Heritage Railways providing a public service

[southern442]

Obviously there is not a huge list of railways that could fit this criteria, but I think it's a potentially interesting topic to discuss nonetheless. Certain heritage railways, in particular the longer ones that connect up to (or almost connect to) the mainline network, or those which serve larger settlements and towns, have potentially quite useful railway connection opportunities. One might even go so far as to say that in certain situations, such as the East Lancashire Railway which serves many (relatively speaking) built-up areas, that the existence of the heritage railway is a hindrance to the rail-related transport opportunities that could be there. I'm not trying to claim that any heritage railway would become some sort of cash cow if it was returned to the main-line network, but what we do have is some communities that would see some benefit from rail connectivity, and railway infrastructure that exists but albeit not for that purpose.

The advent of the Parry People Mover and more recently the VLR demonstrator vehicle have given us rail vehicles that would suffice for the demand and would potentially be very cheap to run. In certain areas, could it be feasible for a few services per day to run along heritage railways but as a 'normal' service for connectivity? This could potentially be a subsidized local council operation, and still run as a 'private' railway to avoid bureaucracy associated with Network/National(/Great British?) Rail. The closest we've come to this is the Go-op Mid Hants Link which was proposed but never done, seemingly because of technical issues with the rolling stock, however again that is not exactly the same as what I was suggesting. Would the benefits of doing something like this outweigh the costs?

 

[gingerheid]

I wondered about this before, when I first read about the Parry People Mover (the most amazingly beguiling solution looking for a problem there ever was?).

I think speed limits on heritage railways do for most possibilities, meaning that it would have to be something short like Cholsey Wallingford? Or maybe Epping Ongar?

 

[bluenoxid]

Speed, frequency and the higher levels of manpower required to run a service safely all tend to combine to completely blow out the business case for projects like this where the railway can run isolated to the network.

 

[Ken H]

I would have thought the keighley & Worth Valley was tailor made for this.

 

[mike57]

I think in a lot of cases the rural nature of many heritage railways would rule out 'normal' services.

Two that spring to mind are ELR, as mentioned by the OP and the Watercress Line, no doubt there are others.

A few questions, what would be involved in raising speed limits for modern stock that meets certain braking and other requirements. Not a massive increase, but maybe to 40mph. In terms of rolling stock, probably more 'light rail' but battery or diesel powered. Also no 'conflicts' between heritage operations and national rail operations. The railway is one of the two modes depending upon time of day/day of week. Season ticket holders get to use heritage services, that way they have a 7 day a week service but at the expense of journey times at (probably) weekends.

It could be viable, but I suspect the difficulty in setting it up and the fact it would be an administitive nightmare will not help any case.

To turn this around, I have often wondered if there would a possibility of giving certain branch lines over to heritage services maybe at weekends, to increase usage, but as part of the national rail system. Could they be run profitably to help support the line.

 

[thejuggler]

Heavier use means more staff, more inspection, more repairs, more cost.

A single incident involving a public service could wipe out a heritage railway if it ends up in Court arguing liability.

 

[ajs]

Back in 2011 there were plans to run a Parry People Mover from Alresford to Alton on the Mid Hants Raiway.

The PPM made it to Alresford but broke down, a replacement was sought but never materialised.

There is a thread on this forum about it but am unable to post the link.

 

[pdeaves]

I'm pretty sure this has cropped up here before. I'm not sure what key word to put in the search box, though!

 

[A0wen]

I'm pretty sure this has cropped up here before. I'm not sure what key word to put in the search box, though!

Correct - several times, threads include:

Heritage/Enthusiast Railways Providing Functional Passenger/Freight Service

I was travelling on the NET Hucknall line yesterday and thought how much it all reminded me of heritage railways with the low platforms, single track sections, etc! It got me wondering if there are heritage or enthusiast run lines that are often used to carry passengers/freight on journeys not...

railforums.co.uk

Heritage Railways running services aimed at 'regular' passengers?

