Eden Valley Railway....What's happening?

[Marmaduke]

I cant recall if I read somewhere, or was told about it, but I'm pretty sure that there is a way forward with Railway Paths to extend the present extent of the EVR into Appleby East Station area or very close to it, subject to the owner of said station & yard?
I'd love to hear an update.
I have always thought that this lovely little railway needed to get within spitting distance of Appleby.
Appleby, was such a lovely Market Town, but over the last ten years would appear to have lost its sparkle a bit, with shops and pubs closed etc. Nothing new there, as regards this in the countryside, you may think, however in the case of APPLEBY, what an opportunity exists!!
If the EVR picked up the batten and got it to near Appleby East as a destination, this is only less than 100mts from the main NR Appleby Station on the S&C.
Enthusiasts would alight at Appleby to visit the EVR.
The EVR would looking at Google Earth be circa 5.5miles long from Warcop to Appleby East, which as the experts will tell you is within the optimum size for a Heritage Railway to be managed with a smaller volunteer resource.
The other good thing about the EVR is that looking at stats for the line, there isn't a hard gradient, so this makes it more suitable for smaller locomotives and I'm pretty sure owners of small steam tank locomotives would welcome being based there, given their limited use on larger railways.
So to conclude, I hope that the EVR Directors are also seeing the same opportunities and are echoing my thoughts?
Yes its never straightforward. There will be costs, it will take time to get the present redundant section back in shape. I understand there is an issue with an embankment and river bridge to sort, but I guess nothings impossible just takes a little more time and money.
I hope readers of this forum take the same view and get behind any push to Appleby, as there is a win - win - win all round for the EVR, Appleby Town Council, Eden Valley Council and Cumbria.

 

[ThetrackMaster]

I think you are bang on Marmaduke, lovely little Railway on side of A66 main trunk route between Teesside & Cumbria.
I think like all things, the EVR is perhaps and has been for a long time in "hibernation mode" awaiting the day, when the sun shines, well if they can get their hands on this last section to Appleby, what a SUNSHINE moment that would be?
I dont think the EVR could do it on their own, because from what I hear they dont have too many active volunteers or funds looking at the accounts, however if the Councils get involved and support / partner them after seeing what a positive attraction it would be for that particular part of Cumbria, its a no-brainer.
I hope that the "can do" attitude and "will" is there in the EVR to push this hard. I'd like to see the Directors of the EVR come to the surface and publicise it and explain their needs!!
Come on EVR, say the word and I am sure you will end up with a few more followers / members!!
Come on local councils.....Pick the batten up as yo will seriously benefit from this opportunity!!

 

[50002Superb]

You’ve peaked my interest, would definitely like to hear more from someone in the know

 

[Mogulb]

Not particularly in the know but ustrans offered the remaining part of the track and trackbed they own to the EVR for a nominal amount. However the DFT vetoed this as they felt the EVR did not have the financial resources to look after the bridges. These have either had virtually no maintenance or nothing done to them since Sustrans aquired their part. Only hope at the moment is CCC takes it over and looks after the road bridges.

 

[Bevan Price]

Not particularly in the know but ustrans offered the remaining part of the track and trackbed they own to the EVR for a nominal amount. However the DFT vetoed this as they felt the EVR did not have the financial resources to look after the bridges. These have either had virtually no maintenance or nothing done to them since Sustrans aquired their part. Only hope at the moment is CCC takes it over and looks after the road bridges.

Not much chance of that with a government that has spent 11 years reducing central funding for local authorities, whilst expecting them to take on more responsibilities.

Located in a remote location, I suspect that EVR may always struggle to attract a lot of volunteer helpers.

 

[A0wen]

Not much chance of that with a government that has spent 11 years reducing central funding for local authorities, whilst expecting them to take on more responsibilities.

Located in a remote location, I suspect that EVR may always struggle to attract a lot of volunteer helpers.

I think it depends on the Local Authority and whether the line is viewed as a tourist attraction in its own right - wasn't there something similar with the Gloucestershire & Warwickshire (GWSR) recently where one of the councils took on the trackbed and responsibility for the bridges and it leased the right of way back to the railway ?

The problem with the EVR is it isn't really "touristy" in the way the GWSR is for the Cotswolds or even things like the Ravenglass & Eskdale or Lakeside & Haverthwaite are for the Lakes / Cumbria.

I have always thought that this lovely little railway needed to get within spitting distance of Appleby.
Appleby, was such a lovely Market Town, but over the last ten years would appear to have lost its sparkle a bit, with shops and pubs closed etc. Nothing new there, as regards this in the countryside, you may think, however in the case of APPLEBY, what an opportunity exists!!
If the EVR picked up the batten and got it to near Appleby East as a destination, this is only less than 100mts from the main NR Appleby Station on the S&C.
Enthusiasts would alight at Appleby to visit the EVR.

