GWSR Broadway to Honeybourne redundant track bed

[reddragon]

Surely the biggest issue is the line's 25mph speed limit. It's quite a long journey from Cheltenham to Broadway as it is.

All the latter track laid outside of stations is CWR modern track capable of higher speeds and the light rail act was repealed along with the speed limit. This provides the potential to raise speed limits in the future.

RPL/Sustrans have continued to inspect the bridges during the period of RPL ownership. I would be very surprised if there were £10m of works required right now to keep the bridges safe.

I look after similar bridges, £10m is little more than remedial works. The Broadway extension bridges are rail bridges that had some TLC that only needed repairs. These bridges are a lost cause requiring redecking to cover weight limits and utility diversions.

RPL/Sustrans have continued to inspect the bridges during the period of RPL ownership. I would be very surprised if there were £10m of works required right now to keep the bridges safe.

I look after similar bridges, £10m is little more than remedial works. The Broadway extension bridges are rail bridges that had some TLC that only needed repairs. These bridges are a lost cause requiring redecking to cover weight limits and utility diversions.

Wow! They start in Dublin at 5.00 am catch the ferry arrive and depart Holyhead then have a final bottle of champagne between Honeybourne and Cheltenham, and then crawl into the racecourse?



If only that were true. Going from Honeybourne to Cheltenham Racecourse premier league? Kidderminster to Bridgnorth, with the many attractions along the route. Pickering to Whitby, Hmmm

Cheltenham one end, Broadway the other = Yes! then a connection to the North as in Birmingham via Stratford. It will give it greater potential than both of the above!

 

[Neen Sollars]

The third Gold Cup day train, ran for the first time (I think) during the infamous 2020 Festival. The punters had a special train from London, transferred to coaches at Moreton in Marsh and were taken to Broadway for a steam hauled arrival into the race course. With a direct link they would switch tracks at Honeybourne and reverse onto the now Long Marston line. If the GWSR stopped its own At the Races specials to accommodate rail tours off the main line it would loose around £50k it currently makes from these. Brissle Girl is correct the GWSR makes serious money from sales of Champagne, Guinness, and G&Ts. Whether the two could co-exist I do not know, but there would have to be some hefty line access charges to compensate if not.

 

[ABB125]

The third Gold Cup day train, ran for the first time (I think) during the infamous 2020 Festival. The punters had a special train from London, transferred to coaches at Moreton in Marsh and were taken to Broadway for a steam hauled arrival into the race course. With a direct link they would switch tracks at Honeybourne and reverse onto the now Long Marston line. If the GWSR stopped its own At the Races specials to accommodate rail tours off the main line it would loose around £50k it currently makes from these. Brissle Girl is correct the GWSR makes serious money from sales of Champagne, Guinness, and G&Ts. Whether the two could co-exist I do not know, but there would have to be some hefty line access charges to compensate if not.

Even if they weren't able to coexist (though I'm pretty sure that some arrangement could be made), a direct mainline connection at Honeybourne would still make it much easier for racegoers to change onto the steam train

 

[Neen Sollars]

If the rail network outer West Midlands orbital final link were constructed from Statford Upon Avon to Honeybourne, then GWSR would either have to share NR metals (and potentially a platform) into Honeybourne (whole new can of worms) or one line would have to dive under or over the other. The spur from Stratford towards Moreton in Marsh would not hinder the GWSR. The GWSR founding fathers vision was to link Stratford upon Avon racecourse with Cheltenham racecourse, and even further into the towns if possible. So the old Honeybourne Junction would need to be re-created if the GWSR wanted to run directly from Cheltenham to Stratford. Heritage Railways running on NR metals incurs a lot of cost and training.

 

[Brissle Girl]

The third Gold Cup day train, ran for the first time (I think) during the infamous 2020 Festival. The punters had a special train from London, transferred to coaches at Moreton in Marsh and were taken to Broadway for a steam hauled arrival into the race course. With a direct link they would switch tracks at Honeybourne and reverse onto the now Long Marston line. If the GWSR stopped its own At the Races specials to accommodate rail tours off the main line it would loose around £50k it currently makes from these. Brissle Girl is correct the GWSR makes serious money from sales of Champagne, Guinness, and G&Ts. Whether the two could co-exist I do not know, but there would have to be some hefty line access charges to compensate if not.

