Had a quick look on Google maps. Is the original station building still there? There's something there that looks suspiciously like it.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Eden Valley Railway - Appleby?
- Thread starter Marmaduke
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I believe it is.
Novern Uproar
Member
Appleby East station certainly is still there. The site however is knee deep in rusting cars. Owned by a rather interesting character who kindly gave myself & a couple of friends permission to take photos there last summer.
LSWR Cavalier
Established Member
Could be a win-win situation, railway and cycleway could be restored/created for the price of a few metres of motorway
Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 11,839
Some of the 2007 pics on the Disused Stations website makes (Albert) Steptoe's yard look tidy!
LSWR Cavalier
Established Member
Appleby the new Barry?
madannie77
Member
My understanding is that the station house at Appleby East is owned by the scrapman. He rents the station yard which is owned by Railway Paths Ltd, who also own the trackbed from Appleby as far as the current limit of operation of the Eden Valley Railway (which is about 2.2 miles from Warcop)
I can't see both railway and cycleway co-existing. The Eden Valley Railway was built as a single line with no provision for doubling, and as much of the line between Appleby and Warcop is either on embankment or in cutting there is certainly not room for both.
LSWR Cavalier
Established Member
The sides of the cuttings and the embankments could be made steeper, replaced by walls maybe to make room
It sounds like this cycleway scheme is pie in the sky. Sustrans have nothing either end of it as it's flanked by railway. They've done nothing to develop it in the time they've owned their patch.
The phrase p**s or get off the pot springs to mind.
The phrase p**s or get off the pot springs to mind.
swanhill41
Member
In present financial climate these sorry to say pie in the sky ideas are non starters.We used to have a saying in car sales.Houses =Sales.You can't sell a car to a tree.!
Where is the need or the customers to make this something other than idea ?
Where is the need or the customers to make this something other than idea ?
That's excellent news (but I really must learn to read threads before posting - I've just seen the picture in post 17)! Let's just hope it's still in a reasonable condition and can be restored. It's a beautiful old building.
D6130
Established Member
Yes.....there's a photo of it in post #17. (Sorry....I think we just cross-posted!)
Whilst I would agree perhaps that any scheme no matter where it is in the country would be difficult to launch at this time.....the EVR extending to Appleby East has always been on the agenda for some time.
The blockage has always been Sustrans I understand.
Sustrans \ Railway Paths have a considerable land bank of ex railway land & track bed, not all of which will ever be used for actual paths etc.
I think the case in point is the EVR section to Appleby East.
Looking at the OS Map of that area, there isn't to many suitable foot paths that converge with the track bed to make a worthwhile through route or circular walk, assuming one wouldn't wish to walk back on themselves??
Coming back to the viability issue of the EVR extending to Appleby East - Well of course any sensible group would look at the business case on it financial viability and I'm quite sure those in power at the EVR will have and be considering this.
The great aspect is that the railway would be 5 or 6 miles long, which is acknowledged by the rail fraternity as being in the "sweet zone" for managing efficiently.
The big ticket though is what an extended EVR will make to the area.
Appleby is a super Market Town on the fringes of the lake district NP.
It has a station on the S&C.
Appleby East is at best just over 100mts walking distance from Appleby Station on the S&C, a journey made by many railway enthusiasts, so one would assume the EVR would become a place to visit.
The A66 passes within 50mts of Warcop Station and Appleby is just off the A66 further on.
Again with out wishing to speculate on what the EVR have in mind, given the relatively shallow gradients, it would be ideal for attracting those Industrial Loco owners that cant get a gig on the bigger railways, as well though being a great extended stomping ground for those beautiful Southern DMU's they have!!
I'm quite sure the local council would welcome an attraction such as this on their door step in the Eden Valley - Should be a no brainer!!
I implore everyone to get behind this potential scheme and follow the EVR. It'll happen if people want it to happen....where there's a will, there's a way!!
ThetrackMaster
Member
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2017
- Messages
- 78
Bang on Mr Marmaduke....couldn't have said it better myself and that's exactly my feelings. I know the place / area well and for any of those in the railway fraternity who dont know it, I think you should start looking into this potential scheme.
Look beyond the scrap cars at Appleby East, they wont be there forever, look beyond the dereliction at that end of the line, its all superficial.
Yes it'll need money and I think there's possibly the viaduct near Appleby that will need a bit of fettling along with an embankment, but its all doable!!
Yes they'll need help, they'll need volunteers, not only hands on, but even the arm chair followers as they all contribute and are equally needed in both measure.
