings somewhere before the junction with the MML at Ambergate/Belper. I also suspect that there would have to be a major upgrade to match Network Rail's current track and signalling standards. There would also need to significant work on existing bridges, viaducts and tunnels. As the mineral companies would in all probably be funding the project either in whole or in part, their views, and those of Network Rail, as to track availability would be liable to prevail over lightly capitalised preservationists' concerns. This takes us back to the original exam question as to how much political/managerial weight preserved lines would exert in terms of the MOSCOW hierarchy of influence (Must have.Should have,Could have,Would like to have). I believe that their options would fall into the last(least important) "Would like to have" category - and that is before the almost inevitable clamour to reinstate national/regional passenger services that would follow the introduction of freight trains.

Unless you propose to impose a TWO or act of Parliament for a handful of freight trains, they are in possession of the property and are not required to assist the railway in any way if they do not wish to.

And obtaining a TWO over the objection of preservationists is not going to be an easy sell for such an unimportant scheme.

Network Rail might be used to throwing their weight around, but they do not have unlimited power.
The costs of seizing the railway over the objections of the current owners would also be so enormous as to be comparable to simply building a new line on a different alignment.

 

[mwmbwls]

I would suspect a TWAO would be the required decision route. Indeed I believe that this might be requisite of most such rail revival schemes. (It was for both the new and upgraded sections of the EWR). I am sure you are already aware that such orders are determined by the Planning Inspectorate/DfT so Network Rail "throwing their weight about" would not come into it. Proposers and Opposers would have a chance to state their case, as would the public. The final decision would be made by the Secretary of State for Transport based upon his Inspector's report. Nor would it necessarily be just a couple of trains from Hindlow but trains that currently head north from Tunstead to Chinley and over the Hope Valley route and thence the Dore South Curve. There are, as has been discussed here, capacity constraints on the South Trans-Pennine Route - so it also a question of augmented passenger train paths elsewhere.

I am intrigued by your suggestion of a new line on a different alignment - would you care to elaborate?

I do not dispute that the proposal would be contentious but I think that the objections of the railway preservationists would be dwarfed by those who wish to preserve the rurality of the Peak District. However it is important to remember that there is already an issue with the large number of HGV's carrying stone from Quarries.

Indeed the Peak District National Park's own assessment notes the significance and issues raised by Aggregate Extraction.

Investment in rail infrastructure will help to unlock the market reach of minerals from High Peak and Derbyshire Dales among the larger quarry sites which are already connected to the rail network. Operators are looking to transport an increasing share of output via rail, but there are known capacity constraints on the network. Rail gauge improvements at Buxton will help to overcome some of the constraints, but a larger issue for the sector is the need for 24 hour operating depots in the larger cities across the UK. The presence of new housing development near to existing depots poses a threat to 24 hour depot operations due to the potential environmental conflicts. Careful planning consideration in the approval of surrounding housing sites should help to mitigate this potential threat to the sector. 
Investment in overcoming known local road congestion challenges will significantly help the sector to transport bulk minerals efficiently. The sector has identified three main blockages on the road network, including transport through Buxton and Ashbourne, where new bypasses are seen by the sector as desirable

https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__d...e_Extraction_in_High_Peak___Derbyshire_Dales_

 

[paul1609]

Unfortunately I doubt there is sufficient space in many alignments for the two lines to be separated by a fence, so I am not sure having parallel separated lines is particularly viable.

The Spa Valley doesn't have a fence between Eridge and Birchden Junction.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Spa Valley doesn't have a fence between Eridge and Birchden Junction.

No, but it does have special operating arrangements.

 

[Bobdogs]

It's an issue when it come to the possible reopening of Carmarthen > Aberystwyth with part of the track bed occupied by the Gwili Railway. In that case, it would probably be possible to relocate the heritage railway to one of the route's disused branches and the cost of doing so would be fairly minor in the context of the overall scheme.

Again, it's an unlikely plan that certainly wouldn't happen on such a rural route in England. If the Welsh Parliament is hung after the 2021 election though, it's very likely to be a Plaid Cymru demand in coalition talks.

I seem.to remember seeing an outline route plan that shadowed the A485 on a more direct line to Lampeter thus avoiding the Gwilli Railway.

 

[Belperpete]

The Spa Valley doesn't have a fence between Eridge and Birchden Junction.

Neither is there a fence between NR and FR where the lines run parallel through Blaenau Ffestiniog.

 

[Belperpete]

Unless you propose to impose a TWO or act of Parliament for a handful of freight trains, they are in possession of the property and are not required to assist the railway in any way if they do not wish to. And obtaining a TWO over the objection of preservationists is not going to be an easy sell for such an unimportant scheme.

I think that there is a difference between a freight-only scheme that would be perceived to be in the freight operator's own interest, and a scheme for running a regular passenger service that would be perceived to be in the national interest.