Yes, my assumption would be that racegoers would transfer at Honeybourne only GWSR services, so that the railway would get the benefit of the on-board revenue. I can't imagine GWR would want to tie up a unit for maybe two hours on the return trip to the Racecourse both morning and evening.

 

[fgwrich]

And bring it into the Premier League of preserved railways, alongside the likes of the Severn Valley and North York Moors Railways...…………..

It also brings them up to something more easily achievable by railways with mainline connections - railway testing and training. With Porterbrook now operating Long Marston, and VivaRail previously based there, a potential connection to both the mainline and to Long Marston may give the railway a lucrative source of income providing train testing. It's certainly worked out well for the Severn Valley over the years, from 175 testing to the recent 69 testing and now storage of HST Power Cars for Colas Rail.

If the rail network outer West Midlands orbital final link were constructed from Statford Upon Avon to Honeybourne, then GWSR would either have to share NR metals (and potentially a platform) into Honeybourne (whole new can of worms) or one line would have to dive under or over the other. The spur from Stratford towards Moreton in Marsh would not hinder the GWSR. The GWSR founding fathers vision was to link Stratford upon Avon racecourse with Cheltenham racecourse, and even further into the towns if possible. So the old Honeybourne Junction would need to be re-created if the GWSR wanted to run directly from Cheltenham to Stratford. Heritage Railways running on NR metals incurs a lot of cost and training.

It is entirely possible for the GWSR to retain an independent platform space at Honeybourne (with no run around facility) and remain Independent without a mainline connection if needs be, if the route to Long Marston and Stratford used a single line connection through Honeybourne and around to the triangle.

 

[Neen Sollars]

I am sure Mr Parkinson would like a few more views of this. Not sure he is totally correct at 13.28 mins. I think the two rail over bridges are part of the triangle one is the connection to the north - Stratford and the other the spur down to the south - Cheltenham. So I make that 8 bridges to refurb and maintain, plus a contribution to the N.R. overbridge? Then just six miles of track and a platform to build. Easy peasy.

Cab ride through Honeybourne to Long Marston, one of the bridges mentioned above at 30.28. Cut to the chase at about 24 mins. Thanks Mr P

 

[Brissle Girl]

Easy peasy definitely not. But I didn't see anything in that video that made me think it's a complete pipe dream. No cutting full of rubbish, no bridge across a multiple track main line, no street running and a flat crossing of a standard gauge line to negotiate. Now I'm sure COVID has decimated many railways' balance sheets, but given the GWR's success at raising funds to get to Broadway (anyone remember the successful appeal just to rebuild the bridges), would I be the one to turn down what could be a once only offer to secure a long term option to rebuild the line. No, I wouldn't.

 

[Cowley]

Easy peasy definitely not. But I didn't see anything in that video that made me think it's a complete pipe dream. No cutting full of rubbish, no bridge across a multiple track main line, no street running and a flat crossing of a standard gauge line to negotiate. Now I'm sure COVID has decimated many railways' balance sheets, but given the GWR's success at raising funds to get to Broadway (anyone remember the successful appeal just to rebuild the bridges), would I be the one to turn down what could be a once only offer to secure a long term option to rebuild the line. No, I wouldn't.

Well said.

 

[Brush 4]

Yep, it's the potential. If the chance was turned down and the official non preservation Honeybourne-Stratford reopening happens, how will they feel at having missed out. Even without the above, the connection to the network opens up more revenue streams. The 8 race meetings each year, mostly in the quiet off season. Railtours, excursions to the Broadway honeypot, with the option of continuing to Winchcombe if desired. Broadway had nothing at the station site, plus a disused viaduct to bring back into use. They did it anyway.

 

[reddragon]

The GWSR are negotiating with all parties to take over the track bed one way or another but unless someone comes up with the £££ for the bridges, its not going to happen and the cost is way beyond fundraising it is in external grant / funding territory.

The with the track bed owned / leased, fundraising will allow gradual reopening once COVID recovery occurs but the viability to the GWSR of operating the service is dependant on the Stratford link being restored to provide the extra traffic to make operations viable.

Today the GWSR operates 2 trains in service. This would require 3 trains in service. Whilst locos / stock are owned, where do the volunteers come from to increase operations by 50%?

