Potential Mangotsfield and Bath branch line reopening - Sustrans has got it wrong, says rail group

[furnessvale]

When you have time, could you dig out the details?

All the schemes I referred to were freight schemes in the early 1990s. Researching the internet can be difficult for such things. I have files in my cellar on the matters, covered in 6 inches of dust, but I will not be going down there.

From memory, Wenford dries was 1991. There was a scheme to reopen the branch, supported by Government, to alleviate the terrible lorry traffic through the village where HGVs virtually touched houses on both sides of the road passing through. An objection campaign was mounted by a wealthy actor who lived out of the village, over a mile away from the railway at the far side of a hill! Sustrans refused to give the line back unless they were given a replacement bike trail of similar standard. This killed the scheme and the dries were closed losing many villagers their jobs.

Rugby. This was a scheme to reopen the branch to the cement works and quarry for coal, cement and clay. Local objectors and similar Sustrans objections eventually killed the scheme. Local objectors proudly claimed that at least they could now get on with building the bypass without the railway in the way. The locals had 18 years of clay lorries through their villages before the bypass was opened.

The third scheme was again similar but the details escape me.

ps The following is a quote from the wiki entry for Sustrans.

Criticism
Sustrans has opponents within organisations that wish to reduce road haulage and motor travel by promoting the expansion of the modern railway network. Furthermore, it has also received criticism from members of the heritage railway movement. It has been accused of being uncompromising on route sharing; for example, it allowed a single-track railway adjacent to a cycle path on a double-track railway formation. An example is the planned section of the Bodmin and Wenford Railway between Boscarne Junction & Wadebridge.

It also has a history of going back on its own policies with regard to sustainable transport.[10] In 2000, several mainline railways were full to capacity, yet requests by EWS and English China Clays to reopen lost rail links for freight paths such as the former Weedon to Leamington Spa line were refused by the charity. Sustrans refused to support the application unless the rail promoter provided an alternative cycle track; EWS responded it was an uneconomic provision for both reopening and building replacement pathway expenses. Objections by Sustrans allegedly mean that freight now has to continue to move by road through the local villages.[11]

Sustrans have occasionally been criticised by other cycling organisations and activists over allegedly giving approval to cycle facilities regarded by critics as inadequate or dangerous, allowing local councils and similar bodies to refute criticism by pointing out that Sustrans have approved of the design being questioned. [12]

 

[OxtedL]

I thought Sustrans agreed to give routes back if needed?

Thanks for your posts, I see what you are saying.

The key point for me is that Sustrans won't object if a replacement of similar quality is provided. This is surely the right thing for them to do for their users - noone else can do so with such a strong voice!

In any case, if the cycle path really is better used as a light rail line then there's a full legal process available to demonstrate this, whether or not Sustrans agree. In the case of the more rural schemes (this sentence didn't make final post)

 

[furnessvale]

Thanks for your posts, I see what you are saying.

The key point for me is that Sustrans won't object if a replacement of similar quality is provided. This is surely the right thing for them to do for their users - noone else can do so with such a strong voice!

In any case, if the cycle path really is better used as a light rail line then there's a full legal process available to demonstrate this, whether or not Sustrans agree. In the case of the more rural schemes

The problem is that Sustrans were granted former rail routes on the understanding that they gave back any that were required for future reuse. Their demand for a replacement was not part of the original agreement and it has scuppered several freight schemes which do not have the luxury of shed loads of government money.

Once again, because the original agreement was so long ago, I have a problem locating it on line and, of course, Sustrans make no reference to it.

 

[eastdyke]

Thanks for your posts, I see what you are saying.
The key point for me is that Sustrans won't object if a replacement of similar quality is provided. This is surely the right thing for them to do for their users - noone else can do so with such a strong voice!
In any case, if the cycle path really is better used as a light rail line then there's a full legal process available to demonstrate this, whether or not Sustrans agree. .......

