Disused railways reinstatement or walking cycling routes

[dangerousdids2]

In recent years its looking like the motor car is becoming less and less welcome. Electric cars (Ev's) are looking less like a feasible replacement and the current railway infrastructure isn't looking like a feasible replacement either, well not if you live in a rural village!

So the government put some money aside for councils to look at options to reinstate disused railways that died because of the car, that might just be vital to serve communities that rely heavily on cars and have tripled in size in recent years.
The Department for Transport launched a £500 million Restoring Your Railway Fund in January 2020, to deliver on the government’s manifesto commitment and start reopening lines and stations. We invited MPs, local councils and community groups across England and Wales to propose how they could use this funding to reconnect their local communities.

Restoring Your Railway Fund

Supporting the restoration of rail lines and the reopening of stations.

www.gov.uk

A lot of these disused railways are now being looked at to turn into walking cycling routes?
Some have layed abandoned for decades with no thought of converting it into a cycling route, yet now we are looking at options to convert them back into railways people suddenly decide it would be better suited as a cycling route. Doesn't this seem just a bit mad?

I'm not against more cycle or walking trails at all and I'm well aware of the many ex rail routes that have been converted with much success. But it just seems like people don't want a railway for whatever reason.

It makes sense to convert disused lines that are short and will have no purpose at all. But I really can't see a load of commuters cycling 20 miles or more to work and back every day.
Bus routes are going out of fashion like there's no tomorrow and the ones that remain are pretty useless.

Then there's highways England infilling that further reduces the feasibility of reinstatement, due to the added costs of now having to rebuild perfectly good bridges. But I guess that subject warrants another topic.

I know the deadline for the ban on petrol and diesel vehicles has been pushed back once again and will probably be pushed further back as time goes on, but I think that's more owning to pressure from motor corporations than how people might travel around in the not too distant future.

Are people even looking toward the future these days or just here and now?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

This is very vague and handwavy. Do you have any particular lines in mind?

Generally rail-trail conversions are good for the possibility of future rail reinstatement - it preserves the trackbed from obstruction. Same reason why canal restoration projects will start with establishing the towpath as a walking route.

 

[Envoy]

I have no objection to former rail routes being converted into cycle/walkways - providing that in the event in the future a railway is desired, they do not object.

I am fed up with cyclists dressed in lycra with heads down for streamlining, wizzing around blind corners on country lanes. Far better to get them off the country lanes and onto old rail routes where available.

I have sometimes followed former rail routes on Google Earth. It looks to me that farmers have often taken over these routes and either use them as farm tracks or have bulldozed the route completely in order to make bigger fields - with the subsequent loss of hedgerows for wildlife. I wonder if these farmers ever sought permission to do this or did they just destroy old rail routes without permission hoping nobody would notice?

 

[dangerousdids2]

This is very vague and handwavy. Do you have any particular lines in mind?

Generally rail-trail conversions are good for the possibility of future rail reinstatement - it preserves the trackbed from obstruction. Same reason why canal restoration projects will start with establishing the towpath as a walking route.

I'll have a trail through the papers and add some links in a while. Just about to set off on a journey in the car as the 30 mile trip would take close to 3 hours by train.

Thanks.

 

[RT4038]

In recent years its looking like the motor car is becoming less and less welcome.

Really? Not in my neck of the woods....! Car is king.

 

[bingleybong]

I wonder if these farmers ever sought permission to do this or did they just destroy old rail routes without permission hoping nobody would notice?

Who's permission would they need? They simply bought the land and used it.

 

[RT4038]

Who's permission would they need? They simply bought the land and used it.

Often the original Act acquiring the land when the railway was built had clauses to give the original/surrounding landowners first chance of acquiring it back if it was no longer used as a railway. (and quite rightly so!)

 

[yorksrob]

I wasn't aware of recent cases where a railway reinstatement is proposed then a rival proposal to turn the route into a path is put up against it. If this is happening the railway should obviously take precedent.

The classic example of obstruction seems to be the Monsal Trail where whenever reopening as a railway is proposed, we're told that the cyclists would be up in arms.

