Severn Valley Railway to trial commuter services

[Kentish RYS]

If you want to run over 25mph passenger services, then it is not just the standard of the track that would need to be considered. It is likely that the railway would cease to be classified as a light railway. In which case, it would have to meet full mainline standards. So ALL trains using the railway would likely have to be fitted with AWS and TPWS, meet modern crash worthy standards, etc. Having a train of old wooden carriages run into the path of a modern dmu running at 50 mph would not be good. Doors to be fitted with central door locking, platforms to have yellow lines and tactile paving, etc etc.

I would hope that the ORR might be prepared to grant some exemptions, but I suspect their starting point would be that the railway has to meet all the standards. I suspect that to continue running heritage trains on the line you would end up with something like the requirements for running steam specials on the mainline.

I think you would not quite be in that situation (also Light Railways Act isn't a thing many extensions in more recent years are on Transport and Works Act Orders and Light Railways could be over 25mph and heavily engineered anyway-West Highland Line anyone?).

Having faster trains the faster trains would probably want train protection (so TPWS) and probably a warning system (so AWS). Though you could go for something like LU Trainstops or something novel but the rolling stock wouldn't be fitted/would need a new bit maintained so I think that is not likely, it is TPWS & AWS or ETCS if you have a fleet fitted (but this would be more complicated to add as a level 1 overlay). With a way of preventing the fast trains from colliding with heritage ones I think you could probably keep heritage ones as is. Maybe want a portable radio on train that don't have them for GSM-R Railway Emergency Call Equivalents. If a heritage railway specific one (like the Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway has for Example) the mianline would need a portable radio anyway. Radio equipment would be an extra expense in this case

Anyway this is getting quite fanciful and would depend a bit on how the railways, TOCs and regulators involved wanted to arrange things.

 

[zwk500]

If you want to run over 25mph passenger services, then it is not just the standard of the track that would need to be considered. It is likely that the railway would cease to be classified as a light railway. In which case, it would have to meet full mainline standards.

On a technical and *very* pedantic note, heritage railways are no longer counted as light railways anyway. The Light Railways Acts 1896 and 1912 were fully repealed by the Transport and Works Act 1992.

Light Railways have also never been specifically restricted to 25mph by legislation (the SVR LRO says '(2) The Board shall not run any train or engine upon any part of the railways at rate of speed exceeding at any time that fixed by the Secretary of State for such part.' https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1973/357/pdfs/uksi_19730357_en.pdf

The SVR's Light Railway Orders presumably remain as their operating authority under grandfather rights. But for the purposes of the Railway Safety Regulations 1999, that is not relevant, as the RSR99 make no distinction between a 'heavy' and 'light' railway, only a railway and a tramway. The RSR99 applies (in effect) to any railway operating above 25mph.

So ALL trains using the railway would likely have to be fitted with AWS and TPWS, meet modern crash worthy standards, etc. Having a train of old wooden carriages run into the path of a modern dmu running at 50 mph would not be good. Doors to be fitted with central door locking, platforms to have yellow lines and tactile paving, etc etc.

I would hope that the ORR might be prepared to grant some exemptions, but I suspect their starting point would be that the railway has to meet all the standards. I suspect that to continue running heritage trains on the line you would end up with something like the requirements for running steam specials on the mainline.

Technically, to comply with the RSR99 the SVR would need to either come up with a plan to fit an ATP system or demonstrate it wasn't feasible! I would expect AWS/TPWS to be acceptable though. More importantly for the SVR, compliance with RSR99 means withdrawing all Mk1 stock unless fitted with central door locking.

There's a question as to whether the ORR would permit the commuter service to operate above 40kph (25mph) under one set of regulations, but for the SVR to then put it's 'heritage' hat on and claim exemption from the 25mph limit. Presumably the ORR would need to be satisfied that there would be some way of controlling for the risk of Drivers getting a bit enthusiastic if using the 'commuter' set on a 'heritage' service.

 

[kje7812]

Technically, to comply with the RSR99 the SVR would need to either come up with a plan to fit an ATP system or demonstrate it wasn't feasible! I would expect AWS/TPWS to be acceptable though. More importantly for the SVR, compliance with RSR99 means withdrawing all Mk1 stock unless fitted with central door locking.