Sure but in the case of Bristol and Bath the 'Path' is now owned by 3 different Councils - Bristol City - South Gloucestershire - Bath & North East Somerset. Some small sections are still owned by Sustrans. The work of maintaining and developing the Path is co-ordinated through the Avon Frome Partnership (exactly who are this latter lot?, their website requires a password).
As to which authority would promote any light rail scheme I presume under the auspices of the elected Bristol Mayor. The political implications would seem to have the potential to be impossibly divisive.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

...It has to be noted that every modern tramway in the UK and Ireland was initially designed around re-use of railway alignments.

Apart from Sheffield. The Meadowhall line broadly follows freight routes for some of the length, but that's all apart from the Rotherham tram-train project. That is unless I've blocked out the trauma of seeing 141s street-running up the steep hill to Halfway in the 1980s!

 

[tbtc]

Apart from Sheffield. The Meadowhall line broadly follows freight routes for some of the length, but that's all apart from the Rotherham tram-train project. That is unless I've blocked out the trauma of seeing 141s street-running up the steep hill to Halfway!

True that - I'd love to see any DMU cope with the Netherthorpe stretch too - e.g. the recent threads about whether (heavy rail) trains can cope with something as arduous as a 1:100 gradient!

Well, if we must forever have a network stuck in aspic from the mid 1990's, then your logic is quite correct.

I'm not sure where your "stuck in aspic" comment has come from (?) - there have been plenty of positive increases in network capacity built (or approved/ being built) - Heathrow, Ordsal Chord, Crossrail, HS2 etc - but there's no reason why the future has to be constrained by the past and no reason why we have to restrict capacity increases to old lines that closed a long time ago.

I'm not sure of the benefits of a Bath - Bristol light rail scheme (it'd be significantly slower than the existing heavy rail service, there's nowhere *massive* en route without rail access unless you are going for a large diversion from the way the crow would fly? *), but if we can't electrify the GWML from Bath to Bristol (despite it being committed to some time ago now) then I don't think we should be worrying about closing a popular cycle path to build an additional line - we could have faster greener trains from Bath to Bristol if we wired the existing line - but I guess it's easier for some people to scapegoat Sustrans than deal with existing problems in the railway industry. Always someone else's fault...

* - I can agree that Mangotsfield - Fishponds - Bristol would be the kind of route that light rail would work well on - a busy bus corridor - relatively high population density etc - but Mangotsfield - Bath wouldn't serve many people and going via Mangotsfield would make it a very slow journey between city - on top of the fact that light rail is going to be slower than heavy rail even if light rail follows a fairly direct alignment. There are surely much better places for light rail in the "Avon" area than a Mangotsfield - Bath line though.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Wenford dries, Rugby cement branch and another in Gloucestershire, I don't have the details to hand, to name but three.

I only know of one scheme in Gloucestershire where the trackbed is owned by Railway Paths Ltd (the land charity that works with Sustrans) and there's a proposal for rail reuse; and I'm 100% sure, from talking to both volunteers on the railway and Sustrans staff, that when the railway seeks to use that section, an accommodation will be reached to the benefit of both parties.

But on the other hand, Sustrans doesn't roll over and say "but of course" any time a rail scheme is proposed to take the place of a successful cycle path, and nor should they. There are a lot of crayonista schemes out there in both the preserved and rail freight worlds.

 

[HowardGWR]

Sure but in the case of Bristol and Bath the 'Path' is now owned by 3 different Councils - Bristol City - South Gloucestershire - Bath & North East Somerset. Some small sections are still owned by Sustrans. The work of maintaining and developing the Path is co-ordinated through the Avon Frome Partnership (exactly who are this latter lot?, their website requires a password).
As to which authority would promote any light rail scheme I presume under the auspices of the elected Bristol Mayor. The political implications would seem to have the potential to be impossibly divisive.

It shouldn't be. There is now a Mayor for transport issues covering all three authority areas. Incidentally, one could envisage a scheme that only went out of Bristol as far as Oldland Common or perhaps only as far as Mangotsfield, the latter being one edge of the urban area, or perhaps continuing north to Yate.

 

[Mojo]

As to which authority would promote any light rail scheme I presume under the auspices of the elected Bristol Mayor. The political implications would seem to have the potential to be impossibly divisive.