Posts #1 - #3 originally in this thread You could create a platform at Castleton close to the junction on the eastbound side that is entirely away from the main line, connected by a walkway to Castleton station. This could be operated by a heritage unit (DMU or pacer). An hourly service (half...

railforums.co.uk

There are too many preserved railways in the UK: what can be done to make them more viable?

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/llangollen-railway-appoints-receivers.214702/ There are too many "preserved" lines in England and Wales, and only a limited number of people interested in railway preservation. It is inevitable that some will go to the wall...

railforums.co.uk

 

[Lucan]

The Romney Hythe and Dymchurch (I suppose that is a heritage railway) used to run a school train. I don't know if they still do.

 

[southern442]

A few questions, what would be involved in raising speed limits for modern stock that meets certain braking and other requirements. Not a massive increase, but maybe to 40mph. In terms of rolling stock, probably more 'light rail' but battery or diesel powered. Also no 'conflicts' between heritage operations and national rail operations. The railway is one of the two modes depending upon time of day/day of week. Season ticket holders get to use heritage services, that way they have a 7 day a week service but at the expense of journey times at (probably) weekends.

It could be viable, but I suspect the difficulty in setting it up and the fact it would be an administitive nightmare will not help any case.

Would the idea of having them run as a distinctly separate railway (in the same way that, say, the DLR is separate from National Rail services that it meets) mitigate any of these concerns? Maintenance would certainly be an issue, but in this case not having it as part of the national network could mean that maintenance standards could be 'tailor-made' to the needs of the service, which might reduce costs.

To turn this around, I have often wondered if there would a possibility of giving certain branch lines over to heritage services maybe at weekends, to increase usage, but as part of the national rail system. Could they be run profitably to help support the line.

Something like the Jacobite on the West Highland Line? I'd be interested to see how well that does for itself, and if something like that could be done for lines like the Conwy Valley line or similar.

 

[mike57]

Something like the Jacobite on the West Highland Line? I'd be interested to see how well that does for itself, and if something like that could be done for lines like the Conwy Valley line or similar.

Yes similar but as scheduled services that dont require a special ticket, replace the 2 or 3 car dmu with heritage traction say every Sunday from June to September. Maybe a pool of heritage stock, which rotates around a number of branches over the summer. What runs on the Conwy branch for say 1 month, then moves to maybe the Whitby branch for the next month, and so on. Released stock from the branch could be used to strengthen feeder services if it was needed.

The nearest we have got is maybe the Northern service on the S&C a few years ago using Tornado to promote the line.

I think it could work, but probably not with the current franchise/TOC model, as I suspect the branches selected for this type of operation would be geographically separated.

 

[Paul Jones 88]

Make them more useful to the general public, like the K&ESR if the line was completely renewed between Robertsbridge and Headcorn, having a mainline connection at both ends and running a commuter service in the peaks using Thumpers, I'm sure it would make money.

 

[D6130]

Make them more useful to the general public, like the K&ESR if the line was completely renewed between Robertsbridge and Headcorn, having a mainline connection at both ends and running a commuter service in the peaks using Thumpers, I'm sure it would make money.

With a very winding convoluted route - and a maximum permitted light railway speed of 25 mph - I rather doubt it I'm afraid. Then you have the perennial problem of finding enough volunteers to staff the signalboxes and level crossings at an hour of the morning and evening when most volunteers are tucked-up in bed....or in the pub. Taking on full- or part-time paid staff would add massively to the cost - and therefore the fares.

 

[43096]

Make them more useful to the general public, like the K&ESR if the line was completely renewed between Robertsbridge and Headcorn, having a mainline connection at both ends and running a commuter service in the peaks using Thumpers, I'm sure it would make money.

If you're that sure about it, put your money where your mouth is and set it up and run it.

I rather suspect you could make a small fortune from it... but only if you start with a very large fortune.

 

[A0wen]

Make them more useful to the general public, like the K&ESR if the line was completely renewed between Robertsbridge and Headcorn, having a mainline connection at both ends and running a commuter service in the peaks using Thumpers, I'm sure it would make money.

And I'm equally sure it most definitely would not. There are heritage railways, some long established, that have *never* managed to develop a viable model for operating as a regular public transport link. That should be a pretty clear indication.