At great expense, which the SVR (as with pretty all heritage railways) can't really afford in the present climate.

There's a question as to whether the ORR would permit the commuter service to operate above 40kph (25mph) under one set of regulations, but for the SVR to then put it's 'heritage' hat on and claim exemption from the 25mph limit. Presumably the ORR would need to be satisfied that there would be some way of controlling for the risk of Drivers getting a bit enthusiastic if using the 'commuter' set on a 'heritage' service.

Indeed, I have heard that the NYMR is encountering a similar issue with the need to improve their door locking for the Whitby run but they might be forced to do so for the whole operation.

 

[IanXC]

On a technical and *very* pedantic note, heritage railways are no longer counted as light railways anyway. The Light Railways Acts 1896 and 1912 were fully repealed by the Transport and Works Act 1992.

Light Railways have also never been specifically restricted to 25mph by legislation (the SVR LRO says '(2) The Board shall not run any train or engine upon any part of the railways at rate of speed exceeding at any time that fixed by the Secretary of State for such part.' https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1973/357/pdfs/uksi_19730357_en.pdf

The SVR's Light Railway Orders presumably remain as their operating authority under grandfather rights. But for the purposes of the Railway Safety Regulations 1999, that is not relevant, as the RSR99 make no distinction between a 'heavy' and 'light' railway, only a railway and a tramway. The RSR99 applies (in effect) to any railway operating above 25mph.

Technically, to comply with the RSR99 the SVR would need to either come up with a plan to fit an ATP system or demonstrate it wasn't feasible! I would expect AWS/TPWS to be acceptable though. More importantly for the SVR, compliance with RSR99 means withdrawing all Mk1 stock unless fitted with central door locking.

There's a question as to whether the ORR would permit the commuter service to operate above 40kph (25mph) under one set of regulations, but for the SVR to then put it's 'heritage' hat on and claim exemption from the 25mph limit. Presumably the ORR would need to be satisfied that there would be some way of controlling for the risk of Drivers getting a bit enthusiastic if using the 'commuter' set on a 'heritage' service.

I suppose you might be able to make an argument that, if the commuter service was run as an extension of the mainline service then most mainline drivers wouldn't be driving other stock on the line, so reducing that 'confusion' risk, and also that with appropriate Over Speed Sensors on approach to either end of the section you could significantly reduce the chance of the modern DMU travelling at the higher speed when any heritage stock is around.

 

[zwk500]

I suppose you might be able to make an argument that, if the commuter service was run as an extension of the mainline service then most mainline drivers wouldn't be driving other stock on the line, so reducing that 'confusion' risk, and also that with appropriate Over Speed Sensors on approach to either end of the section you could significantly reduce the chance of the modern DMU travelling at the higher speed when any heritage stock is around.

There are serval different ways I could imagine going about trying to get the relevant regulatory approvals. However, anything involving passengers being carried at faster than 25mph will require the fitting of TPWS to the infrastructure and all relevant rolling stock.

 

[duffield]

I'm really not convinced that there's the slightest point in running to Bewdley with (say) a 40mph limit rather than 25mph. It's only 3m11c and allowing for acceleration and deceleration I don't think you'd save more than 2 minutes on the journey, which in the context of changing to the mainline and getting to your destination is a rounding error.

If we were talking about running the full length of the line or something that's entirely different and wholesale infrastructure upgrades would be needed. But as it is, 25mph vs 40mph is really irrelevant.

 

[overthere 2]

Kentish RYS said:
I think it may be more likely that the Heritage Railway have paid PWay of their own who just up the standard. It means they will be more aware of what is going on but the general idea, if the local Geography (both in terms of where the railway is/goes to and the local traffic flows and the railway curvature, etc) works. Also means mainline charters could operate like an express (if they keep a mainline loco) and run through at the higher speed, though you do get crew competence issues at that point. The Great Central has different grades of driver for different max speeds as I understand it.