It would be the Mayor of the West of England. This covers the three local authorities of Bristol City, South Gloucestershire and Bath & North East Somerset.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not sure of the benefits of a Bath - Bristol light rail scheme (it'd be significantly slower than the existing heavy rail service, there's nowhere *massive* en route without rail access unless you are going for a large diversion from the way the crow would fly? *),

I believe it would be to serve the suburban population rather than any towns/villages en-route.

The rail corridor that has been mooted/"reserved" over the past few decades has been to utilise the route that is used by the binliner trains just north of Lawrence Hill Station (this offers connectivity to the Bristol -> Bath Railway Path as well as facilitating other local stations currently on the Mainline network to be connected), cross over Newtown Park then onto Trinity Street which would be an on-street reserved right of way. A small plot on the corner of Trinity St/Clarence Rd is currently unbuilt on to allow Light rail vehicles to turn onto the A420 (Clarence Rd) and Light rail vehicles would then continue along Clarence Rd/West St/Old Market to stop at the existing bus stops which in the middle of the road were already designed to appear as if they were Tramstops. I've had a play around on Google Maps to show the route that was reserved some time ago.

 

[eastdyke]

@HowardGWR and @Mojo - thanks both. I knew that there was a Mayor involved but did not appreciate that the patch covered all 3 authorities.
I guess that the Mayor's people will be busy in due course, I hope that there is a good amount of money in the pot to consider robust schemes for the benefit of all (or most at least). And trust that the scheme to be promoted will have a good BCR.
Sustrans would have to accept the promoter's CPO powers that would be included in any Transport and Works Act Order although they would of course have the same rights as anyone else to object to the making of any TWA Order in the first place.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Wasn't the layout of Mangotsfield railway station similar to how Shipley is laid out? I would have thought that the line between Yate and Stapleton Road via Mangotsfield could be reopened as a Parkway avoiding line.

As for Mangotsfield to Bath, didn't that line run into Bath Green Park and not Bath Spa? Even though I'd love to see that line reopen, I can't help thinking on how it could work around the Avon Valley Railway. Plus isn't the line breached somewhere north of Mangotsfield by a road?

 

[DarloRich]

WOW - there is some vitriol here isnt there? Why doesn't everyone just take a deep breath, sit down and agree a deal?

 

[edwin_m]

Wasn't the layout of Mangotsfield railway station similar to how Shipley is laid out? I would have thought that the line between Yate and Stapleton Road via Mangotsfield could be reopened as a Parkway avoiding line.

As for Mangotsfield to Bath, didn't that line run into Bath Green Park and not Bath Spa? Even though I'd love to see that line reopen, I can't help thinking on how it could work around the Avon Valley Railway. Plus isn't the line breached somewhere north of Mangotsfield by a road?

Yes Mangotsfield was a triangular station. But with four tracks already being restored between Parkway and Temple Meads another route from the north into Bristol isn't necessary, and Parkway is important for passengers especially connections between XC and South Wales. The A4174 occupies the formation for a mile or so just north of Mangotsfield.

Yes the Midland and the S&D shared Bath Green Park. There was no connection to the GWR in the Bath area although I think there was a pre-WW2 plan to bring all services into one station.

 

[eastdyke]

WOW - there is some vitriol here isnt there? Why doesn't everyone just take a deep breath, sit down and agree a deal?

Sounds simple enough but that just isn't how the so called ('educated') liberal elite prefer to operate.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes the Midland and the S&D shared Bath Green Park.

The S&D was a joint railway so no surprise it shared facilities with one of its owning partners at Bath rather than with the enemy!

There was no connection to the GWR in the Bath area although I think there was a pre-WW2 plan to bring all services into one station.

I've read of a new Bath joint station considered pre-WW2, as well as more modest proposals for just a simple new connection in the Limpley Stoke - Midford area, partly on the route of the Camerton branch, but using existing GWR tracks and stations through Bath.

There's a discussion on RMweb here:
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/in...tral-railway-station-lmsgwr-and-br-proposals/

 

[Dai Corner]

Gosh I remember having a spat with the cycling lobby over 'their' cycle path and it's potential use for the Avon Metro via the Evening Post letters page back in the 1980s. Plus ca change.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Yes Mangotsfield was a triangular station. But with four tracks already being restored between Parkway and Temple Meads another route from the north into Bristol isn't necessary, and Parkway is important for passengers especially connections between XC and South Wales. The A4174 occupies the formation for a mile or so just north of Mangotsfield.

