Places where national rail shares a facility with a heritage railway

[Trainnoob]

Is there a place where Network rail or national rail operators share a site with a heritage railway, because I had an idea for my layout where there's a heritage railway center but part of the facility it sits is a National rail yard or maybe a TMD.

[Oldddudders]

Eridge, East Grinstead, Alton, plenty of others I am sure. 

[Mol_PMB]

Two examples spring to mind immediately but I'm sure there are more:

• Tyseley (Vintage trains depot and WMT DMU depot)
• York Leeman Rd (NRM and TPE DMU depot)

[Mallard60022]

Paignton, but it isn't a Depot.

North Yorkshire Moors at Whitby.

Shildon?

NRM.

Edited July 20 by Mallard60022

[KeithMacdonald]

Bodmin Parkway?

[KeithMacdonald]

Totnes is probably not a good example, because of the seperation .

[Trainnoob]

29 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Eridge, East Grinstead, Alton, plenty of others I am sure. 

Thanks, I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to railway locations hence why I am unsure.

[phil-b259]

13 minutes ago, Trainnoob said:

Is there a place where Network rail or national rail operators share a site with a heritage railway, because I had an idea for my layout where there's a heritage railway center but part of the facility it sits is a National rail yard or maybe a TMD.

 

In a word, no

 

If the facility is operated by a TOC / FOC or Network Rail the last thing they want is volunteers wandering around as it represents a massive H&S risk for said companies (and their insurers), plus puts all sorts of extra obligations on them as far as certifying staff etc. with the net result that said companies won't entertain the idea. This is especially true of any Heritage railway centre especially one that admits the general public to look around will need to be securely fenced off from the operational railway.

 

The nearest you get is where a Heritage Railway centre might undertake contract work (e.g. testing of a new loco to iron out any bugs before it goes on the mainline) or where it acts as a storage facility for stuff which TOCs don't want to keep paying commercial rates for.

 

No Heritage railway takes on day to day work for TOCs (like routine refuelling or maintenance exams) - for the fairly basic reason that Heritage Railways are largely volunteer led and said volunteers don't want to be restored to work antisocial hours (e.g. turn up at 4am) to turn out locos at all hours of the day and night for TOCs while paid staff are going to want to have the same sort of wages as their mainline equivalents do, particularly for working anti-social hours.

[Trainnoob]

Just now, phil-b259 said:

 

In a word, no

 

If the facility is operated by a TOC / FOC or Network Rail the last thing they want is volunteers wandering around as it represents a massive H&S risk for said companies (and their insurers), plus puts all sorts of extra obligations on them as far as certifying staff etc. with the net result that said companies won't entertain the idea. This is especially true of any Heritage railway centre especially one that admits the general public to look around will need to be securely fenced off from the operational railway.

 

The nearest you get is where a Heritage Railway centre might undertake contract work (e.g. testing of a new loco to iron out any bugs before it goes on the mainline) or where it acts as a storage facility for stuff which TOCs don't want to keep paying commercial rates for.

 

No Heritage railway takes on day to day work for TOCs (like routine refuelling or maintenance exams) - for the fairly basic reason that Heritage Railways are largely volunteer led and said volunteers don't want to be restored to work antisocial hours (e.g. turn up at 4am) to turn out locos at all hours of the day and night for TOCs while paid staff are going to want to have the same sort of wages as their mainline equivalents do, particularly for working anti-social hours.

Makes sense, I suppose though that two facilities next to each other separated by a fence might be possible.

[phil-b259]

30 minutes ago, Trainnoob said:

Thanks, I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to railway locations hence why I am unsure.

 

Alton and Eridge are simply stations - with no engineering facilities for either party. At both locations however access to the Heritage Railway platform is via the national rail station, I believe Matlock is similar.

 

At East Grinstead the Bluebell and National Rail stations are completely separate entities with a clear 50ft between each site - again neither site features any engineering facilities.

 

Keighley and Grosmont are separate stations with separate entrances / exits but are physically side by side and although Grosmont does feature engineering activities on the NYMR side the National Rail side has nothing but the single line.

Edited July 20 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

28 minutes ago, Trainnoob said:

Makes sense, I suppose though that two facilities next to each other separated by a fence might be possible.

 

This is entirely possible - and to an extent Didcot Railway Centre fills the brief being surrounded by Network Rail lines / sidings, though I do not believe they undertake any significant contract work for the national network.

 

However if you wanted to create a fictitious setup then splitting your layout down the middle by a fence and having one side a maintenance facility for the national network with a Heritage Railway centre on the other (possibly with a gated connection between the two for occasional transfers between systems) then that wouldn't be an unrealistic setup. What you shouldn't do is try and mix FOC / TOC locos / units along with Heritage railway stock on the same depot layout - that particular setup only happens when Heritage railways host gala days with vising locos from the national network or alternatively when a FOC / TOC depot decides to have an open day and invites some heritage vehicles over to make for a more attractive display.

 

 

 

Edited July 20 by phil-b259

[Mol_PMB]

To add a bit more detail to my earlier post, at Tyseley, the vintage trains depot and workshops (which historically was also a museum open to the public and offering train rides) sits in between the West Midlands Trains workshops and stabling sidings:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4551696,-1.8448252,338m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

 

And at York Leeman Road, the NRM (which obviously is a museum but also had/has workshop facilities and stabling for heritage locos in steam) has its rail access via the TPE depot

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.9614048,-1.0985824,299m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

 

I'm familiar with both sites professionally.

[phil-b259]

20 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

To add a bit more detail to my earlier post, at Tyseley, the vintage trains depot and workshops (which historically was also a museum open to the public and offering train rides) sits in between the West Midlands Trains workshops and stabling sidings:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4551696,-1.8448252,338m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

 

And at York Leeman Road, the NRM (which obviously is a museum but also had/has workshop facilities and stabling for heritage locos in steam) has its rail access via the TPE depot

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.9614048,-1.0985824,299m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

 

I'm familiar with both sites professionally.