The membership rates are very appealing, so if you have a little money to spend, treat yourself to membership...at the very least you will be supporting a lovely little railway and even get a free mag every quarter!!
gimmea50anyday
Established Member
There’s only one thumper there. However there are two BEP EMUs and two MLVs. I believe there are plans to stick an engine in one of the MLVs to charge the batteries which provide traction power while on the move
madannie77
Member
The BEPs are actually CEPs, having had their buffet cars replaced by TSOs in September 2002 when they were also renumbered (2301 becoming 2311 and 2305 becoming 2315).
There are three MLVs at Warcop, although one of them (S68010/9010) is not operational and is used as a second-hand goods shop.
The other two MLVS (S68003/9003 and S68005/9005/931095) are operational and have been used in passenger service. S68005 has had a generator for many years, this being used to provide train supply to the CEP which allows all the battery power to be expended on hauling and propelling the train. It is also used to charge the batteries when in passenger service.
There are three MLVs at Warcop, although one of them (S68010/9010) is not operational and is used as a second-hand goods shop.
The other two MLVS (S68003/9003 and S68005/9005/931095) are operational and have been used in passenger service. S68005 has had a generator for many years, this being used to provide train supply to the CEP which allows all the battery power to be expended on hauling and propelling the train. It is also used to charge the batteries when in passenger service.
Doctor Fegg
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 1,840
The old trackbed is currently owned by Railway Paths Ltd, not Sustrans, though the two organisations often work closely together (RPL describes Sustrans as its "sister charity").
Railway Paths Ltd has recently run a consultation on what to do with those parts of its estate that are not currently used for paths, which would include the Appleby trackbed. Selling off (at least some of) these sections is a very plausible outcome.
I don't believe RPL has published the outcome of the consultation yet nor what its final plans will be.
RPL has a website at https://www.railwaypaths.org.uk which has an interesting interactive map.
dpemberton
Member
Hello from Railway Paths
I thought I'd reply, apologies for the length and detail, but the thread has covered quite a lot of ground since it was started in August 2020.
The ownership of the Appleby-Warcop line is split between Railway Paths Ltd (RPL) and the Eden Valley Railway Trust (EVRT). RPL own from Appleby to Sandford, and EVRT from Sandford to Warcop. You can see RPL's exact land here. The land owned by RPL is presently leased to Sustrans, but with legally registered restrictions in favour of EVRT and the DfT.
As the landowners we would like to see the land used, I agree with the comments above that leaving it unused is a shame. I'm faced with two parties EVRT and Sustrans who have the power to prevent either doing anything, but neither have the resources to do something that would also satisfy the other party. The analogy, and I mean no disrespect to either party or to follically challenged people like myself, is proverbially 'two bald men fighting over a comb'.
As I understand it, the original line was single track, built on a double track alignment, but with single track bridges. With the exception of the pinch points at bridges it could be used for both rail and cycle. Sustrans have come up with three or four schemes in the past 23 years, but have not been able to fund them.
I like walking, cycling, national and heritage rail; I'm trying to see the situation from all sides. Personally, I think the cycle schemes are unlikely to be realised because they will be hard to justify based on use or injury avoided compared with building cycleways elsewhere. I hope that Sustrans will relinquish their lease.
Even if Sustrans stepped aside it would not be a simple matter to give the Appleby-Sandford section to EVRT.
Charity law requires that one charity cannot simply give its land to another charity unless the two charities have the same charitable objects. The land must be bought and sold on commercial terms. It is possible to get a dispensation from the Charity Commission if it can be proved that gifting the land will meet the objects of the charity making the gift. RPL has just got such a dispensation so that the Aln Valley Railway can have our land that allows them to link to Alnmouth, but in return they have agreed to build a cycleway alongside their new track.
A further complication exists in transferring land in respect to bridges that carry the line over/under a public highway, bridleway or footpath. We are required by the DfT to permanently extinguish all liabilities when we dispose of our land and to get permission from DfT. Anticipating this, I wrote to DfT last year to get agreement that heritage railways holding TWOs should be considered a fit and proper body to take public bridge liabilities. I am still waiting for a reply.
In my work on this problem I have found all the parties friendly and cooperative. I know that to make progress everyone will have to compromise. I don't want another 23 years of stalemate. Right now the only 'winner' is the River Eden as it gradually undermines the line.
Best wishes
David Pemberton
Railway Paths
Railway Paths | public routes, roads and paths suitable for cycling, walking, horseriding and wheel-chair use
I thought I'd reply, apologies for the length and detail, but the thread has covered quite a lot of ground since it was started in August 2020.
The ownership of the Appleby-Warcop line is split between Railway Paths Ltd (RPL) and the Eden Valley Railway Trust (EVRT). RPL own from Appleby to Sandford, and EVRT from Sandford to Warcop. You can see RPL's exact land here. The land owned by RPL is presently leased to Sustrans, but with legally registered restrictions in favour of EVRT and the DfT.