I were thinking more of Mangotsfield regaining its rail link to Temple Meads plus it'd be a handy line should ever the line through Filton ever be closed because of engineering works but I can see what you mean.

 

[HowardGWR]

It would not be too difficult to reinstate north of Mangotsfield. The A4174 is on the edge, as its Ring Road name implies and there's the trajectory of the old coal Dramway adjacent. Luckily, partly due to the oil depot, the old MR was not cut off by the M4 and runs under it -er, as a cycle path.

As Mojo, above, shews, the key to urban transport in Bristol, is getting any LR or HR into the shopping area, and Old Market is not such a bad terminus for that purpose. In fact, once created, his trajectory could serve the lines up to Patchway or Henbury or Clifton by the extant connection at Lawrence Hill, as well as the line up through Fishponds to Yate. To answer edwin-m, it's best to keep local stuff off the main lines through Parkway, and the MR achieves that with GSJs at Yate and Lawrence Hill, as described just.

 

[D60]

Adding to the conversation about which 'elected mayors' would be involved...

The City of Bristol has had an elected mayor since 2012, with 2 holders of the office so far.

And for the wider 'region', comprising Bristol, South Gloucestershire, Bath & NE Somerset (but not North Somerset), the West of England Combined Authority was formed in 2017 with its own elected mayor, with a principal role being to coordinate transport and planning across the three participating authority areas..

So such a proposal would fall under the remit of the Combined Authority and its mayor (as I understand it).

 

[Altnabreac]

The problem is that Sustrans were granted former rail routes on the understanding that they gave back any that were required for future reuse. Their demand for a replacement was not part of the original agreement and it has scuppered several freight schemes which do not have the luxury of shed loads of government money.

Once again, because the original agreement was so long ago, I have a problem locating it on line and, of course, Sustrans make no reference to it.

As Airdrie - Bathgate showed Sustrans are quite happy for reopening schemes to go ahead providing a replacement cyclepath is provided. If a scheme has such a poor business case that it is sabotaged by adding on a 2m wide cyclepath then to be honest it probably wasn't ever going to happen anyway. All your examples sound like the Sustrans request for a cycle path was the least of their business case problems.

Indeed I'm aware of an occasion where Sustrans objected to the removal of an overbridge by a local authority on a line that they owned which hadn't yet been converted to a cyclepath but which still had potential for a rail reopening. The cyclepath would cope fine without the bridge but the rail reopening would need it in future. (Shawfair Park on the potential Loanhead / Penicuik route).

 

[furnessvale]

As Airdrie - Bathgate showed Sustrans are quite happy for reopening schemes to go ahead providing a replacement cyclepath is provided. If a scheme has such a poor business case that it is sabotaged by adding on a 2m wide cyclepath then to be honest it probably wasn't ever going to happen anyway. All your examples sound like the Sustrans request for a cycle path was the least of their business case problems.

Indeed I'm aware of an occasion where Sustrans objected to the removal of an overbridge by a local authority on a line that they owned which hadn't yet been converted to a cyclepath but which still had potential for a rail reopening. The cyclepath would cope fine without the bridge but the rail reopening would need it in future. (Shawfair Park on the potential Loanhead / Penicuik route).

So Sustrans would be happy with a 2m wide cycle track that followed the contours of the land rather than a level rail route?
Answer: No they won't accept that.
So not only has the railway to purchase a 2m wide strip of land alongside the old formation, it has to extend the width of all cuttings and embankments, maybe even tunnels. That knocks a massive hole in any business case as freight companies have actually stated.

 

[Altnabreac]

So Sustrans would be happy with a 2m wide cycle track that followed the contours of the land rather than a level rail route?
Answer: No they won't accept that.
So not only has the railway to purchase a 2m wide strip of land alongside the old formation, it has to extend the width of all cuttings and embankments, maybe even tunnels. That knocks a massive hole in any business case as freight companies have actually stated.