I would expect any proposal for running freight trains over Peak Rail would be achieved by agreement with Peak Rail. The scheme proposer would pay for the one-off cost of upgrading the line (which I suspect Peak Rail would be quite keen on), and there would be an on-going payment for the running of trains (which would cover maintenance costs and any operational costs). The freight operator's drivers and rolling stock would be passed to drive over Peak Rail, and Peak Rail would provide any signallers and other staff needed to facilitate the moves. The timing of the freight moves would be co-ordinated with the Peak Rail timetable. That would appear to be the simplest solution.

 

[HSTEd]

Neither is there a fence between NR and FR where the lines run parallel through Blaenau Ffestiniog.

Do these lines have facilities for communicaton between signallers to enable possessions to be coordinated and information to be rapidly passed between them?

 

[MarkyT]

For routine all day early start late finish passenger services, more centrally controlled signalling is essential, just as it is on the national network. Heritage lines can (usually) manage to roster sufficient volunteer signallers for typical daytime summer operations, but achieving that for all the traditional installations of a typical preserved railway, for at least two shifts a day, throughout the year, at unsocial hours, in all weather, is a different challenge altogether, and with the railways using modern vehicles for these socially useful services there's not even the attraction of being involved with heritage traction and rolling stock to attract at these times, so if paid staff are necessary, then economics demands a method of more centralised control to reduce costs, just as on the main line, and at a rare heritage example, the Dartmouth Steam Railway, where full colour light TCB signalling is controlled remotely by a single small panel at Britannia Crossing, requiring only one (employee) signaller to be on duty to run a full high season timetable.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Just to point out Peak Rail has its own platform at Matlock and to run round it uses the national network!

 

[mwmbwls]

I think that there is a difference between a freight-only scheme that would be perceived to be in the freight operator's own interest, and a scheme for running a regular passenger service that would be perceived to be in the national interest.

I would expect any proposal for running freight trains over Peak Rail would be achieved by agreement with Peak Rail. The scheme proposer would pay for the one-off cost of upgrading the line (which I suspect Peak Rail would be quite keen on), and there would be an on-going payment for the running of trains (which would cover maintenance costs and any operational costs). The freight operator's drivers and rolling stock would be passed to drive over Peak Rail, and Peak Rail would provide any signallers and other staff needed to facilitate the moves. The timing of the freight moves would be co-ordinated with the Peak Rail timetable. That would appear to be the simplest solution.

A pragmatic point for operations from Rowsley to Matlock- but would it not cut both ways? One of the long term aspirations of Peak Rail was to get back to Buxton which would involve sustained running over tracks paid for the Government and maintained by Network Rail - unless the aggregate extraction companies built and owned the line south of Blackwell Mill. Apart from excursions how many preserved railways run services over Network Rail lines on a timetabled basis? For pragmatic reasons Peak Rail had to abandon its Buxton operation but many present and former Buxtonians still hold a share certificate based on that prospectus.

The Midland Railway Station Master's House Fairfield Buxton by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

(P.S. Just as a digression I would consider opening a new Buxton Station (c.f. Burnley Manchester Road) for Matlock services here next to Ashwood Park to avoid messy reversals)

For members unfamiliar with the nuances of what we are discussing - you might find the 2004 report commissioned by Derbyshire County Council and conducted by Scott Wilson of interest. It was written in different times when there was a Strategic Rail Authority who concurred with Network Rail that the Hope Valley line was a viable alternative and hence any reopening would not wash its face. The executive summary can be found here:
https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/site-...xecutive-summary-of-the-feasibility-study.pdf
However the fundamental issues raised then - shifting traffic from road to rail are memes that recur to this day - and what goes around comes around.

 

[Belperpete]

Do these lines have facilities for communicaton between signallers to enable possessions to be coordinated and information to be rapidly passed between them?

In the case of Blaenau, I believe that the FR control office (who effectively act as the FR's signaller) has the relevant direct dial-in numbers for Llanrwst and Llandudno Jcn boxes, and vice-versa. At times, the FR has to provide a handsignaller to control moves on the standard gauge over the joint foot-crossing.

 

[Belperpete]

A pragmatic point for operations from Rowsley to Matlock- but would it not cut both ways? One of the long term aspirations of Peak Rail was to get back to Buxton which would involve sustained running over tracks paid for the Government and maintained by Network Rail - unless the aggregate extraction companies built and owned the line south of Blackwell Mill.

Agreed, and I would expect that to be discussed as part of any deal. Who would pay to provide and maintain any additional facilities required at, say, Buxton for the Peak Rail services could be a sticking point.

Apart from excursions how many preserved railways run services over Network Rail lines on a timetabled basis?

The NYMR running to Whitby would provide a useful precedent.