 

[lachlan]

I wasn't aware of recent cases where a railway reinstatement is proposed then a rival proposal to turn the route into a path is put up against it. If this is happening the railway should obviously take precedent.

The classic example of obstruction seems to be the Monsal Trail where whenever reopening as a railway is proposed, we're told that the cyclists would be up in arms.

indeed, there was a petition with over 5,000 signatures signed opposing it.

My general feeling is rail and cycle shouldn't be competing against each other for routes - cyclists deserve better, direct routes between places and not leftover railway lines. Likewise If rebuilding a railway elsewhere and keeping the old trackbed as a cycle path would better serve the public's transport needs then so be it

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Have any of the heavy rail lines re-opened (or about to be re-opened) in Scotland in recent years, been built on top of former footpaths or cycle trails, etc.?

 

[yorksrob]

indeed, there was a petition with over 5,000 signatures signed opposing it.

My general feeling is rail and cycle shouldn't be competing against each other for routes - cyclists deserve better, direct routes between places and not leftover railway lines. Likewise If rebuilding a railway elsewhere and keeping the old trackbed as a cycle path would better serve the public's transport needs then so be it

Indeed. My general feeling is that most of these railway routes converted into cycleways are primarily used for leisure rather than transport, therefore if the route is needed for transport as part of the main line railway, it should go back to the railway - leisure cycling can take place elsewhere.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Have any of the heavy rail lines re-opened (or about to be re-opened) in Scotland in recent years, been built on top of former footpaths or cycle trails, etc.?

Yes, the Borders Railway previously had a cycle path on part of the route. Sustrans (custodians of the National Cycle Network) were very much in support of the rail reopening, though they lodged a technical objection to ensure that a good quality alternative cycle route was provided. I seem to recall that the objection said something like "we are wholly in support of reopening the railway" in the first few paragraphs!

Indeed. My general feeling is that most of these railway routes converted into cycleways are primarily used for leisure rather than transport, therefore if the route is needed for transport as part of the main line railway, it should go back to the railway - leisure cycling can take place elsewhere.

Thing is that most of the perceived clashes (and very often they are "perceived" and nothing more) are between cycle routes and heritage railway lines. So you have leisure cycling vs leisure playing trains.

(But even then it's almost always possible to accommodate both, as on the Welsh Highland Railway, the Avon Valley Railway, the Plym Valley Railway etc. etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bristol–Bath Railway Path carries more daily commuters than the Midland line between the two ever did!)

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, the Borders Railway previously had a cycle path on part of the route. Sustrans (custodians of the National Cycle Network) were very much in support of the rail reopening, though they lodged a technical objection to ensure that a good quality alternative cycle route was provided. I seem to recall that the objection said something like "we are wholly in support of reopening the railway" in the first few paragraphs!


Thing is that most of the perceived clashes (and very often they are "perceived" and nothing more) are between cycle routes and heritage railway lines. So you have leisure cycling vs leisure playing trains.

(But even then it's almost always possible to accommodate both, as on the Welsh Highland Railway, the Avon Valley Railway, the Plym Valley Railway etc. etc.)

Yes, I think that's a fair point. Heritage railway travel is itself leisure, therefore if a cycle way bags it first, they've as much right to retain it.

 

[lachlan]

Yes, the Borders Railway previously had a cycle path on part of the route. Sustrans (custodians of the National Cycle Network) were very much in support of the rail reopening, though they lodged a technical objection to ensure that a good quality alternative cycle route was provided. I seem to recall that the objection said something like "we are wholly in support of reopening the railway" in the first few paragraphs!


Thing is that most of the perceived clashes (and very often they are "perceived" and nothing more) are between cycle routes and heritage railway lines. So you have leisure cycling vs leisure playing trains.

(But even then it's almost always possible to accommodate both, as on the Welsh Highland Railway, the Avon Valley Railway, the Plym Valley Railway etc. etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bristol–Bath Railway Path carries more daily commuters than the Midland line between the two ever did!)

Yes the Bristol-Bath path is fantastic and very well used in my experience. It could have potential for a tram route (if Bristol ever gets trams!) but it's definitely better as a path than a heavy rail route given it duplicates the present day Bristol-Bath line

 

[coppercapped]

Indeed. My general feeling is that most of these railway routes converted into cycleways are primarily used for leisure rather than transport, therefore if the route is needed for transport as part of the main line railway, it should go back to the railway - leisure cycling can take place elsewhere.