And what makes you think any ordinary commuter would want to travel on a fundamentally unsafe 60 year old item of rolling stock on a daily basis? Would you chose to drive to work in an Austin A35 on a daily basis? Or fly on holiday in a Boeing 707 or DC8 ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And I'm equally sure it most definitely would not. There are heritage railways, some long established, that have *never* managed to develop a viable model for operating as a regular public transport link. That should be a pretty clear indication.

Fundamentally, local heavy rail public transport will always require subsidy, and pretty much nobody has been able to make it operate without that even with volunteers running some of it. Most of these lines are so rural it isn't even viable to operate buses without (smaller) subsidy.

And what makes you think any ordinary commuter would want to travel on a fundamentally unsafe 60 year old item of rolling stock on a daily basis? Would you chose to drive to work in an Austin A35 on a daily basis? Or fly on holiday in a Boeing 707 or DC8 ?

You're far safer in a Mk1 than you are in a brand new BMW, rail is so much safer than road. But most people don't care about niggles of what is slightly safer than what, and simply choose the car for its convenience.

 

[A0wen]

You're far safer in a Mk1 than you are in a brand new BMW, rail is so much safer than road. But most people don't care about niggles of what is slightly safer than what, and simply choose the car for its convenience.

Simply untrue - the basic construct of Mk1 and older stock is completely unsafe as was seen in many crashes - even relatively low speed e.g Cannon Street in 1991 saw fatalities and that was with an impact speed of 10mph. Compared to a modern family saloon I'd much rather be in the car in a crash up to 50mph - with airbags, crash protection zones, energy absorption designed bodyshells - they are simply much, much safer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Simply untrue - the basic construct of Mk1 and older stock is completely unsafe as was seen in many crashes - even relatively low speed e.g Cannon Street in 1991 saw fatalities and that was with an impact speed of 10mph. Compared to a modern family saloon I'd much rather be in the car in a crash up to 50mph - with airbags, crash protection zones, energy absorption designed bodyshells - they are simply much, much safer.

The difference is that the Mk1 is unlikely to be involved in a crash, the car is much more likely to be involved in one.

 

[43301]

The difference is that the Mk1 is unlikely to be involved in a crash, the car is much more likely to be involved in one.

And Mk2s onwards reduce the risk still further as they are of monocoque construction so don't suffer from th risk of the bufferbeam of one carriage over-riding the next and tearing the bodyshell off the underframe.

And I'm equally sure it most definitely would not. There are heritage railways, some long established, that have *never* managed to develop a viable model for operating as a regular public transport link. That should be a pretty clear indication.

Surely the most obvious would be the KWVR (and I think they tried it at one point?) - short line (so speed limit less of an issue that with a longer one), most of which is well-populated, going into a fairly large town with cross-station interchange to regular services to two large cities and various other towns. If that can't be made to work then realisticalluy nowhere is going to be able to make it work.

 

[A0wen]

And Mk2s onwards reduce the risk still further as they are of monocoque construction so don't suffer from th risk of the bufferbeam of one carriage over-riding the next and tearing the bodyshell off the underframe.
.

The poster had suggested Thumpers on the K&ESR - that's pre Mk2.

 

[43301]

The poster had suggested Thumpers on the K&ESR - that's pre Mk2.

In that particular case yes, but the point remains true that the risk of being killed or injured in a railway accident (whatever the stock) is substantially less than in a car. Even with Mk1s that applies, but with those railways which have newer stock* (which is a fair few), the risk is even lower.

*Except Pacers, which like a Mk1 are separate bodies bolted to an underframe.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Surely the most obvious would be the KWVR (and I think they tried it at one point?) - short line (so speed limit less of an issue that with a longer one), most of which is well-populated, going into a fairly large town with cross-station interchange to regular services to two large cities and various other towns. If that can't be made to work then realisticalluy nowhere is going to be able to make it work.

They ran a few shoppers services using the 1950s railbus, though IIRC they weren't well timed for commuters onwards to Leeds- as that wasn't the objective. There were talks of something along those lines a few years ago, but I don't think anything came of it. If it did, a certain global event would have got in the way anyway.