 

[zwk500]

Yep, it's the potential. If the chance was turned down and the official non preservation Honeybourne-Stratford reopening happens, how will they feel at having missed out.

That's a very, very, very, big IF for the mainline reopening south of Stratford. The tunnel may be technically possible, but economically viable it is not, certainly in the view of HM Treasury, who would be funding it.

The GWR will also need to be wary of any continual maintenance burden it takes on with the trackbed. If the bridges aren't in great condition, it could be an albatross around it's neck. I hope they can make it work, because Honeybourne could well be very profitable for them on Gala and Race days, and a physical track connection would make loco/stock exchange far easier to arrange.

 

[Journeyman]

That's a very, very, very, big IF for the mainline reopening south of Stratford. The tunnel may be technically possible, but economically viable it is not, certainly in the view of HM Treasury, who would be funding it.

The GWR will also need to be wary of any continual maintenance burden it takes on with the trackbed. If the bridges aren't in great condition, it could be an albatross around it's neck. I hope they can make it work, because Honeybourne could well be very profitable for them on Gala and Race days, and a physical track connection would make loco/stock exchange far easier to arrange.

A physical connection purely for stock transfer would be much easier at the Cheltenham end, although there's plenty of challenges in that too.

 

[zwk500]

A physical connection purely for stock transfer would be much easier at the Cheltenham end, although there's plenty of challenges in that too.

You'd either need a really tight turn off the main line then a new alignment, or rip up the cycle track through the city centre and sever the car park. I think extending to Honeybourne is actually easier, both from engineering and financial points of view, than either of those. Extending at the Cheltenham end also doesn't give you anything extra to offer passengers, unless you built a new platform on the Cheltenham Spa station car park, whereas Honeybourne gives a cross-platform change and a longer ride.

 

[davetheguard]

The GWSR are negotiating with all parties to take over the track bed one way or another but unless someone comes up with the £££ for the bridges, its not going to happen and the cost is way beyond fundraising it is in external grant / funding territory.

The with the track bed owned / leased, fundraising will allow gradual reopening once COVID recovery occurs but the viability to the GWSR of operating the service is dependant on the Stratford link being restored to provide the extra traffic to make operations viable.

Today the GWSR operates 2 trains in service. This would require 3 trains in service. Whilst locos / stock are owned, where do the volunteers come from to increase operations by 50%?

Reopening all the way past Broadway to Honeybourne has been an aspiration of the GWSR for a long time hasn't it? Albeit perhaps not top of the "to do" list.

When Worcestershire County Council built the Broadway by-pass in the 1990s they specifically included a bridge over the disused trackbed to facilitate any future reopening.

 

[ABB125]

When Worcestershire County Council built the Broadway by-pass in the 1990s they specifically included a bridge over the disused trackbed to facilitate any future reopening.

As did Network Rail when they redoubled the Cotswold line through Honeybourne

 

[reddragon]

Hope, enthusiasm and aspirations do not always equal money to do the works or maintain what has been built.

I am sure that will happen.

Reopening all the way past Broadway to Honeybourne has been an aspiration of the GWSR for a long time hasn't it? Albeit perhaps not top of the "to do" list.

When Worcestershire County Council built the Broadway by-pass in the 1990s they specifically included a bridge over the disused trackbed to facilitate any future reopening.

I don't think there's a single person at GWSR who doesn't want this to happen, but those in charge very rightly cannot allow a dream to sink the railway as a whole.

I am sure that it will happen in time and that the railway alignment will be protected. Just how long that time is depends on money, lots of money.

 

[Journeyman]

I don't think there's a single person at GWSR who doesn't want this to happen, but those in charge very rightly cannot allow a dream to sink the railway as a whole.

I am sure that it will happen in time and that the railway alignment will be protected. Just how long that time is depends on money, lots of money.

Very true. It took a lot of effort to reach Broadway, and there's been two serious landslips on the railway in recent years, plus the impact of COVID. Now is a time to recover, build up what is already there, and make sure the railway is in a strong position, with decent cash reserves and a fleet in good order.

There's less challenges involved, but the Bluebell took many decades to reach East Grinstead. Taking on too much before you're ready risks collapse.