As much rail travel these days is classed as ‘leisure’, what’s the difference?

 

[Magdalia]

In recent years its looking like the motor car is becoming less and less welcome. Electric cars (Ev's) are looking less like a feasible replacement and the current railway infrastructure isn't looking like a feasible replacement either, well not if you live in a rural village!

So the government put some money aside for councils to look at options to reinstate disused railways that died because of the car, that might just be vital to serve communities that rely heavily on cars and have tripled in size in recent years.

A lot of these disused railways are now being looked at to turn into walking cycling routes?
Some have layed abandoned for decades with no thought of converting it into a cycling route, yet now we are looking at options to convert them back into railways people suddenly decide it would be better suited as a cycling route. Doesn't this seem just a bit mad?

I'm not against more cycle or walking trails at all and I'm well aware of the many ex rail routes that have been converted with much success. But it just seems like people don't want a railway for whatever reason.

These are not the only options. Here in the Fens we already have railways turned into roads, for example Kings Lynn-Sutton Bridge and March-Chatteris, or busways, for example Chesterton Jn-St Ives and the currently paused proposal for Shelford-Haverhill.

The prolonged closure of the Trumpington-Cambridge busway, for safety reasons, has demonstrated that the route is more important as a cycleway than as a busway.

Each case needs to be considered separately.

 

[deltic08]

Yes, the Borders Railway previously had a cycle path on part of the route. Sustrans (custodians of the National Cycle Network) were very much in support of the rail reopening, though they lodged a technical objection to ensure that a good quality alternative cycle route was provided. I seem to recall that the objection said something like "we are wholly in support of reopening the railway" in the first few paragraphs!


Thing is that most of the perceived clashes (and very often they are "perceived" and nothing more) are between cycle routes and heritage railway lines. So you have leisure cycling vs leisure playing trains.

(But even then it's almost always possible to accommodate both, as on the Welsh Highland Railway, the Avon Valley Railway, the Plym Valley Railway etc. etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bristol–Bath Railway Path carries more daily commuters than the Midland line between the two ever did!)

I think you mean Airdrie-Bathgate. There was a foot/cycle path the whole way. A parallel path was built so that the original solum could be used.

Yes the Bristol-Bath path is fantastic and very well used in my experience. It could have potential for a tram route (if Bristol ever gets trams!) but it's definitely better as a path than a heavy rail route given it duplicates the present day Bristol-Bath line

As a regular user of the line before it closed in 1966, it does not duplicate the current Bristol-Bath route and was much better as a railway line. For a start it served places such as Lawrence Hill, Fishponds, Mangotsfield, Oldland and by changing at Mangotsfield reached Bath and places as far as Bournemouth which is impossible to do today without an enormous detour via Reading.
I used it regularly between Gloucester and Bath/Shepton Mallet, mostly by through train which is impossible today without a car or detour via Bristol.
It is a disgrace that BR continued using steam to the end instead of cutting costs by introducing diesel locos and DMUs resulting in the Beeching Axe.

 

[Titfield]

In recent years its looking like the motor car is becoming less and less welcome. Electric cars (Ev's) are looking less like a feasible replacement and the current railway infrastructure isn't looking like a feasible replacement either, well not if you live in a rural village!

So the government put some money aside for councils to look at options to reinstate disused railways that died because of the car, that might just be vital to serve communities that rely heavily on cars and have tripled in size in recent years.

A lot of these disused railways are now being looked at to turn into walking cycling routes?
Some have layed abandoned for decades with no thought of converting it into a cycling route, yet now we are looking at options to convert them back into railways people suddenly decide it would be better suited as a cycling route. Doesn't this seem just a bit mad?

I'm not against more cycle or walking trails at all and I'm well aware of the many ex rail routes that have been converted with much success. But it just seems like people don't want a railway for whatever reason.

It makes sense to convert disused lines that are short and will have no purpose at all. But I really can't see a load of commuters cycling 20 miles or more to work and back every day.
Bus routes are going out of fashion like there's no tomorrow and the ones that remain are pretty useless.