One of the issues would be rolling stock: presumably if operating as a public service it would need to be fully accessible. I don't think the railway has anything suitable if that's the case.

What could maybe work in a few niche cases would be for the local TOC to operate peak services from the connecting preserved line. As new stock is introduced, a fair few 150s could be put to use rather than going off-lease. Something like a Minehead to Taunton service could be implemented that way.

 

[43301]

What could maybe work in a few niche cases would be for the local TOC to operate peak services from the connecting preserved line. As new stock is introduced, a fair few 150s could be put to use rather than going off-lease. Something like a Minehead to Taunton service could be implemented that way.

Minehead to Taunton would be far too slow compared to a bus, especially when the location of Taunton station is taken into account - right on the edge of the town centre - whereas buses go closer to where passengers are likely to want to end up (i.e.the shopping area and local government offices).

 

[Bletchleyite]

In that particular case yes, but the point remains true that the risk of being killed or injured in a railway accident (whatever the stock) is substantially less than in a car. Even with Mk1s that applies, but with those railways which have newer stock* (which is a fair few), the risk is even lower.

*Except Pacers, which like a Mk1 are separate bodies bolted to an underframe.

Pacers are a monocoque-ish body on an underframe, so better than Mk1s, which is why they outlived them. The 153's body is very similar but without the underframe, as is the once-ubiquitous Leyland National bus.

230s also sit on underframes but have a strong enough body not to be considered Mk1s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Minehead to Taunton would be far too slow compared to a bus, especially when the location of Taunton station is taken into account - right on the edge of the town centre - whereas buses go closer to where passengers are likely to want to end up (i.e.the shopping area and local government offices).

For Taunton itself, sure... but for onward travel to a job in Bristol or Exeter it could beat sitting in a queue on the A39 or M5.

 

[30907]

They ran a few shoppers services using the 1950s railbus, though IIRC they weren't well timed for commuters onwards to Leeds- as that wasn't the objective.

And being a Saturday, there weren't many commuters about
There is still a relatively early railbus from Haworth to Keighley SO which is probably the remnant of that - and indeed most days there are a few shoppers and one-way travellers.
One problem for a weekday service is the two level crossings to staff (though you might be able to close Damems to through vehicle traffic).

 

[MarkyT]

For Taunton itself, sure... but for onward travel to a job in Bristol or Exeter it could beat sitting in a queue on the A39 or M5.

Also, it's a mistake to assume in modern towns that everyone works or shops within shouting distance of a medieval market square and that never changes. Taunton is a growing town, and much of the recent expansion is across former industrial and railway land around the station and between there and the old town. In any case, its around 1km from the station to the heart of the main traditional shopping area, so no more than say 15mins on foot.

 

[A0wen]

For Taunton itself, sure... but for onward travel to a job in Bristol or Exeter it could beat sitting in a queue on the A39 or M5.

Minehead - Exeter is 40 miles as the crow flies - via Taunton is a long way round.

Minehead - Bristol is about 65 miles - to put it in context that's further than most London commuter services and Bristol's much smaller than London. The number of people travelling from Minehead (popn 12k) to Bristol on a daily basis will be in penny figures at best.

 

[Merle Haggard]

And Mk2s onwards reduce the risk still further as they are of monocoque construction so don't suffer from th risk of the bufferbeam of one carriage over-riding the next and tearing the bodyshell off the underframe.

Mk1s were designed to withstand an end-load of 200 tons. Note that this is across the whole height of the end, not just the buffer beam, and it's 200 tons force, not mass. Obviously the force applied depends upon the deceleration rate, and it would be an interesting exercise using basic dynamic maths to calculate the likely maximum forces generated in a collision on a preserved line, bearing in mind the speed (25 m.p.h. max) and train size (5 coaches say). I don't think that the end loading of a Mk2 was any higher.
Perhaps the Bulleids, visibly similar to the Mk ls but with an end load of only 100 tons force, might be a bit dodgy, though.