Rules Affecting Appearance of Heritage Line at 40 or 50 mph

[mdvle]

8 hours ago, Ian J. said:

 As for weekend shopping trains, I think that's a case of the public get something of a service in the 25mph heritage trains and will have to live with that, but I don't see that being a big source of income.

 

I suspect your missing the point Stationmaster was making.

 

The general public expect the railway to be a 7/365 operation these days, and thus any interest from a TOC and the all important government funding for the service will likely have a 7 day a week service as one of the key conditions for running the service / getting the government funding.

 

Saying sorry, it is a M-F service with the weekends/holidays being heritage only is just as likely to see the TOC / government walk away and provide no service/funding as they won't want to deal with the complaints as to why the service doesn't run on a weekend - and it isn't just the "shopping" but the people who don't work M-F jobs.

 

Or, to put it another way, your M-F slow speed commercial passenger operation is going to fail at the business plan level.

 

(though to be fair, that is all real world reality, and you can certainly invoke rule 1 to ignore it).

[royaloak]

9 hours ago, Ian J. said:

 

My worry would be the case of a driver forgetting which timetable type he/she is running. Good training should prevent that but we're all human, and some additional protection might be wanted by the regulator. Perhaps some kind of cue or reminder could be implemented, maybe a light next to the active line speed, with a default of no light = 25mph?

If that were the case then they have no place driving a train.

 

I have driven a 158 from Paignton to Exeter at 90mph along Powderham, a 153 was attached to the rear at Exeter then I drove the combo to Bristol at a maximum of 75mph because of the 153 on the back, no notices, no lights, no paperwork, just me and my brain, you really are overthinking this.

 

We have had a blanket 50mph maximum down here over the last couple of days because of storm Brendan, Monday was from Plymouth down and Tuesday was Exeter down, the only info we received was on our late notices.

Edited January 15, 2020 by royaloak

[Ian J.]

I agree I could be overthinking this, but that's just who I am. I'm trying to cover as many possibilities as possible in my thoughts so that I can try and avoid invoking Rule 1 wherever possible as I don't like the idea of creating the vignettes for S&P that have glaring irregularities. I've created other things (books, music) in the past and when I haven't given them serious thought and research, I've made serious mistakes.

 

Regarding the oil trains, there would be a terminal separate from the heritage sections, at the end of a purpose-built freight-only extension to the line's branch. Such an idea is probably ludicrous really, but I am using some modellers' license on this one.

[Nearholmer]

On 12/01/2020 at 08:53, Il Grifone said:

AFAIK they are limited to 25mph to count as a light railway, but I am not a lawyer.

 

On top of what Jim said, the 1896 Light Railway Act didn’t set a 25mph speed limit anyway, despite what many seem to believe.

 

Any speed limits were a matter for particular light railway orders (and many included lower limits entirely or locally) and the wisdom of the Railway Inspector who had the task of deciding upon fitness for opening.

 

There were light railway provisions in an earlier Regulation of Railways Act, and they did set a 25mph limit, but I don’t believe that ‘carried through’ after 1896.

[stewartingram]

2 points here.

Speed limits & LRO:- I remember reading not too long ago in one of the magazines (Steam Railway or Railway Mag perhaps), of an interview with someone from a preserved line. The issue of 25mph max was raised, and his comment was that it was a fallacy that all heritage lines had that limit imposed. I'm sure he said their limit was 30mph.

 

On another thing, mixing freight and heritage. What about Sheffield Tram-Train? If there are H&S concerns between a freight and heritage stock, surely there must be the same concerns between trains and trams? A remote chance of it happening I know, but what is the crash worthiness between a TT and a freight, or even a mu? Surely the similarity can be seen between a freight & a heritage train.

 

Stewart

[Edwin_m]

32 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

On another thing, mixing freight and heritage. What about Sheffield Tram-Train? If there are H&S concerns between a freight and heritage stock, surely there must be the same concerns between trains and trams? A remote chance of it happening I know, but what is the crash worthiness between a TT and a freight, or even a mu? Surely the similarity can be seen between a freight & a heritage train.

The crashworthiness risk is indeed more severe, because a tram-train doesn't meet the structural strength standards applicable to trains so would be severely damaged in collision with a freight train.  This is addressed by making the collision less likely.  The most likely cause of such a collision is Signal Passed At Danger (SPAD) so on tram-train routes extra TPWS is fitted and other adjustments are made so a SPAD can't result in a significant collision. 

 

The same principle could be used to reduce collision risks between heritage and commercial services, but as a SPAD by either type of train could be a cause of collision, it would mean having to fit TPWS equipment to the heritage trains as well as to the signals.  