As the landowners we would like to see the land used, I agree with the comments above that leaving it unused is a shame. I'm faced with two parties EVRT and Sustrans who have the power to prevent either doing anything, but neither have the resources to do something that would also satisfy the other party. The analogy, and I mean no disrespect to either party or to follically challenged people like myself, is proverbially 'two bald men fighting over a comb'.
As I understand it, the original line was single track, built on a double track alignment, but with single track bridges. With the exception of the pinch points at bridges it could be used for both rail and cycle. Sustrans have come up with three or four schemes in the past 23 years, but have not been able to fund them.
I like walking, cycling, national and heritage rail; I'm trying to see the situation from all sides. Personally, I think the cycle schemes are unlikely to be realised because they will be hard to justify based on use or injury avoided compared with building cycleways elsewhere. I hope that Sustrans will relinquish their lease.
Even if Sustrans stepped aside it would not be a simple matter to give the Appleby-Sandford section to EVRT.
Charity law requires that one charity cannot simply give its land to another charity unless the two charities have the same charitable objects. The land must be bought and sold on commercial terms. It is possible to get a dispensation from the Charity Commission if it can be proved that gifting the land will meet the objects of the charity making the gift. RPL has just got such a dispensation so that the Aln Valley Railway can have our land that allows them to link to Alnmouth, but in return they have agreed to build a cycleway alongside their new track.
A further complication exists in transferring land in respect to bridges that carry the line over/under a public highway, bridleway or footpath. We are required by the DfT to permanently extinguish all liabilities when we dispose of our land and to get permission from DfT. Anticipating this, I wrote to DfT last year to get agreement that heritage railways holding TWOs should be considered a fit and proper body to take public bridge liabilities. I am still waiting for a reply.
In my work on this problem I have found all the parties friendly and cooperative. I know that to make progress everyone will have to compromise. I don't want another 23 years of stalemate. Right now the only 'winner' is the River Eden as it gradually undermines the line.
Best wishes
David Pemberton
Railway Paths
Railway Paths | public routes, roads and paths suitable for cycling, walking, horseriding and wheel-chair use
Very informative, thanks for that and welcome to the forum David.
STEVIEBOY1
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 4,001
It's amazing that this has been going on for 23 years!
Yes Mr Pemberton, a very honest and clear perspective on the situation at the EVRT & Sustrans.
Whilst its a relatively small railway in terms of length, it has one or two perhaps key liabilities towards the Westward section that would clearly need addressing, however that said, if a deal could be struck I am quite sure given its location, close to the S&C, it would, assuming the offering was good, provide for a nice local attraction.
I think Appleby and the immediate local area could do with an attraction, somewhere for the railway fraternity to visit.
I do hope it comes to fruition as a railway of circa 6 miles is a very manageable length and dare I say it, if the EVR is to thrive in some way, wholeheartedly needed as a "somewhere" to get too.
I'm pretty sure if this "has legs" the public and railway supporters will get behind it and I guess the powers that be in the EVR need to make their intentions thoroughly known to get the momentum going.
No it doesn't - there's only one item amongst that response which is DFT related : "A further complication exists in transferring land in respect to bridges that carry the line over/under a public highway, bridleway or footpath. We are required by the DfT to permanently extinguish all liabilities when we dispose of our land and to get permission from DfT. Anticipating this, I wrote to DfT last year to get agreement that heritage railways holding TWOs should be considered a fit and proper body to take public bridge liabilities."
The bigger issue is the contention between the EVRT and Sustrans - and the blocker is until one, or other party cedes their claim on it, it goes nowhere. It's stalemate. The DFT response would only be an issue IF the use of the land had been agreed and whichever party was ready to progress - as that would impede progress. As it is there's been a standoff between the EVRT and Sustrans for over 20 years, I hardly think the DFT taking a few months to respond is the issue here.
ThetrackMaster
Member
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2017
- Messages
- 78
I'm not sure which angle you are coming from, but surely in the scheme of things, the ultimate solution given the facts presented would be to cede ownership to the EVRT?
There is in this case, no logic whatsoever in Sustrans retaining ownership when clearly nothing is ever going to happen via them. You couldn't use the track bed as part of a cycleway or footpath as it goes no where and doesn't intersect with any notable foot paths.
The real owners should be the EVRT because ultimately the sensible solution would be for them to have access to Appleby.
People may argue that perhaps the EVRT dont presently have the funding or even the set up to make this happen? I however think not.
I have been involved a number of "grass root" schemes and pretty much all evolve from what you have at the EVR.
The best way to describe the EVR in relation to this from what I see, is that they have been in "holding mode", managing a small section, looking after it, carrying out small operations.
When a phase like this comes along, organisations I have been involved with set up a separate team to manage the new aspect, from funding through to delivery and future operation.