Then there's highways England infilling that further reduces the feasibility of reinstatement, due to the added costs of now having to rebuild perfectly good bridges. But I guess that subject warrants another topic.

I know the deadline for the ban on petrol and diesel vehicles has been pushed back once again and will probably be pushed further back as time goes on, but I think that's more owning to pressure from motor corporations than how people might travel around in the not too distant future.

Are people even looking toward the future these days or just here and now?

The switch of freight from rail to road and the large drop in the nationwide movement of household coal was as much a contributory factor to the closure of railway lines as was the growth in the ownership and use of private cars.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I think you mean Airdrie-Bathgate. There was a foot/cycle path the whole way. A parallel path was built so that the original solum could be used.

No, I definitely mean the Borders Railway, thank you. Here is one of the Sustrans submissions:

https://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/waverlyRB/docs/WR05/wr-ph1_g5we.pdf

3. Both charities warmly welcome the proposal to reopen this line and look forward to the early completion of the project.
4. At the same time, mindful of their remit to also encourage walking and cycling, the two charities anticipate that the overall rail reopening project will take care to encourage walking and cycling, both as the preferred mode of access to the various stations along the line, and for general purposes within the wider corridor of the line because the more the public travel without their car, the more likely they will be to use the trains. Also to take care that appropriate facilities at stations and on trains are provided to encourage cycling.
5. Sustrans, as the lead partner, has had a number of discussions with the Councils and with the Promoters. However, since alternative routes of sufficient detail and quality have not been approved and confirmed, Sustrans and Railway Paths Limited maintain their objections to this railway reopening proposal, but confirm their intent to continue in discussions with the Promoters and the Councils to resolve each detailed issue.

As a regular user of the line before it closed in 1966, it does not duplicate the current Bristol-Bath route and was much better as a railway line. For a start it served places such as Lawrence Hill, Fishponds, Mangotsfield, Oldland and by changing at Mangotsfield reached Bath and places as far as Bournemouth which is impossible to do today without an enormous detour via Reading.

The Bristol–Bath railway path does not go via Bournemouth unless my geography is very incorrect, and the presence of a cycleway between Bristol and Bath does not preclude the S&D being reinstated to Bournemouth. Other factors may, however.

 

[DelW]

As a regular user of the line before it closed in 1966, it does not duplicate the current Bristol-Bath route and was much better as a railway line. For a start it served places such as Lawrence Hill, Fishponds, Mangotsfield, Oldland and by changing at Mangotsfield reached Bath and places as far as Bournemouth which is impossible to do today without an enormous detour via Reading.

While it's a long way geographically, I suspect that Bristol - Reading - Bournemouth is quicker on current trains than travelling via the S&D was in its heyday. Had that survived, it could have been speeded up using e.g. 158s, but with the banks and single-track sections it would never have become a fast route.

It is a disgrace that BR continued using steam to the end instead of cutting costs by introducing diesel locos and DMUs resulting in the Beeching Axe.

It's often been suggested that the closure of the S&D was the result of the (historic) GWR influenced Western Region getting its revenge on an LMS/SR route.

 

[deltic08]

As much rail travel these days is classed as ‘leisure’, what’s the difference?

Irrelevant.

No, I definitely mean the Borders Railway, thank you. Here is one of the Sustrans submissions:

https://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/waverlyRB/docs/WR05/wr-ph1_g5we.pdf

The Bristol–Bath railway path does not go via Bournemouth unless my geography is very incorrect, and the presence of a cycleway between Bristol and Bath does not preclude the S&D being reinstated to Bournemouth. Other factors may, however.

I think you need to visit your optician. I didn't say or even hint at Bournemouth being on the Bristol-Mangotsfeild-Bath route. If you look again I said Bath and places as far as Bournemouth and not Bournemouth and places as far as Bath.

While it's a long way geographically, I suspect that Bristol - Reading - Bournemouth is quicker on current trains than travelling via the S&D was in its heyday. Had that survived, it could have been speeded up using e.g. 158s, but with the banks and single-track sections it would never have become a fast route.

It's often been suggested that the closure of the S&D was the result of the (historic) GWR influenced Western Region getting its revenge on an LMS/SR route.