[Ian J.]

What would be the outward visual impact (if any) of TPWS on a train? I'm aware there's such things as 'toast racks' on the track, and those I could live with being in place (on the model). Would there be any other trackside equipment like cabinets, etc?

[stewartingram]

9 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

The crashworthiness risk is indeed more severe, because a tram-train doesn't meet the structural strength standards applicable to trains so would be severely damaged in collision with a freight train.  This is addressed by making the collision less likely.  The most likely cause of such a collision is Signal Passed At Danger (SPAD) so on tram-train routes extra TPWS is fitted and other adjustments are made so a SPAD can't result in a significant collision. 

 

The same principle could be used to reduce collision risks between heritage and commercial services, but as a SPAD by either type of train could be a cause of collision, it would mean having to fit TPWS equipment to the heritage trains as well as to the signals.  

Thanks for that, but what if the scenario is a TT derailment being hit by a train (aka a heritage derailment instead). Hypothetical I know, but I suspect these considerations do take place; if so it seems bias towards the TT rather than the heritage.

 

Stewart

[Edwin_m]

10 hours ago, Ian J. said:

What would be the outward visual impact (if any) of TPWS on a train? I'm aware there's such things as 'toast racks' on the track, and those I could live with being in place (on the model). Would there be any other trackside equipment like cabinets, etc?

On the train, nothing unless you look underneath an are an expert in the different equipment types, or can see the controls in the cab.  A steam loco needs some sort of electrical power source for AWS, which could power TPWS too, but on a modern conversion I guess this would be hidden somewhere to avoid upsetting the purists.  

 

Not sure about trackside - I guess probably a junction box near the loops themselves and a cabinet near the signal if there isn't one there already.  

Edited January 16, 2020 by Edwin_m

[rogerzilla]

I'd assume the ORR would apply the usual risk assessments to heritage lines proposing to run at mainline speeds, and say "no" very firmly.  Wooden coaches, wiggly track, insecure fencing, lower standards of staff training, slam doors, oil head and tail lamps, you name it.  All this stuff can be tolerated as long as nothing is moving too fast to stop quickly, and doesn't have too much momentum in a crash; although there have been plenty of fatal accidents in railway history where the collision speed was less than 25mph.

[Ian J.]

2 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

I'd assume the ORR would apply the usual risk assessments to heritage lines proposing to run at mainline speeds, and say "no" very firmly.  Wooden coaches, wiggly track, insecure fencing, lower standards of staff training, slam doors, oil head and tail lamps, you name it.  All this stuff can be tolerated as long as nothing is moving too fast to stop quickly, and doesn't have too much momentum in a crash; although there have been plenty of fatal accidents in railway history where the collision speed was less than 25mph.

 

The scenario I'm looking at, and have outlined in my OP and following posts in invisible ink, it seems, is somewhat removed from the idea of any existing heritage line suddenly wanting to run at mainline speeds.

[The Stationmaster]

On 16/01/2020 at 18:54, rogerzilla said:

I'd assume the ORR would apply the usual risk assessments to heritage lines proposing to run at mainline speeds, and say "no" very firmly.  Wooden coaches, wiggly track, insecure fencing, lower standards of staff training, slam doors, oil head and tail lamps, you name it.  All this stuff can be tolerated as long as nothing is moving too fast to stop quickly, and doesn't have too much momentum in a crash; although there have been plenty of fatal accidents in railway history where the collision speed was less than 25mph.

The ORR does not carry out risk assessments on behalf of heritage/leisure railways - that is the job of the railway concerned.  And some of what you say - such as 'lower standards of staff training' would not be tolerated anywhere there are full size (and even narrow gauge) trains running about because they are just as good at killing people as their faster brethren.  Same goes for 'insecure fencing' as an animal getting through will meet a not dissimilar end from an unintended interface with a train travelling at 20mph as it would with on travelling at 60 mph.  I pay jus as much, if not more attention to personal safety Rules when writing them for the leisure sector as I have doen when writing them for the industrial sector and the legal obligations on the two sectors are no different. 

 

Apologies to the OP for continuing the veer OT

Edited January 19, 2020 by The Stationmaster

[Ian J.]

@The Stationmaster I think it's not so far OT. I think my original purpose of this thread was to address how running faster would affect what a line needed to do to meet necessary safety and other regulations (which in my scenario had been a gradual improvement over time), and then more specifically how that would affect the look of the railway (which I can then consequently model). We've raised issues of signalling and automatic warning and braking systems; of what trains could run at any given time; of how much faster the trains could go, given suitable stock. All has been very useful for me, and continues to be so

 

If anyone knows what disability access legislation might do to affect appearance due to the 'commercial' trains running, I'd also be interested to know that as well. I'm presuming modifications to platform edges and access ramps, but I feel there are probably more.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Ian J.

