Adding Passenger Services To Existing Freight-Only Lines

[flixtonman]

What, if any, alterations have to be made to an existing freight-only line in order that the line might accommodate passenger services?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Agreement from the freight companies in a lot of cases. The freight only lines are keeping freight services out of passenger services way as is.

 

[221129]

Stations? Various signalling changes and improvements, general track and other infrastructure improvements. Some lines it would just be a paperwork excercise.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I'm intrigued by the Byth and Tyne upgrade. This is a line made for heavy stuff (I imagine) but a passengerisation seems to involve a geological survey. I assume this is just proposed station sites? After Ilkeston I'd have thought looking for newts a better idea.

 

[RT4038]

I'm intrigued by the Byth and Tyne upgrade. This is a line made for heavy stuff (I imagine) but a passengerisation seems to involve a geological survey. I assume this is just proposed station sites? After Ilkeston I'd have thought looking for newts a better idea.

I would guess that there is an expectation that the passenger trains will travel at a higher speed, and therefore the track will need fettling up/relaying, and with that the ground conditions will need to be known, hence the geological survey. Especially in a former coal mining district, where track subsidence will be a problem.

Signalling will need upgrading, as freight only lines do not need to be worked 'absolute block' to passenger train standards, I believe.

 

[Chris NS]

I'm intrigued by the Byth and Tyne upgrade. This is a line made for heavy stuff (I imagine) but a passengerisation seems to involve a geological survey. I assume this is just proposed station sites? After Ilkeston I'd have thought looking for newts a better idea.

IIRC, the current speed limit of the (mostly straight) line is 20 mph: fine for freight, hopeless for a passenger service of this distance. Not surpising that ground surveys would be the first stage of conversion to a viable passenger line.

 

[Gloster]

All facing points would need to be fitted with facing point locks; most in panel controlled areas should already be, but elsewhere this might not be the case. Some signals might have to be moved if a minor run past could come into collision with a conflicting movement. If the line speed was raised then signal sighting and clearance would need to be re-examined.

 

[Bald Rick]

Apart from track upgrades, signalling alterations, building stations (all potentially very significant), there could be:

Level crossing upgrades - the risk at a level crossing of a frequent passenger service at, say, 60mph is very very much higher than that of a handful of freight trains a day crossing at 20mph.

Lineside security - a much more frequent service needs higher security (usually better fencing) to keep the neighbours out (as the risk is higher)

Any new facilities for changed maintenance, usually for higher maintenance standards, but also possibly for changed access arrangement due to the more frequent service. (Eg if doing points maintenance in daytime becomes impractical, junction lighting may be required).

New workstations in the signalling centre to cope with the additional workload

And I’m sure there’s more.

 

[Tio Terry]

In addition to the items Bald Rick has mentioned, add GSM-R.

The DfT will expect every effort to be made to remove level crossings and replace them with bridges where feasible, and will probably want all AHB's replaced with full barriers and CCTV.

If electrification is also required there's a load more to think about!

 

[Bald Rick]

The DfT will expect every effort to be made to remove level crossings and replace them with bridges where feasible, and will probably want all AHB's replaced with full barriers and CCTV.

Not necessarily.

The ORR will expect that for a line that is already open, but sees a significant intensification of service and/or change in service (ie passenger trains vs freight trains, and/or quicker trains), that appropriate risk assessment is conducted across all matters, of which Level crossings is but one. Other issues include lineside security, signal risk assessments, vehicle incursion, staff safety, and so on.

If the risk increase as a result of a new passenger service on a freight line (which it will, significantly, for any vehicular crossings) then appropriate mitigation will need to be developed and implemented. Bridges are less likely to be required, unless the service intensity is such that barrier downtime will cause an issue on the highway Network, or the whole life cost of providing an MCB level crossing is more expensive than a bridge (which definitely happens).

 

[Tio Terry]

Not necessarily.

The ORR will expect that for a line that is already open, but sees a significant intensification of service and/or change in service (ie passenger trains vs freight trains, and/or quicker trains), that appropriate risk assessment is conducted across all matters, of which Level crossings is but one. Other issues include lineside security, signal risk assessments, vehicle incursion, staff safety, and so on.

If the risk increase as a result of a new passenger service on a freight line (which it will, significantly, for any vehicular crossings) then appropriate mitigation will need to be developed and implemented. Bridges are less likely to be required, unless the service intensity is such that barrier downtime will cause an issue on the highway Network, or the whole life cost of providing an MCB level crossing is more expensive than a bridge (which definitely happens).

Any such change would, of course, be subject to CSM-RA as required by ROGS.

My experience is such that there is a reluctance to see any form of increase in the number of level crossings on passenger carrying lines anywhere.