Until 1962, the S&D route was obviously the best route to Bournemouth with all trains from the North routed this way. Had the S&D been upgraded as the rest of the railway system was since then, probably would still be the quickest route. Diesels of today could possibly reach the line speed of 50mph on Devonshire Bank up out of Bath that steam could only struggle to 20 something and the same out of Radstock.

Yes, I agree that it was the Spoilt Brat behaviour of the GWR. Could not wait to eliminate steam on the region, but not the S&D.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Just picking up on one of your points 'Electric cars (Ev's) are looking less like a feasible replacement'. Anyone believes this is the case are kidding themselves. EVs are the future and will only get better and better. The EVs today are the equivalent of what petrol cars in the 1930s are to the cars of today. Electric cars that have a range of or exceeding petrol or diesel cars, that you can charge at home or via convenient charging stations will be the norm in 10 to 15 years.

 

[yorkie]

So the government put some money aside for councils to look at options to reinstate disused railways that died because of the car, that might just be vital to serve communities that rely heavily on cars and have tripled in size in recent years.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here, but if you are referring to some Government announcement, we ask that you kindly provide a link to, and quote from it.

A lot of these disused railways are now being looked at to turn into walking cycling routes?

Can you clarify which railways you are referring to?

Is this based on any authoritative or trustworthy source(s)? If so, can you provide them please.

Some have layed abandoned for decades with no thought of converting it into a cycling route, yet now we are looking at options to convert them back into railways people suddenly decide it would be better suited as a cycling route. Doesn't this seem just a bit mad?

I don't know what you are asking is "mad" but numerous disused lines have been converted into walking/cycling routes very successfully.

I'm not against more cycle or walking trails at all and I'm well aware of the many ex rail routes that have been converted with much success.

Can you clarify then which ones are "mad", and are these based on any actual proposals?

But it just seems like people don't want a railway for whatever reason.

Which people? Is this based on anything of any substance?

It makes sense to convert disused lines that are short and will have no purpose at all.

Many longer ones have been converted too.

But I really can't see a load of commuters cycling 20 miles or more to work and back every day.

Very few people commute 20 miles but that's not a valid reason not to convert a 20 mile route. Bristol to Bath isn't far off that and is well used by commuters, but few go to the whole way. Routes in the Peak District are incredibly popular at times, but I doubt many people commute on them.

Bus routes are going out of fashion like there's no tomorrow and the ones that remain are pretty useless.

If you say so, but I don't really understand how this is true, or what this means, or how it relates to the rest of your post.

Then there's highways England infilling that further reduces the feasibility of reinstatement, due to the added costs of now having to rebuild perfectly good bridges. But I guess that subject warrants another topic.

Maybe it does; I don't know what you are referring to. If this is something that you read about, we ask that you link to, and quote from it, to provide context.

 

[zwk500]

The classic example of obstruction seems to be the Monsal Trail where whenever reopening as a railway is proposed, we're told that the cyclists would be up in arms.

A specific issue with the Monsal trail though is that the rail reinstatement's objective always seem to boil down to 'we have to build a railway because there used to be one here' and nobody can give a clear answer with demonstrable demand whether it's meant to be a primary inter-city link, a local stopper connector or freight relief to the Hope Valley, with proposals trying to claim all the benefit of every option but none of the problems of mixed traffic.
Whereas the cyclists/walkers have a clear purpose and proven demand, while contributing to several local enterprises along the way.

 

[yorksrob]

As much rail travel these days is classed as ‘leisure’, what’s the difference?

For most people the rail travel is a means to an end, so if you are going to Bognor Regis for whatever reason, you need the railway to go to Bognor Regis.

If you are just going for a cycle ride or a steam train trip, you can choose any cycle route or preserved railway

A specific issue with the Monsal trail though is that the rail reinstatement's objective always seem to boil down to 'we have to build a railway because there used to be one here' and nobody can give a clear answer with demonstrable demand whether it's meant to be a primary inter-city link, a local stopper connector or freight relief to the Hope Valley, with proposals trying to claim all the benefit of every option but none of the problems of mixed traffic.
Whereas the cyclists/walkers have a clear purpose and proven demand, while contributing to several local enterprises along the way.