[jim.snowdon]

39 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

@The Stationmaster I think it's not so far OT. I think my original purpose of this thread was to address how running faster would affect what a line needed to do to meet necessary safety and other regulations (which in my scenario had been a gradual improvement over time), and then more specifically how that would affect the look of the railway (which I can then consequently model). We've raised issues of signalling and automatic warning and braking systems; of what trains could run at any given time; of how much faster the trains could go, given suitable stock. All has been very useful for me, and continues to be so

 

If anyone knows what disability access legislation might do to affect appearance due to the 'commercial' trains running, I'd also be interested to know that as well. I'm presuming modifications to platform edges and access ramps, but I feel there are probably more.

It is worth remembering that there are very few railway safety regulations outside of the few contained in the various Regulation of Railways Acts, particularly as the Interoperability Regulations will not apply. By the same token, the Health & Safety at Work Act does not prescribe safety regulations, but does impose the duty of care and undertaking of risk assessments to demonstrate how risk is minimised within the limits of reasonable practicability. ROGS places an obligation on railways to have both safety management systems and safety cases, which the ORR review and accept as being adequate (or not).

 

Jim

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, Ian J. said:

@The Stationmaster I think it's not so far OT. I think my original purpose of this thread was to address how running faster would affect what a line needed to do to meet necessary safety and other regulations (which in my scenario had been a gradual improvement over time), and then more specifically how that would affect the look of the railway (which I can then consequently model). We've raised issues of signalling and automatic warning and braking systems; of what trains could run at any given time; of how much faster the trains could go, given suitable stock. All has been very useful for me, and continues to be so

 

If anyone knows what disability access legislation might do to affect appearance due to the 'commercial' trains running, I'd also be interested to know that as well. I'm presuming modifications to platform edges and access ramps, but I feel there are probably more.

I imagine for a new commercial service the accessibility rules will apply, possibly subject to exceptions if existing stock is being used and is marginally non-compliant.  The most visible one externally would be colour-contrasting doors to make them more easily identifiable by the partially sighted.  There would probably also be wheelchair spaces and accessible toilets (possibly a longer windowless area?), the door to be used being marked with a wheelchair symbol.  

[mdvle]

43 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

I imagine for a new commercial service the accessibility rules will apply, possibly subject to exceptions if existing stock is being used and is marginally non-compliant.  The most visible one externally would be colour-contrasting doors to make them more easily identifiable by the partially sighted.  There would probably also be wheelchair spaces and accessible toilets (possibly a longer windowless area?), the door to be used being marked with a wheelchair symbol.  

 

To an extent all irrelevant in a way as the original poster seems to be using this at least partially as an excuse to run more current stock on a heritage line.

 

But, this is again where in the real world what the regulations may or may not say (or more accurately, what regulations matter).

 

If this heritage line is going to get government money to provide the service then it will need to be running (for the non-heritage trains) fully compliant stock and facilities - for the railway, TOC (if involved) and whichever level of government providing subsidy will be taken to court if they don't.

 

So this effectively means the colour-contrast doors and the edge of platforms / access to platforms.  As for the accessible toilets on board the train, if the heritage line is short enough then easy enough to avoid by simply having no toilets (if necessary have them permanently taken out of use).

 

The real question would depend on the type of heritage line, and thus its access to platforms.  If a tunnel/footbridge is required to access a train then they would seem to imply that a lift or long ramps would need to be provided - as this would be from a legal perspective considered a new service it is likely none of the existing infrastructure used by the heritage railway could be grandfathered in.

 

 

[roythebus]

Lots of interesting arguments there.

 

The K&ESR has 5 stations, 3 with passing loops, and 4 signalboxes. It has level crossings at each of the stations. all level crossings are capable of being operated by train crew. This is done when 'boxes are switched out at Wittersham Road and Northiam. Tenterden and Rolvenden are essential to run a service. A long section token is used when Witt Road and Northiam are switched out, 2 short section tokens are used when  Northiam is switched out or working. Bodiam crossing can be worked by train crew or station staff as are all the others. there's also Cranbrook Road crossing which can also be manned or t/c worked. So that's the problem of crossing gates resolved.

 

What gets interesting is when boxes are switched out, is that certain signals are automatically operated by treadle. It can be a bit un-nerving to see the signal for the opposite direction suddenly clearing! But it works. 

