KWVR - Infrastructure Upgrades Funded

[DarloRich]

It’s not that relevant though considering most of the stock and infrastructure already exists and is presumably funded. So even a ‘small’ sum, could go a long way, particularly with volunteer labour too.

Indeed - however I would question running a timetabled "commuters" service with volunteer labour.

Perhaps the new institute will find a way for the new commuter services and signalling installations to be operated by robots....instead of scarce volunteers!

We already have a driverless bus in MK so it cant be far away

They're possibly envisaging the KWVR being used by tourists going to Haworth or by shoppers, as much as people heading to work at 8am and home again at 5.

Agreed - but even so if you are offering a "normal" service you have to run a "normal" service every day without fail. That is a big undertaking and a big cost and reputational risk if it goes wrong.

Although a steam replacement commuter service could be fun.

KWVR Commuter Operations apologise for the delay to the 0715 service to Leeds. This service has been delayed while we raise steam in the replacement locomotive............

 

[thejuggler]

These bids aren't done in isolation, so whilst its a Council bid they aren't delivering projects themselves.
They are awarded the money and are responsible for ensuring it is spent it on the schemes the projects have submitted info on.

As referred above I understand the intention is to upgrade the signals and reopen a box at Keighley to increase the number of trains which can run along the line.

If a passing mention of investigating introducing commuter services gave the bid another few marks then well done KWVR, but for 101 reasons it won't be easy to do.

 

[30907]

If a passing mention of investigating introducing commuter services gave the bid another few marks then well done KWVR, but for 101 reasons it won't be easy to do.

It would have been highly irresponsible to submit a bid on those terms. As a working member I will await the company's actual statement.

 

[ALEMASTER]

Like a lot of the recent railway investment announcements from the government (such as the Penistone line upgrade) it is all very vague.

For many years a number of heritage railways have talked of growing income by running commuter trains as well as tourist ones.

The question here is what exactly is proposed? Is it Northern running their trains onto KWVR infrastructure outside the heritage operating hours or is it KWVR running a DMU commuter shuttle at peak times with lower fares than the existing tourist service? There is also the question that others have posted would they recruit salaried part time staff to work these trains or still rely on volunteers?

 

[xotGD]

for 101 reasons

Yes, the Class 101 might be used on the commuter services.

 

[Bantamzen]

Like a lot of the recent railway investment announcements from the government (such as the Penistone line upgrade) it is all very vague.

For many years a number of heritage railways have talked of growing income by running commuter trains as well as tourist ones.

The question here is what exactly is proposed? Is it Northern running their trains onto KWVR infrastructure outside the heritage operating hours or is it KWVR running a DMU commuter shuttle at peak times with lower fares than the existing tourist service? There is also the question that others have posted would they recruit salaried part time staff to work these trains or still rely on volunteers?

Unless the KWVR suddenly throws up a lot of wires, its unlikely that there will be any Northern trains headed up there. In reality at most it'll probably be a small grant of some type to see if they could run a couple of DMUs own to hook up with the Aire services in the peaks. And honestly, I can't see it working.

 

[SteveM70]

The question here is what exactly is proposed? Is it Northern running their trains onto KWVR infrastructure outside the heritage operating hours or is it KWVR running a DMU commuter shuttle at peak times with lower fares than the existing tourist service?

Unless the KWVR suddenly throws up a lot of wires, its unlikely that there will be any Northern trains headed up there.

This. And also given the track layout at Keighley, running any service from the main line to/from the branch is pretty much a non-starter as the only access is to the line towards Skipton. Is there even a crossover there on the main line?

 

[30907]

This. And also given the track layout at Keighley, running any service from the main line to/from the branch is pretty much a non-starter as the only access is to the line towards Skipton. Is there even a crossover there on the main line?

Yes there is.

We don't know if anything has been proposed beyond capital works - stating the obvious, any commuter service would require subsidy from somewhere, and that would be a different pot of money.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Was the branch double track at any point? Or has it been single track since it was built?

 

[blackfive460]

Was the branch double track at any point? Or has it been single track since it was built?

It was built with a view to allowing an upgrade to double track; bridges and tunnels having space, but never upgraded.