 

But the various sites are still operationally separate entities with boundary fences and each subject to its own management, insurance, payroll etc

 

The OP seems to be asking about a single site where all activities are undertaken within the sites boundaries by the same company employing the same people etc.

[Bill Radford]

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Totnes is probably not a good example, because of the seperation .

Used to use the mainline platforms...

 

 

 

Late 80s.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Bill Radford said:

Used to use the mainline platforms...

 

 

Indeed - and British rail charged them heavily for the privilege.

 

I think that the final straw was when the line through Totnes was re-signalled and BR wanted a significant contribution to retain the connection (and ability to run round the rolling stock).

 

However its important to note that even if the cash had been found as BR demanded then such an operation today would require all locos to be fitted with TPWS / AWS and on train data loggers* plus the staff involved to hold various National rail competences mean a large ongoing cost.

 

However we are stepping away from what the OP in mind - they were referring to a Heritage Railway Centre and  a National Rail TMD - not mere station sharing.

 

* The South Devon main line is NOT the same in terms as the Whitby branch in terms of trains or operation and as such its extremely unlikely the ORR would continuance any derogation from the norms as regards Heritage vehicles on mainline metals

Edited July 20 by phil-b259

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Bodmin Parkway?

Exactly so.  and indeed the mainline company GWR/NR do 'share a site' with GWR trains at one face of an island platform and Bodmin & Wenford trains at the opposite face of that platform with no fence between them.

 

You won't find a shared maintenance site anywhere but you will find them (e.g. Tyseley) divided from each other solely by a fence and with a common entrance where rail access to the two sites join each other (but on NR property).

 

BTW just for the record there is (unless it has been recovered in recent years) a rail connection between NR and the SDR at Totnes Riverside with a colour light running signal controlling access to the NR line  - photo available if required.  I haven't got a clue when it was last used and it might even have been recovered in recent years but photo evidence shows that it was still in place in 2015

[phil-b259]

37 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

BTW just for the record there is (unless it has been recovered in recent years) a rail connection between NR and the SDR at Totnes Riverside with a colour light running signal controlling access to the NR line  - photo available if required.  I haven't got a clue when it was last used and it might even have been recovered in recent years but photo evidence shows that it was still in place in 2015

 

Indeed so - I didn't pay close enough attention to the satellite imaginary before posting.

[KeithMacdonald]

@The Stationmaster - thanks for the confirmation.

 

Bodmin Parkway station is used by both mainline and heritage. It might not have a depot/workshop, but it does have sidings which make for lots of modelling scenarios.

 

 

 

 

[KeithMacdonald]

Bodmin Parkway has no physical boundary fence on the shared platform. Unless we're counting a few decorative planters with shrubs?

[big jim]

Regard the OP question about a shared TMD Doesn’t Bo’ness host colas locos from Grangemouth? 

 

Kidderminster certainly houses mainline use diesels that can access the mainline via a connection (GBRf class 50s for example) and it also sometimes has engineering trains/wagons there for testing etc 

Bewdley

 

[phil-b259]

4 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Bodmin Parkway has no physical boundary fence on the shared platform.

 

And your point is?

 

The OP was not talking about station platforms in isolation they were talking about a Heritage Railway Centre and a national rail TMD combo - which doesn't exist in real life.

 

Besides the picture varies across the country - Princess Risborough, Alton and Keigthley have a fence between separating the Heritage and National Rail platform faces, yet Cholsey doesn't 

 

 

[caradoc]

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Besides the picture varies across the country - Princess Risborough, Alton and Keigthley have a fence between separating the Heritage and National Rail platform faces, yet Cholsey doesn't 

 

 

At Risborough the preserved railway uses a section of NR line to access their platform, although a wholly independent track is being constructed. 

 

[phil-b259]

6 minutes ago, big jim said:

Regard the OP question about a shared TMD Doesn’t Bo’ness host colas locos from Grangemouth? 

 

Kidderminster certainly houses mainline use diesels that can access the mainline via a connection (GBRf class 50s for example) and it also sometimes has engineering trains/wagons there for testing etc 

 

 

 

But doe either of these activities occur on a daily basis? I can't imagine the SVR routinely employs a signalman at Kidderminster 24/7 daily for example so locos can come and go from the national network as they please.

 

There is a significant difference between an 'occasional use' setup (be it for testing, short / long term storage / charters / loco exchanges / etc) and daily use. The former is much more in keeping with how a Heritage railway operates where lots of the staff are volunteers and most employed staff will work what we might call 'normal' (ish) hours so people have to be got in specially to facilitate moves to / from the national network rather than the facility to do so being permanently available.

 

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

6 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

At Risborough the preserved railway uses a section of NR line to access their platform, although a wholly independent track is being constructed. 

 

 

Which means that at pressent access to Princess Risborough is dependent on Chiltern / Network rail not wanting to stable a unit / a tamper on said NR line (which is officially classed as a siding)

 

And even when the independent line is commissioned a single line with a DMU parked on it adjacent to another single track which happens to have a Heritage Railway train on it is hardly a a "heritage railway centre but part of the facility it sits is a National rail yard or maybe a TMD" is it?

Edited July 20 by phil-b259

[caradoc]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And even when the independent line is commissioned a single line with a DMU parked on it adjacent to another single track which happens to have a Heritage Railway train on it is hardly a a "heritage railway centre but part of the facility it sits is a National rail yard or maybe a TMD" is it?

 

Indeed not, but I was responding to the equally irrelevant point you made about shared platforms.