I do agree that if volunteers are trusted to maintain track for trains that run at 25mph then subject to the necessary training/equipment they should have no problem maintaining tracks at 40 - 50mph. Its more as I have said before that we sadly live in a "Sue anybody for everything society" so if something happened to a TOC train and it was found that there was a fault with the track then you can guarantee that a "No win No fee" lawyer would say: "That it was the volunteers fault because they are not proper track workers like Network Rail and only know how to look after track up to 25mph".

Which, if the heritage railways insurers wont insure them for, then potentially the heritage railway could be sued for millions of pound's which means they would shut down but if you had the heritage railway volunteers doing the work then every so often a NR person came along to sign it off then that problem should never arise.

Kentish RYS said:
Signalling there are sensible ideas but I'd say not a 'Hidden from the public so not too spoil the atmosphere modern signalling system' as you can't have two signalling systems on the same railway (unless I have misunderstood what you mean or you are intending on just having a modern system alone). What would be easy is moving signals for a higher speed/greater braking distance, often just a distant (most heritage lines are signalled for 25mph and don't have what was there before with different track layouts and traffic patterns to pre closure). Also having closing out switches in signalboxes and log section tokens. Also you could add TPWS and AWS as these are designed to be an add on. You just probably want to avoid putting TPWS grids where steam locos will stop over them. You could even fit ETCS level 1 with switchable balises but I think finding the competant staff and components for that would be a challenge

Its alright you are not misunderstanding me its just that I don't know in depth how signalling works, unlike quite a few other posters so I am just throwing out idea's (signalling and other things) and hoping someone can pick them up, modify them for the purpose needed and then use them.

Belperpete said:
If you want to run over 25mph passenger services, then it is not just the standard of the track that would need to be considered. It is likely that the railway would cease to be classified as a light railway. In which case, it would have to meet full mainline standards. So ALL trains using the railway would likely have to be fitted with AWS and TPWS, meet modern crash worthy standards, etc. Having a train of old wooden carriages run into the path of a modern dmu running at 50 mph would not be good. Doors to be fitted with central door locking, platforms to have yellow lines and tactile paving, etc etc.

I would hope that the ORR might be prepared to grant some exemptions, but I suspect their starting point would be that the railway has to meet all the standards. I suspect that to continue running heritage trains on the line you would end up with something like the requirements for running steam specials on the mainline.

When I have suggested in the past about a morning/evening TOC operated service on a heritage railway some people have said - which is fair enough - about that if you allow modern trains on the line and running at higher speeds then you would need modern infrastructure so spoiling the travelling back in time aspect of the railway.

What I worry about is that you get "officialdom" saying: "The heritage line has to become exactly the same as a proper railway" with all the rules and regulation's and the heritage railway management/volunteers saying: "We want to stay "oldy woldy" , So a scheme that means every one wins gets binned because no one is willing to compromise.

Here is an example of how things could work I used in another thread:

Next time you visit a stately home or any other historic building open to the public look around FORENSICALLY and after a while you will start to notice the Fire Exit signs, Fire extinguishers and all the other host of Health and Safety stuff you need to have to be open to the general public. The reason why I emphasize forensically is because a way has been found to put in the stuff that is needed but at the same time keep everything the same as it would have been in the past.

Also I saw a TV show where the presenter went to this castle and interviewed the bloke who owned it and he said that back in the day his Dad/Grandad brought the castle and literally threw the doors open to the public so he had people walking along the ramparts where they could have fallen off or going to the top off towers where they could have toppled over the edge. Obviously today with modern H a S there is now way that could carry on so now they have a simple single metal rail along the ramparts and at the top of the towers and 99% of the visitors would either not notice or assume the railing was there when the castle was built.

My point is that WSR and Network Rail could work together to do only what is absolutely necessary while at the same time keeping the atmosphere so the vast majority of visitors would not even notice (for example if lighting is needed then just put in some Victorian lampstands) also the modern stuff would only be at a couple of stations so the rest could keep the oldy woldy "atmosphere".

kje7812 said:
Having viewed several days worth of evening runs, numbers are generally 30 to 35 across the two departures.
Enough to justify continuation? Answers on a postcard...