 

[RT4038]

For it to be at all 'viable' it would need a single car boarding through one door with about 70 seats, one person operated with the driver collecting fares/checking tickets. Simple flat fare structure of single tickets (any 'through' or season fares being off train sales only). two main trips in the morning (6h50 and 8h00 from Oxenhope) and two in the evening ( 16h20 and 17h50 return from Keighley) [approx times!], with counter flow trips too. One paid employee working a split shift 5 days a week, with a volunteer paid to cover for annual leave. Line operated as 'one train working', so no signallers or station staff required as such. No need for penalty fares, as driver checking before boarding. Separate from steam service (although 'steam' priced tickets could be interavailable)

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The word "commuter" is often used in the media just to mean normal passengers. They're possibly envisaging the KWVR being used by tourists going to Haworth or by shoppers, as much as people heading to work at 8am and home again at 5.

Does it? "Commuter" in a railway context, normally only ever means someone going to their place of work and then back home again.

 

[thejuggler]

It would have been highly irresponsible to submit a bid on those terms. As a working member I will await the company's actual statement.

Not really. Bids are made for funding to investigate options, undertake further studies, carry out a feasibility etc all the time.

Having now researched a little further it looks like the Council are using some artistic licence to include "commuting".

The bid is for signalling, some twin track and a new DMU shed at Great Northern Junction which will all mean the potential to run three trains on the line rather than 2, thereby potentially increasing frequency of services. I suppose this could have the knock on effect of benefitting locals who may wish to commute, but that's different to setting up services aimed at commuters.

 

[xotGD]

"The bid was submitted back in 2021 and as part of the package will see a number of upgrades to the five mile long heritage line.
Upgrades to the signalling will be made to allow more services to run on the line, and the diesel multiple unit fleet will be upgraded.
A dedicated storage and maintenance facility will also be created to store the fleet."

From: https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2023/1...er-20m-funding-announced.html#google_vignette

I think we should forget about this commuter service malarkey. I'm presuming that upgrading the DMU fleet involves getting the 108 back into service. And painting it blue.

 

[bishdunster]

For it to be at all 'viable' it would need a single car boarding through one door with about 70 seats, one person operated with the driver collecting fares/checking tickets. Simple flat fare structure of single tickets (any 'through' or season fares being off train sales only). two main trips in the morning (6h50 and 8h00 from Oxenhope) and two in the evening ( 16h20 and 17h50 return from Keighley) [approx times!], with counter flow trips too. One paid employee working a split shift 5 days a week, with a volunteer paid to cover for annual leave. Line operated as 'one train working', so no signallers or station staff required as such. No need for penalty fares, as driver checking before boarding. Separate from steam service (although 'steam' priced tickets could be interavailable)

Ah so installation of automatic barriers at Oakworth then, that will upset the purists !

 

[RT4038]

Ah so installation of automatic barriers at Oakworth then, that will upset the purists !

No automatic barriers come into it! I did say 'viable' , so I mean low-cost, which I know is usually an unknown concept in the modern UK rail industry.

 

[Iskra]

For it to be at all 'viable' it would need a single car boarding through one door with about 70 seats, one person operated with the driver collecting fares/checking tickets. Simple flat fare structure of single tickets (any 'through' or season fares being off train sales only). two main trips in the morning (6h50 and 8h00 from Oxenhope) and two in the evening ( 16h20 and 17h50 return from Keighley) [approx times!], with counter flow trips too. One paid employee working a split shift 5 days a week, with a volunteer paid to cover for annual leave. Line operated as 'one train working', so no signallers or station staff required as such. No need for penalty fares, as driver checking before boarding. Separate from steam service (although 'steam' priced tickets could be interavailable)

That sounds like a perfect bus operation

 

[RT4038]

That sounds like a perfect bus operation

With no congestion, but longer walks to less convenient stops for many.