I'd be very surprised if the EVRT Management Team haven't already considered this and have been waiting for the day to initiate a future delivery...After all, they've had over 20 years waiting in the wings for the opportunity to arrive!!
I would like to add that I find Mr Pemberton's piece very informative and should be thanked for his input as even such a small piece like this must give some comfort to an organisation like the EVRT?
I'm not coming at it from any "angle" - it was a response to the claim it was the DFT which were holding this up - and that's not what @dpemberton's post says. There was only one item which was out with the DFT and was sent to them sometime in the last year - whereas there has been a standoff between Sustrans and EVRT for over 2 decades.
@Brush 4 said it sounded like it was the DFT holding this up - yet there's no evidence for that.
You are entitled to your opinion that the EVRT should be the owners - I'm sure Sustrans hold a different view for their own reasons. I don't have a strong opinion on that either way.
I very much doubt the EVR are 'shovel ready' to start work on this next week as it's only once they have access to the land can they even begin to make plans - delivery will be many years after that.
The other day I was looking at Google Earth at the Northampton & Lamport railway at Boughton Crossing - which I know quite well. In 2012 they'd just laid track there - as of today that piece of track is still not in use, though over the last year they've made progress on building their platform (which started in 2019).
ThetrackMaster
Member
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2017
- Messages
- 78
Interesting reply....I'm quite sure the EVR wont be "shovel ready" as you put it. I dare say and I am not their spokesperson as I am not a member, but it will surely be more than a passing thought that one day they would hope to have the opportunity to own this stretch?
At the end of the end of the day, its all comes down to Public & local Interest - Funding - Resource.
If there isn't a sound business case to not only secure funding to carry out the works but also how to operationally manage it, it will never get off the ground.
My "angle" though is looking at a potential missed opportunity for the area if it didn't proceed. If the EVR don't wish to get behind it, its their call, however, there will only ever be mild interest in their existing operation UNLESS they can improve their public offering
There is already another thread on these boards questioning whether we have too many heritage railways in the UK i.e. have we reached saturation point ?
Post Covid, this may well prove to be the case - already in the last 12 months we've seen two railways (Llangollen and South Tynedale) having problems with the financial stability of *some* elements of their operations.
For part established lines like the EVR, how are they going to fare ? I know for some around here it's considered interesting because of its use of a Thumper and ex SR EMUs - but reality check time, for the average punter, for the family group etc that really isn't going to attract them. And that bit of the Lakes / Pennines isn't the tourist attraction that other parts are. Sure, Appleby's a nice Westmorland town, but so are any number of other small towns around there.
Where heritage railways are concerned it really is a case of not everything can be saved and if even well established lines like Llangollen are under threat then the marginal players are even more exposed.
I agree with your sentiments to a certain degree, however TRACKMASTER appears to be raising a number of valid points.
Its not a matter of whether we have too many HR's but whether they are viable in todays market?
I think the problem isn't really quantity, as they are all fairly spaced out in the main, but size.....too big in a lot of instances, which takes time and a lot of volunteer effort. Even the NYMR, probably the best in the world, struggles if the stars aren't aligned given the scale of its first class operation.
Its down to sustainability and that as Track master points out in a roundabout way, with an emphasis on funding and public interest.
I think the attraction of the EVR and its potential is its on one of the gateways to the Lakes. Its beside the A66 trunk road, and at Appleby links to the S&C.
The obvious starter is end to end it will be at best 6 miles long. Yes it has a few issues with a bridge and I believe an embankment being steadily washed away, but its certainly all doable.
If EVRT are interested in closing this gap and Sustrans \ Railway Paths support the idea, as long as there is a good business case, involving the local authority I say go for it!!
On the other hand, the EVR does strike me as being a bit of a potential sweet spot in terms of railway enthusiasts.
You have the full majesty of the S&C within potentially easy reach, a decent stretch of preserved railway within walking distance could make for a decent day out package. Admittedly the Southern D/EMU's are a bit specialist, however the addition of a couple of steam loco's could sort that out.
The sidings North of Appleby station could also make for that all important main line connection.
You have the full majesty of the S&C within potentially easy reach, a decent stretch of preserved railway within walking distance could make for a decent day out package. Admittedly the Southern D/EMU's are a bit specialist, however the addition of a couple of steam loco's could sort that out.
The sidings North of Appleby station could also make for that all important main line connection.
The problem with that business model is rather too many enthusiasts have deep pockets and short arms.
And a mainline connection is important because ?....... Bearing in mind it adds cost and complexity which a small line with limited funds will struggle with.
Most rolling stock is brought in by road because it's quicker and cheaper to do so. Even those lines with mainline connections currently don't have much in the way of tours etc running onto them from the mainline - the only ones I can think of that have done so are the North Norfolk, Swanage and West Somerset.
Last edited:
- Status