 

One other thing to remember on a "mixed" line is that of brake compatability. Everything modern works with air brakes. Most heritage stuff works with vacuum brakes. the 2 don't mix unless the loco or stock is dual fitted, but that's another discussion.

 

Drivers on both "big" railways and heritage railways are highly trained. The systems of late notices/special notices or whatever have been tried and tested over the years. It is the driver's job to know it.

 

Good luck on your model.

[73c]

On 14/01/2020 at 13:19, Andy W said:

This isn't totally accurate. The Great Central has been mentioned already, and has three different authorised speed limits - 25mph in normal service, 45mph for non-passenger-carrying services, with restrictions (can be mixed in with 25mph passenger services operating at the same time) and 60mph with restrictions - no other trains operating and no passengers carried. The 45mph operation in practice is only on the up line through Quorn Station, requires the foot crossing between the car park and the island platform at Quorn to be manned and closed, and is used at special events to demonstrate TPO mail pickup and set down. Preceding and succeeding trains can be passenger carrying and will run at 25mph.

The TPO at the GCR runs at 40mph having recently being increased from 35mph simply to ensure a 'clean ' exchange.

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

To an extent all irrelevant in a way as the original poster seems to be using this at least partially as an excuse to run more current stock on a heritage line.

 

But, this is again where in the real world what the regulations may or may not say (or more accurately, what regulations matter).

 

If this heritage line is going to get government money to provide the service then it will need to be running (for the non-heritage trains) fully compliant stock and facilities - for the railway, TOC (if involved) and whichever level of government providing subsidy will be taken to court if they don't.

 

So this effectively means the colour-contrast doors and the edge of platforms / access to platforms.  As for the accessible toilets on board the train, if the heritage line is short enough then easy enough to avoid by simply having no toilets (if necessary have them permanently taken out of use).

 

The real question would depend on the type of heritage line, and thus its access to platforms.  If a tunnel/footbridge is required to access a train then they would seem to imply that a lift or long ramps would need to be provided - as this would be from a legal perspective considered a new service it is likely none of the existing infrastructure used by the heritage railway could be grandfathered in.

 

 

There might also be a need to raise platform surfaces if there is a substantial difference between them and coach door level.  I suspect that most if not all platforms on the national network have long since been dealt with in this regard but there might possibly be the odd one here and there and equally so on a heritage railway.   But in my view relatively unlikely.

 

The situation in respect of on-train toilets seems fairly straightforward, if a train has toilets it also has to have a toilet with disabled accessibility.  if the train doesn't have any toilets it doesn't have to have one with disabled accessibility.  The ATOC guidelines on the provision of train toilets used to read 'toilets should be provided on a train where the duration of any journey will exceed 30 minutes'.  The current version says the same with the addition 'except where a metro style service is being operated'.  A 'metro style service' does not appear to be defined and might perhaps relate to train frequency but if Crossrail is any guide that is certainly not the case.  But of course the nature of a train toilet is not exactly going to be visible on a model!  The presence or otherwise of toilets at stations has no relationship to toilet provision on trains but think it might be subject to disability access requirements where toilets (not that many seem to be!)

[The Johnster]

The provision of the toilet compartment is visible on the model, and a Kitmaster RF I built many years ago had the actual porcelain throne as well!  And, not that I’d want to make a point of modelling it, prior to the stipulation that waste tanks are carried on the train when waste was flushed directly into the 4 foot, one might see evidence there as well!

[caradoc]

21 hours ago, roythebus said:

Lots of interesting arguments there.

 

The K&ESR has 5 stations, 3 with passing loops, and 4 signalboxes. It has level crossings at each of the stations. all level crossings are capable of being operated by train crew. This is done when 'boxes are switched out at Wittersham Road and Northiam. Tenterden and Rolvenden are essential to run a service. A long section token is used when Witt Road and Northiam are switched out, 2 short section tokens are used when  Northiam is switched out or working. Bodiam crossing can be worked by train crew or station staff as are all the others. there's also Cranbrook Road crossing which can also be manned or t/c worked. So that's the problem of crossing gates resolved.

 

What gets interesting is when boxes are switched out, is that certain signals are automatically operated by treadle. It can be a bit un-nerving to see the signal for the opposite direction suddenly clearing! But it works. 

 

One other thing to remember on a "mixed" line is that of brake compatability. Everything modern works with air brakes. Most heritage stuff works with vacuum brakes. the 2 don't mix unless the loco or stock is dual fitted, but that's another discussion.

 

Drivers on both "big" railways and heritage railways are highly trained. The systems of late notices/special notices or whatever have been tried and tested over the years. It is the driver's job to know it.