 

[DJ_K666]

For it to be at all 'viable' it would need a single car boarding through one door with about 70 seats, one person operated with the driver collecting fares/checking tickets. Simple flat fare structure of single tickets (any 'through' or season fares being off train sales only). two main trips in the morning (6h50 and 8h00 from Oxenhope) and two in the evening ( 16h20 and 17h50 return from Keighley) [approx times!], with counter flow trips too. One paid employee working a split shift 5 days a week, with a volunteer paid to cover for annual leave. Line operated as 'one train working', so no signallers or station staff required as such. No need for penalty fares, as driver checking before boarding. Separate from steam service (although 'steam' priced tickets could be interavailable)

Get hold of RB004 from Whitrope or wherever it is. It's basically what came just before the class 141 Pacers and it's basically what you describe.

Plus from it's appearance it would have a definite 'Yorkshire' vibe to it

http://www.traintesting.com/images/RB004-Swanwick%2029-8-2011.jpg

With no congestion, but longer walks to less convenient stops for many.

And no damn roadworks.

 

[izvor]

And no damn roadworks.

...until the rail replacement bus services kick in. [someone had to bring this up ]

 

[DJ_K666]

...until the rail replacement bus services kick in. [someone had to bring this up ]

Yep of course the rail replacement job was a fantastic source of (pretty easy) overtime back at Brighton and Hove buses. There were regulars and drivers who wouldn't do it for all thd money in thd world. Sitting spare was always good on a quiet run. 50:50 chance it was money for nothing.

 

[ic31420]

I've oft said the ELR could run a commuter service if they could overcome some of the operational barriers (crossings and boxes)

But how to resolve the too-high-for-utility-use fares and they might be worried they'd end up proving the demand.

 

[30907]

"The bid was submitted back in 2021 and as part of the package will see a number of upgrades to the five mile long heritage line.
Upgrades to the signalling will be made to allow more services to run on the line, and the diesel multiple unit fleet will be upgraded.
A dedicated storage and maintenance facility will also be created to store the fleet."

From: https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2023/1...er-20m-funding-announced.html#google_vignette

That is much more in line with what working members have been told, including the comment from the Leader of the Council. glad it is in the public domain now.

 

[cinders&ashes]

Are they going to try to get classified as a proper Railway or they going to stay stuck at 25mph? It's not totally unviable, Metrolink spends a lot of it's time under 30mph but it's not ideal

The 25mph limit recognises relaxed safety standards needed to make most heritage lines viable.
Nonetheless I'm wondering if an intermediate standard between heritage and network can be defined with related requirements that would seek to be not overly onerous/intrusive but result in an improved (but still cautious) speed limit e.g. 35mph?

 

[gabrielhj07]

Was the branch double track at any point? Or has it been single track since it was built?

It was built with the provision for double-tracking, see this photo at Ingrow West:

 

[47434]

As they would be running a public service, wouldn’t the stock need to be PRM compliant?

Just lock out the toilet and job done.

 

[30907]

It was built with the provision for double-tracking, see this photo at Ingrow West:

Checking the OS maps, the section south of Oakworth and Mytholmes Tunnel was (re) built by the MR and has provision for double track, as does Ingrow Tunnel and station area. The approach to Keighley, also used by the GN, was of course double.

Unless our local historians know differently, the rest only ever provided for single track bar the odd overbridge.

 

[43096]

Just lock out the toilet and job done.

You obviously don’t understand that there is much more to PRM compliance than toilets.

 

[47434]

You obviously don’t understand that there is much more to PRM compliance than toilets.

Obviously I don't. Perhaps you could educate me and the rest of the forum what else the 144 would need at KWVR to become PRM compliant.

 

[1Q18]

Obviously I don't. Perhaps you could educate me and the rest of the forum what else the 144 would need at KWVR to become PRM compliant.

Even if the toilets were locked out to remove them as a consideration, it seemed to be regarded as a practical impossibility to make a Pacer compliant with the PRM-TSI regulations when they were running on the main line (even the 144 that Porterbrook had modernised was still some way off being compliant, IIRC), and that’s going to apply doubly for a unit that’s been acquired for preservation as a heritage vehicle.

As they would be running a public service, wouldn’t the stock need to be PRM compliant?

Do they not already run a public service? Members of the public can show up and buy a ticket to use the service already regardless of whether they’re tourists or locals going shopping or indeed commuting. I understand that heritage railways which operate a service from one place to another are able to sell their tickets as VAT zero-rated/exempt because they’re providing a transport service, as opposed to those who operate out and back from one station who are offering a ‘ride’.