As I've said before it would be a bit of all of them, just as most main line railways serve different uses.

I don't really see why so many on this forum seem suspicious of the idea of a new mixed use railway when the evidence is that most of our busier railways are mixed use anyway.

 

[JKF]

Yes the Bristol-Bath path is fantastic and very well used in my experience. It could have potential for a tram route (if Bristol ever gets trams!) but it's definitely better as a path than a heavy rail route given it duplicates the present day Bristol-Bath line

I do think if it wasn’t a cycle path it would be a very desirable reopening, at least as far as Mangotsfield. But then if it wasn’t a cycle path it’s likely a lot of the formation would have been lost to housing or have a Tesco plonked on it (Tesco seems to be the worst of the supermarkets for eliminating old rail formation!).

The insane thing seems to be how they allowed so much of it to be destroyed by the new ring road, and how Sustrans etc. didn’t make a massive stink about this. Couldn’t believe it when I rode along it after a gap of about 20 years and there were suddenly meandering climbs to footbridges and confusing directions where once there was a straight and level trackbed. Apparently Sustrans have split up the trackbed into hundreds of parcels of land with different ownership to make it complex and expensive should anybody try to compulsorily purchase it, in an attempt to prevent any development as a train or tram line. Unfortunately a dual carriageway obliterating several hundred metres got past them.

 

[JKF]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Bristol–Bath Railway Path carries more daily commuters than the Midland line between the two ever did!)

That has been claimed, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s true.

I had a training course up in Downend today so decided I would cycle there from west Bristol, using the railway path for some of the journey. I undertook a non-scientific survey, counting how many people I passed travelling towards the city.

I rode the section from Lawrence Hill up to the exit by Morrisons supermarket, about three miles which took around 15 minutes on the ‘pub bike’. I counted 199 cyclists, walkers and passengers heading the other way over this section, the majority being cyclists. This was around 8:45, so probably a bit late for most commuters, but there were a few people out on the school run (with bike seats or trailers). This being an overcast day in March. I would think on a nicer day you would easily have 1000 people coming into the city this way during the morning peak.

i guess a metro system could easily provide that capacity, but the current arrangement provides useful active travel for thousands of people with minimal infrastructure and maintenance cost. I can’t see it disappearing any time soon.

 

[Irascible]

I'd be surprised if the Mangotsfield westwards ( or even a couple more stops towards Bath ) section wouldn't be used these days, but ( not being old enough to know! ) it does look a long way round to get to Bath ... unless you're in Mangotsfield again.

--

If there's more benefit to restoring a railway the I'd say sorry cyclists, but I think these lines have been shut for so long now that you might as well just look at a new alignment, unless it was already on by far the best one or it's an urban corridor or there's a legal issue. It'll be interesting if a case shows up one day for ripping a road up to put a railway down.

 

[Falcon1200]

Until 1962, the S&D route was obviously the best route to Bournemouth with all trains from the North routed this way. Had the S&D been upgraded as the rest of the railway system was since then, probably would still be the quickest route.

(sorry for going off topic) How so? In all their years of ownership neither the LSWR/Midland, SR/LMS or BR ever doubled the line throughout, or thought it worth providing more than two platforms at Bath Green Park, or a direct west/south curve. This suggests that while the route was certainly busy on Summer Saturdays, for the other 357 days of the year it was underused and the investment could not be justified.

 

[BrianW]

I'd be surprised if the Mangotsfield westwards ( or even a couple more stops towards Bath ) section wouldn't be used these days, but ( not being old enough to know! ) it does look a long way round to get to Bath ... unless you're in Mangotsfield again.

--

If there's more benefit to restoring a railway the I'd say sorry cyclists, but I think these lines have been shut for so long now that you might as well just look at a new alignment, unless it was already on by far the best one or it's an urban corridor or there's a legal issue. It'll be interesting if a case shows up one day for ripping a road up to put a railway down.

Both Bath and Padstow are popular parts of the National Cycle Network:https://www.sustrans.org.uk/find-a-...West+England&routetype=null&distance=null&p=1. Rail fans need to find ways of 'living together'.