 

Good luck on your model.

 

That's an interesting signalling arrangement, to say the least ! On the national network, when Lugton box controlled the passing loop on the single line between Barrhead and Kilmarnock, when the box switched out a King lever was operated which allowed signals to be cleared for both directions through one side of the loop. Since then the line has been redoubled from Lugton to Lochridge Jc (between Stewarton and Kilmaurs), but the box still switches out, for example on Sundays when only an hourly service operates, and again signals are cleared for both directions, on one line of the double track.

 

[The Johnster]

On 20/01/2020 at 20:20, caradoc said:

One other thing to remember on a "mixed" line is that of brake compatability. Everything modern works with air brakes. Most heritage stuff works with vacuum brakes. the 2 don't mix unless the loco or stock is dual fitted, but that's another discussion.

The two don't mix and cannot be used simultaneously on the same train even if the loco or stock is dual fitted.  A dual fitted loco can work with stock fitted with both types of brake, but only one type at a time,  Dual fitted stock is rare, and the usual arrangement is to have one type of brake fitted and the other, usually vacuum on air braked stock, piped through so that such vehicles can be included in the fitted head of a part fitted freight. rain.

 

A heritage line running commercial modern freight vehicles using it's own locos will do so in one of two ways.  If it has an air braked loco, most likely a diesel, with the equipment working it will use that, or, if not, it can use any loco and work the train as a class 9 unfitted freight with a brake van in which a guard with the appropriate route knowledge is riding, and with the speed limited to 25mph.  Depending on gradients, it may be necessary for hand brakes to be applied in order to control the train for their descents. 

 

Or it can allow a TOC's loco on to it's track, charging the TOC for using it's track.  An arrangement would have to be in place to allow the TOC's drivers to gain route knowledge of the Heritage line, or provide route pilots.

[The Stationmaster]

12 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The two don't mix and cannot be used simultaneously on the same train even if the loco or stock is dual fitted.  A dual fitted loco can work with stock fitted with both types of brake, but only one type at a time,  Dual fitted stock is rare, and the usual arrangement is to have one type of brake fitted and the other, usually vacuum on air braked stock, piped through so that such vehicles can be included in the fitted head of a part fitted freight. rain.

 

A heritage line running commercial modern freight vehicles using it's own locos will do so in one of two ways.  If it has an air braked loco, most likely a diesel, with the equipment working it will use that, or, if not, it can use any loco and work the train as a class 9 unfitted freight with a brake van in which a guard with the appropriate route knowledge is riding, and with the speed limited to 25mph.  Depending on gradients, it may be necessary for hand brakes to be applied in order to control the train for their descents. 

 

Or it can allow a TOC's loco on to it's track, charging the TOC for using it's track.  An arrangement would have to be in place to allow the TOC's drivers to gain route knowledge of the Heritage line, or provide route pilots.

One problem being that a lot of moder freight vehicles are totally unsuitable for Class 9 incline working.  The last surviving Class 9 freight workings on BR all used 'traditional' wagons suitable for that sort of operation although teh fact that they were worked unfitted was also a consequence of the wagons being the only ones suitable for the traffic flows involved.

 

What freight working there had been over heritage type railways has - as I explained previously - either used the train operator's traction in the case of trainload working or the heritage line's own air-braked locos where a single wagon with air brakes was involved.

[Edwin_m]

13 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The two don't mix and cannot be used simultaneously on the same train even if the loco or stock is dual fitted.  A dual fitted loco can work with stock fitted with both types of brake, but only one type at a time,  Dual fitted stock is rare, and the usual arrangement is to have one type of brake fitted and the other, usually vacuum on air braked stock, piped through so that such vehicles can be included in the fitted head of a part fitted freight. rain.

There are a couple of highly unusual exceptions which just might be relevant here, the carriage of containers to the Far North or West Highland sometime in the 80s (don't recall when or which or maybe it was both), and the "slip and brake" tests that used to be done north of Crewe.  In both cases a dual-braked loco hauled one or more vacuum-braked but air-piped coaches with one or more air-braked wagons coupled behind. 

 

There are also translator coaches that allow dead multiple units with various electrically controlled braking systems to be hauled and braked by locomotives with a simple air brake, and in theory I guess one of these could be built to convert vacuum into air brake operation.  

Edited January 22, 2020 by Edwin_m

[keefer]

The Freightliner example had the wagon next to the loco and connected to the air brake.  A through vacuum pipe connected the loco to the vacuum brakes of the coaches and there was also a through steam pipe for heating