I know its difficult to tell, but how many of each would you say are: Rail enthusiasts, general public doing it as a one off novelty or genuine commuters? because if the majority are commuters and considering the ticket shambles, the complete lack of none enthusiast media coverage, no midday train/tickets valid on lunchtime normal SVR services (for shoppers, visitors to Bewdley etc) and that while most people have to catch a certain train in the morning for work but in the afternoon/evening can change because of finishing work early/late or going on to something after then bus/taxi/lift from Kidderminster to Bewdley then there is something to work with.

 

[Tetragon213]

I'm really not convinced that there's the slightest point in running to Bewdley with (say) a 40mph limit rather than 25mph. It's only 3m11c and allowing for acceleration and deceleration I don't think you'd save more than 2 minutes on the journey, which in the context of changing to the mainline and getting to your destination is a rounding error.

If we were talking about running the full length of the line or something that's entirely different and wholesale infrastructure upgrades would be needed. But as it is, 25mph vs 40mph is really irrelevant.

When one takes into account the generous 15 minute connection time for the less than 2 minute walk from Kidderminster Town to Kidderminster Mainline, that 2 minute time saving becomes rather unimportant imo.

Going from Bridgnorth up to Kidderminster at 40mph would definitely shave time off the journey, but imo it's more fun to take the line at a slightly more sedate speed and enjoy the scenery a bit more.

 

[kje7812]

I know its difficult to tell, but how many of each would you say are: Rail enthusiasts, general public doing it as a one off novelty or genuine commuters? because if the majority are commuters and considering the ticket shambles, the complete lack of none enthusiast media coverage, no midday train/tickets valid on lunchtime normal SVR services (for shoppers, visitors to Bewdley etc) and that while most people have to catch a certain train in the morning for work but in the afternoon/evening can change because of finishing work early/late or going on to something after then bus/taxi/lift from Kidderminster to Bewdley then there is something to work with.

Bearing in mind the caveat at the start, there is definitely a decent number doing it for the novelty, especially on days where the evening runs are steam hauled. Double checking the numbers for the past week or two, the steam days are 25-30 in the evening, the non-steam days (Tuesdays plus other days) are 20-25. The big exception was Wednesday 17th but that was the day before the steam gala and wonder if some folks were getting the train to Bewdley as they were staying there for the gala.

I've heard* two figures for the per day usage for WMRE to deem it a success. Even the lower one is well above the numbers observed.

*Pinch of salt required.

 

[overthere 2]

Is it WMR ticket machines only? The website says "Collect from any station with a ticket machine" but my attempts to do so at an SWR station were unsuccessful.

There is no distinction in data terms between the ticket machines or one operator and another. However it’s possible that some ticket machine suppliers may need to make updates at some machines.

A friend of mine in Coventry tried to buy a ticket from a ticket machine and the machine didn't recognise Bewdley, but when they asked at the ticket office the ticket office would sell them a ticket.

Out of curiosity if you brought a ticket online to collect at a station where the machine did not recognise the destination what would happen?

A - When you brought the ticket online it would stop you from having the option of picking up the ticket from a station where the machine doesn't recognise the destination.

B - You would get to the station, and the machine would not give you your ticket.

C - The machine would give you your ticket as even though it doesn't personally recognise the destination it has been told to give you the ticket.

Bearing in mind the caveat at the start, there is definitely a decent number doing it for the novelty, especially on days where the evening runs are steam hauled. Double checking the numbers for the past week or two, the steam days are 25-30 in the evening, the non-steam days (Tuesdays plus other days) are 20-25. The big exception was Wednesday 17th but that was the day before the steam gala and wonder if some folks were getting the train to Bewdley as they were staying there for the gala.

I've heard* two figures for the per day usage for WMRE to deem it a success. Even the lower one is well above the numbers observed.

*Pinch of salt required.