I invite you to go and cycle from Bathgate to Airdrie. The replacement cyclepath there is partially on existing quiet local streets and paths, it has at grade crossings of busier roads where previously it used the rail bridges and it diverts off route on a longer routing to avoid difficult sections and stations and is by no means completely flat as it follows the contours of the available diversion routes.

As a cyclepath it is by no means as good as the previous path on the railway solum. But it is safe and usable so Sustrans consented to it happily and supported the Airdrie - Bathgate reopening. I was involved in that reopening process and I have no memory of Sustrans being obstructive or anti rail in any way. They did make sure that there was a usable cyclepath but that is fair enough as it is a busy and well used route for cyclists and now also for rail users. Win - Win.

 

[Western Lord]

Wasn't the layout of Mangotsfield railway station similar to how Shipley is laid out? I would have thought that the line between Yate and Stapleton Road via Mangotsfield could be reopened as a Parkway avoiding line.

As for Mangotsfield to Bath, didn't that line run into Bath Green Park and not Bath Spa? Even though I'd love to see that line reopen, I can't help thinking on how it could work around the Avon Valley Railway. Plus isn't the line breached somewhere north of Mangotsfield by a road?

Mangotsfield station had four platforms, two on the north curve and two on the south curve, similar to Shipley before the platforms were built on the North side of the triangle there. The link from Mangotsfield North Junction to Mangotsfield South Junction was a long way from the station and never had platforms, so Mangotsfield was never a triangular sation.

 

[furnessvale]

I invite you to go and cycle from Bathgate to Airdrie. The replacement cyclepath there is partially on existing quiet local streets and paths, it has at grade crossings of busier roads where previously it used the rail bridges and it diverts off route on a longer routing to avoid difficult sections and stations and is by no means completely flat as it follows the contours of the available diversion routes.

As a cyclepath it is by no means as good as the previous path on the railway solum. But it is safe and usable so Sustrans consented to it happily and supported the Airdrie - Bathgate reopening. I was involved in that reopening process and I have no memory of Sustrans being obstructive or anti rail in any way. They did make sure that there was a usable cyclepath but that is fair enough as it is a busy and well used route for cyclists and now also for rail users. Win - Win.

Obviously the Scottish arm of that organisation has a far healthier attitude that its English counterpart. Any chance of a takeover from the north?

 

[HowardGWR]

Worth remembering that when Mangotsfield station was closed, it was in the middle of nowhere at the bottom of Rodway Hill. The whole area nearby, on Siston Common, has become much more built up, (Stanier Road, The Pines and so on!), so there would be a market for a reopening and possible P and R there.

 

[HowardGWR]

Further update on the Rail Future plan. Coincidentally the local paper has a video of a cyclist altercation on the line.

It shews how compromised the solum has become. Remember, it used to be a double track main line

Here's the link.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/video-bristol-bath-cycle-track-1265154

 

[eastdyke]

Further update on the Rail Future plan. Coincidentally the local paper has a video of a cyclist altercation on the line.

It shews how compromised the solum has become. Remember, it used to be a double track main line

Here's the link.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/video-bristol-bath-cycle-track-1265154

Did you miss the link to the Rail Future plan update?
Only found the video.

 

[jopsuk]

So Sustrans would be happy with a 2m wide cycle track that followed the contours of the land rather than a level rail route?

Sustrans probably would be happy with that, unlike other cycle campaigners, hell, Sustrans probably wouldn't care if it didn't have a tarmac surface. There's plenty of their so-called National Cycle Network has their signs pointing down half metre wide muddy tracks that you need to lift your bike over a barrier to access.

Other cycle campaigners would point out that 3.5m is the minimum standard in various government publications for a new build off-road cycleway/mixed use path and that ideally if busier it should be 4m or more, with no barrier that block access to trikes, tandems and trailers and that it should have a tarmac surface for all weather use by all cycles.

 

[HowardGWR]

Further update on the Rail Future plan. Coincidentally the local paper has a video of a cyclist altercation on the line.

It shews how compromised the solum has become. Remember, it used to be a double track main line

Here's the link.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/video-bristol-bath-cycle-track-1265154

Did you miss the link to the Rail Future plan update?
Only found the video.

No, that was discussed at the start of the thread. It's what the thread is about.