 

[reddragon]

Historical Railways Estate - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item : 'Historical Railways Estate' on Monday 5 July 2021.

hansard.parliament.uk

Lord Jones of Cheltenham
(LD) [V]
Sharethis specific contribution
The Minister knows of my interest in the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Steam Railway, which was extended from Toddington to Broadway in 2018. Can she assure me that no legacy structures on the current route, or possible future extensions from Broadway to Honeybourne and beyond, are under threat of demolition or infilling? Is she making any progress on the burning issue of securing affordable stocks of lump coal, which makes steam engines work? Without that, the whole network could end.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
(Con)
Sharethis specific contribution
I will have to write to the noble Lord on the availability of lump coal and certainly on his specific request about a certain line and whether there are any structures on it. I am afraid I sadly do not have the information and I will have to write.

Its now probably OK to share the full email with members having had enough time to read it formally rather than via a forum.

Broadway to Honeybourne redundant trackbed​

A number of things have happened recently, which mean that I need to advise you all what the current situation is with respect to this stretch of former railway line. As you will know, it is a long held ambition of those who founded our railway to reopen as much as possible of the old line between Cheltenham and Stratford-On-Avon. When we reopened the railway to Broadway, we announced a period of consolidation but made clear that we would not do anything that would in any way inhibit any future further extension to the north. This section of the old line is owned by Railway Paths Limited (RPL), which is in effect a subsidiary of Sustrans the national cycling charity. This section of line was one of a number of such redundant railway lines which were transferred to RPL by the Department for Transport (DfT) some years ago, with the intent that they be turned into cycle routes. We were contacted by RPL earlier this year, and at a subsequent meeting were told that RPL had decided that it had no wish to convert this redundant railway line into a cycleway and had resolved to dispose of it. It had decided that the obvious party to approach about this was GWSR and offer it. There is apparently a clause in the transfer Agreement with the DfT to the effect that if RPL wants to dispose of any redundant railway line to a third party, it has to seek the prior consent of the DfT. RPL applied for permission to transfer this redundant railway line to GWSR and the application was refused. The reason for the refusal is that it is now the policy of the DfT that heritage railways are unable to give a sufficiently strong covenant to secure the continuing maintenance of road bridges which cross these redundant lines, and therefore consideration will only be given to transferring ownership to a body such as a local authority which by definition has the necessary resources. We have written to the DfT to establish if this policy is indeed correct and have asked if it can be waived in our case. We await a reply. Some of you may be aware that on 5th July, there was a debate in the House of Lords instigated by Lord Richard Faulkner (who opened our extension to Broadway) on the subject of the Historical Railway Estate. If you wish to read the Hansard report of the debate please enter the following link into your browser Historical Railways Estate - Monday 5 July 2021 - Hansard - UK Parliament During that debate, as a result of prior correspondence we had had with Lord Nigel Jones he asked on our behalf for confirmation that no legacy structures on the abandoned route were under threat of demolition. In reply, Baroness Vere, Minister for Roads Buses and Places has confirmed that there is currently no intention to infill or demolish the bridges on that route. She said that any transfer of the route would potentially have to be on the basis that a local authority would accept overall legal responsibility for the line and would then lease it to a heritage railway, whilst at the same time entering into an appropriate agreement to secure the cost of future maintenance. There are a number of bridges on the section of abandoned railway line between Broadway and Honeybourne. All are in a poor condition as is evidenced by the fact that the three road overbridges are heavily propped. RPL has confirmed that they have done no more than basic maintenance in the time that they have owned the line and are not in a position financially to do any more work to them. Thus, any party which accepts a transfer of this section of line would also be accepting a considerable financial exposure for necessary future repairs. For ourselves, all this comes at the worst possible time as we have just gone through a period of nearly eighteen months without any meaningful income. Our first responsibility is the security and viability of our current business. The matters I have outlined above may well feature in the railway press, and it is important that you are aware of our position before it appears in print. I will update you further when we know more but wanted you to have all the facts as we now have them. Richard Johnson Chairman GWSR Plc​

 

[zwk500]

Its now probably OK to share the full email with members having had enough time to read it formally rather than via a forum.

If that is indeed the DfT's policy it will have a massive impact on the ability of heritage railways to secure strategic assets. However, given the current situation the ownership by the local council and lease by the Railway seems to be a good compromise that secures the future extension without unnecessarily risking the railway's financial survival.

 

[dpemberton]

Hello from Railway Paths

I can confirm that the extract at the head of this thread correctly describes our wish to transfer the ex-railway from Broadway to Honeybourne to GWSR.