Considering the ticket shambles, no leaflet drop to the local area?, the lack of none rail enthusiast media coverage, the constant saying only about Bewdley to Birmingham and ignoring other destinations Worcester for example, no lunchtime train or special tickets on the normal heritage trains for shoppers/day visitors to Bewdley and that as I have said while in the morning you usually have to catch a certain train but in the afternoon you might finish work early/late or go on somewhere else after and find some other way to get back to Bewdley then I would say 30 - 35 is something you can build on.


Also I saw this comment about this service (cant find the link now) from memory:

Eight weeks is not long enough because lets say you live in Bewdley and you are unemployed and are thinking of looking for work in Birmingham and you cant afford to learn to drive/own a car or just don't want to and the buses are not convenient/don't want to use them then you are not going to job hunt on only being able to guarantee you can get to your job for the first eight weeks but if it was at least a year then by the end of the trial you would have enough saved up so you might get a car, move to Birmingham or just maybe you like commuting by train and want to carry on living in Bewdley so stick with it.

Or

You live and work in Birmingham but you think you might want to move to Bewdley but keep your job in Birmingham, again you might not have a car for whatever reason or you have one but don't want to drive to Birmingham everyday so again eight weeks is useless but if it was a year then you might rent somewhere in Bewdley to test the arae out, use the commuter service and then at the end move back to Birmingham, find a job in Bewdley or again be quite happy to do the commute by train so move to Bewdley permanently.

And these two Facebook posts with the second one being particularly interesting:

Mark Tibbutt

Thank you SVR. It was fantastic to commute to Bewdley today. Cheaper than parking and so easy. Please advertise all the available journeys. I travelled from Hagley

Stephen Plimmer
Truly hope this fabulous initiative is evaluated in the right way. Whatever passengers it gets, the analysis needs to then consider:

1) It takes 3-5 years for a railway line or station to mature. At the end of a full first year, you might expect to have reached 40%-50% of the mature state - and perhaps after a month or two it would be considerably less than this.

2) Forcing passengers to change trains or buses introduces a massive perceived cost known as the interchange penalty (or transfer penalty) - plus the the time spent waiting for the next vehicle is penalised at 1.5x to 2.5x due to exposure to weather, crowding, and boredom etc. Remove these and you could count on a signficant uplift to passenger numbers.

3) In major urban areas, the mere act of transferring, even with zero walking or waiting time, is valued as equivalent to adding about 15 to 20 minutes of extra travel time.

4) A regular service provides reliability and trust, as well as accessing other rail markets outside of commuting, paricularly visiting "family and friends" - commuting is about 30% of rail journeys. A midday journey might add more than you'd think over time.

5) The obvious point is that adding other stations and extending to Bridgnorth will increase the £/mile in revenue that the route earns, helping with profitability. (Can I suggest if not being done, the analysis considers the various sources on rail demand to interpret the data and work out the true potential e.g. https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/pdfc/about-the-pdfh.html, National Trip End Model (NTEM) / TEMPro etc)
So whatever this fine initiative wins in passengers, you might want to multiply the final value several times over to show its true mid/longer term potential.
Best of luck, its a lovely railway in a gorgeous part of the country, and a fine, imaginative effort to get this up and running. Just want to see it get the chance it deserves.

 

[MrJeeves]

Out of curiosity if you brought a ticket online to collect at a station where the machine did not recognise the destination what would happen?

B - You would get to the station, and the machine would not give you your ticket.

This one.

 

[peteb]

I can't see that increasing the current speed limit for trains (on the Bewdley to Kidderminster section of the SVR in passenger carrying service) is going to be feasible for anyone. Rather, if the trial is considered successful, then through WMR running from the national network onto SVR metals could shorten overall Bewdley to Birmingham times considerably, (say by 10 minutes) and provide a convenient interchange at Kidderminster mainline station. This would also avoid having to open up the SVR station on non-running days, and free the platforms, carriage sheds and diesel yard for SVR associated maintenance and preparation for events and SVR running days.

I believe it's not currently possible to operate the Kidderminster Network Rail connection to Bewdley Platform 1 (best for disabled access) as a "siding", but I'm sure there are practical ways to adapt the current set up to cope with that if required, perhaps locking out access from Kidderminster SVR and Bewdley platforms 2 and 3 whilst the WMR train is in the section?