 

[Bald Rick]

Any such change would, of course, be subject to CSM-RA as required by ROGS.

My experience is such that there is a reluctance to see any form of increase in the number of level crossings on passenger carrying lines anywhere.

My experience is that there is a reluctance to see an increase in level crossings full stop, and a reluctance to see any increase in level crossing risk without reasonable mitigation. As someone who’s signature used to appear on LX risk assessments, it rather concentrates the mind if you were to sign one that permitted an increase in risk without considering mitigation. (I never did).

The Northumberland line, if it reopens to passengers, will have level crossings.

 

[Tio Terry]

My experience is that there is a reluctance to see an increase in level crossings full stop, and a reluctance to see any increase in level crossing risk without reasonable mitigation. As someone who’s signature used to appear on LX risk assessments, it rather concentrates the mind if you were to sign one that permitted an increase in risk without considering mitigation. (I never did).

The Northumberland line, if it reopens to passengers, will have level crossings.

As a former CIP and Principal Assessor I would never have accepted one if you had!

 

[zwk500]

The Northumberland line, if it reopens to passengers, will have level crossings.

Technically the Blyth and Tyne is open for passengers, according to the Sectional Appendix (no idea when anything other than a Railtour last ran over it). In theory if the ECML were to be blocked south of Morpeth then LNER & TPE could be diverted straight away (driver knowledge/unit route clearance permitting). Not sure if that has any affect on the LX assessment, given that the risk of a blue-moon event will be markedly different from a regular service, and the linespeed will need upgrading from 20-45mph for regular services.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure if that has any affect on the LX assessment, given that the risk of a blue-moon event will be markedly different from a regular service, and the linespeed will need upgrading from 20-45mph for regular services.

Yes it would - the risk assessment is based on the traffic that is planned to operate over it not whether the line can operate passengers or not.

 

[zwk500]

Yes it would - the risk assessment is based on the traffic that is planned to operate over it not whether the line can operate passengers or not.

Thought that might be the case, cheers!

 

[Merle Haggard]

It would be interesting to have a list of truly 'freight only' lines. It might be quite short.
As well as the routes covered by Parliamentry trains, there are routes which have no regular timetabled passenger services but which are used by passenger trains on diversion when the usual route is blocked by engineering work or mishap.
Obviously lines that terminate in private sidings are never used by diverted passenger trains but, with coal mine closures in particular, there can be few in this category, and, certainly as far as the former LMR and E/NER go it's been possible for me to travel almost all of the through routes that do not see a timetabled passenger train, by careful study of engineering diversion plans and good luck.
My understanding also is that there was a policy, undertaken in the late 1960s - 70s, of re-signalling etc. 'Goods Lines' for passenger services where they provided alternative routes in the event of disruption.

 

[Gloster]

My understanding also is that there was a policy, undertaken in the late 1960s - 70s, of re-signalling etc. 'Goods Lines' for passenger services where they provided alternative routes in the event of disruption.

This would have been when the existing signalling, which would mostly have been to passenger standards, was replaced when resignalling took place. Replacement on a like-for-like basis would have to be justified to the bean-counters and Ministry of Transport/Treasury, who would no doubt have preferred it to be to cheaper goods-only standards.

 

[DB]

It would be interesting to have a list of truly 'freight only' lines. It might be quite short.

With the closure of coal mines, it's going to mostly be quarries and similar - e.g. Swinden Quarry (branch from Skipton), Hope cement works, Boulby Potash mine (continuation of passenger line to Saltburn), etc.

 

[Merle Haggard]

This would have been when the existing signalling, which would mostly have been to passenger standards, was replaced when resignalling took place. Replacement on a like-for-like basis would have to be justified to the bean-counters and Ministry of Transport/Treasury, who would no doubt have preferred it to be to cheaper goods-only standards.

When I referred to signalling it was intended in a general way; for example, permissive block working on goods only lines.

With the closure of coal mines, it's going to mostly be quarries and similar - e.g. Swinden Quarry (branch from Skipton), Hope cement works, Boulby Potash mine (continuation of passenger line to Saltburn), etc.

And, self-evidently, in many cases not to a centre of population.

 

[Class 170101]

Yes it would - the risk assessment is based on the traffic that is planned to operate over it not whether the line can operate passengers or not.

Plus an allowance over the regular timetable presumably otherwise no STP diversion on any line for example ECML via Cambridge for Hitchin to Peterborough.

 

[JamesT]

The Cowley branch line is freight only since 1963 and currently only serves the BMW Mini factory. There have been some noises about reopening it for passenger operations, but I don’t think anyone is close to stumping up the case for upgrading the infrastructure to the required standard or building new stations along the route.