DfT are refusing this transfer (and a similar transfer to EVRT in Cumbria see this thread) on the grounds that heritage railway groups do not have the resources to manage the bridge risks. Representations to DfT on the basis that GSWR and EVRT are statutory bodies by dint of their respective LRO and TWO have not seen any movement in DfT's stance.

The Broadway-Honeybourne and Appleby-Sandford/Warcop land is surplus to Railway Paths needs because Sustrans has now withdrawn interest in creating cycle paths. We could sell the land to fund the bridges or we could return the land to DfT, neither of these options seems to bring the land closer to public use, which is why transfer to heritage rail is our first preference.

Railway Paths works in partnership with the Historical Railways Estate team, Sustrans, local authorities and other charities to keep ex-railway lines as contiguous routes in-use for transport. We maintain our structures to national standards for loadings appropriate to their new or planned use.

If DfT block the transfers and local councils won't help, break-up sales become more likely. We only hold land as long as there is a reasonable prospect for use as a managed path with a partner.

Best wishes

David Pemberton
Railway Paths
Railway Paths | public routes, roads and paths suitable for cycling, walking, horseriding and wheel-chair use

 

[XAM2175]

If that is indeed the DfT's policy it will have a massive impact on the ability of heritage railways to secure strategic assets.

Yes, it is the policy. It's been causing some consternation at Queensbury Tunnel and a few other places as well.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Today the GWSR operates 2 trains in service. This would require 3 trains in service. Whilst locos / stock are owned, where do the volunteers come from to increase operations by 50%?

The volunteer point is very valid, and clearly a lot of thought would be needed on that point, particularly as the existing volunteer pool is ageing and so simply maintaining a steady state is going to be an issue.

One option would be to limit the number of services to Honeybourne to just a handful that offer good connections for those wishing to travel to the railway by train, rather than have all services travelling the full length of the line. Whether that could be done with a 2 train service without significantly reducing the frequency on the core service south of Broadway is a moot point though.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Is the newish station at Broadway, but with an end platform, or would it be quite easy to change the existing infrastructure into a through station towards Honeybourne.?

 

[Brissle Girl]

It’s a through station with two platforms. That is one thing that wouldn’t be an issue.

 

[reddragon]

Is the newish station at Broadway, but with an end platform, or would it be quite easy to change the existing infrastructure into a through station towards Honeybourne.?

It was built as a through station and the tracks extend north to the boundary in the distance.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

It was built as a through station and the tracks extend north to the boundary in the distance.

Ok, thank you.

 

[Meerkat]

What’s the default?
RPL can sell the land to fund the bridges (would the land really be worth that much, particularly if the councils made it clear they wouldn’t allow change of use?), but they can only do that once. It’s not a permanent fix. If they can just hand it back to the DfT scotfree why haven’t they done that?
Someone will have to either take that responsibility on or take the cost and PR damage of filling the bridges in.
Seems to me that RPL are in a bind and threatening to drown the kittens to avoid coughing up.

 

[reddragon]

What’s the default?
RPL can sell the land to fund the bridges (would the land really be worth that much, particularly if the councils made it clear they wouldn’t allow change of use?), but they can only do that once. It’s not a permanent fix. If they can just hand it back to the DfT scotfree why haven’t they done that?
Someone will have to either take that responsibility on or take the cost and PR damage of filling the bridges in.
Seems to me that RPL are in a bind and threatening to drown the kittens to avoid coughing up.

That has not been said anywhere.

RPL for various reasons have decided they no longer want the track bed and have kindly offered it to the GWSR for a nominal fee as per the agreement from when they were given the land.

The issue simply is who funds the bridges. Neither RPL or GWSR have the money to do it. I am sure the Highway Authority do not either so would have to apply for grant variation to add the unplanned works from these bridges to their programme.

This is all good news, it will just take time to reach the financial solution that's all.

The GWSR will then need some fundraising to maintain their new asset (drains / securing boundaries etc) and the wait until they are in a position to do something with it.

 

[Meerkat]

RPL for various reasons have decided they no longer want the track bed and have kindly offered it to the GWSR for a nominal fee as per the agreement from when they were given the land.

Kindly? They desperately need to offload the cost of the bridges and think the GWSR will be most desperate to take them on.