The problem with this is there is precisely no evidence having a link to the national network - either at a shared station or a short distance away - makes a heritage railway more or less viable. It's a "nice to have" but I don't think it generates the traffic you think.

And does a steam railway "regenerate" or "uplift" a declining market town ? Again, not sure there's any evidence to support this.

The problem with the enthusiast market is a high proportion are of the "short arms, deep pockets" tendency - many won't support the local coffee shop or tea room, instead turning up with sandwiches and refreshments bought with them, many won't buy things from the gift shops. The bigger income generators for most railways are family focused events - Thomas the Tank, Santa Specials etc - I recall talking to a volunteer at one small railway some years ago who made the point that they could make more from one Thomas weekend than all of the gala weekends in a year.

The EVR would looking at Google Earth be circa 5.5miles long from Warcop to Appleby East, which as the experts will tell you is within the optimum size for a Heritage Railway to be managed with a smaller volunteer resource.
The other good thing about the EVR is that looking at stats for the line, there isn't a hard gradient, so this makes it more suitable for smaller locomotives and I'm pretty sure owners of small steam tank locomotives would welcome being based there, given their limited use on larger railways.

I think you need to understand the issues facing the "owners" of locos of any kind.

First up, most locos aren't owned by a single person, instead the ownership is by groups or organisations. Within those, they don't always agree about how the loco should be used or where it should be sited.

The second challenge is one of income - they have to charge the railways for the use - which is why railways with regular running opportunities are more attractive than those which operate weekends only for 6 months of the year - particularly where a railway might only need "one engine in steam".

The next part is maintenance - again railways which have good facilities and ability to properly maintain and even repair the locos are more attractive to loco owners than railways which have no covered accommodation and limited maintenance capability.

Lastly, there is a bias towards the loco being based where its owners can actually see it in use - the EVR is pretty remote which again would make it less attractive.

So to conclude, I hope that the EVR Directors are also seeing the same opportunities and are echoing my thoughts?
Yes its never straightforward. There will be costs, it will take time to get the present redundant section back in shape. I understand there is an issue with an embankment and river bridge to sort, but I guess nothings impossible just takes a little more time and money.
I hope readers of this forum take the same view and get behind any push to Appleby, as there is a win - win - win all round for the EVR, Appleby Town Council, Eden Valley Council and Cumbria.

It's not straightforward - and the costs are significant - massively so.

When even the "big" railways are struggling, particularly in the aftermath of 2020 and the effects of the pandemic, we have to be realistic about the likely future for some of the small, marginal lines such as this.

I'm not sure it is a "win-win-win" for the local authorities - it's not necessarily going to provide them a return on any investment. Does the S&C bring in that many people to places like Appleby ? In reality probably not as most people who want to enjoy the scenery will do the line 'end to end' and definitely if they are on one of the regular steam tours over the line.

 

[ThetrackMaster]

In response to the comments made by AOwen to Marmaduke, many valid comments made as regards your counter arguments, but I'd like to pick up on a few salient points.
As far as I can make out from the accounts of EVR and from what I hear, they have virtually no outgoings, no massive loans etc for their present operations, meaning despite no support whatsoever from anyone, other than what they generate internally, they are keeping their head above water, whilst others sink.
As far as extending towards Appleby, lets establish some facts here, rather than the "one cap fits all" thoughts by AOwen.
The track bed is in decent shape. It has track insitu, which apart from presumably re-sleepering, drainage repairs and ballasting in places, wont break the bank and of course would be delivered over several years. Given the way the EVR operates and self funds, Im quite sure they will continue with this approach carrying out the works in an affordable manner?
As for the suspect embankment & bridge, again not too many issues here as far as I am told.
Yes the EVR isnt particularly well known or high on peoples lists to perhaps visit?
But as Charles Darwin once quoted...It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change.”
The EVR have a business model and despite all the odds over the last several years have survived, so there must be something working.
I'm a realist, nothing is ever easy, however where would we all be without some eternal optimism, particularly when it comes to business.
If your plan in part, was always to connect to Appleby East and you were offered the remaining p-way for a quid, even though you knew that presently you couldn't do anything with it, would you turn it down and perhaps loose it forever? Of course you wouldn't!!

 

[A0wen]

In response to the comments made by AOwen to Marmaduke, many valid comments made as regards your counter arguments, but I'd like to pick up on a few salient points.
As far as I can make out from the accounts of EVR and from what I hear, they have virtually no outgoings, no massive loans etc for their present operations, meaning despite no support whatsoever from anyone, other than what they generate internally, they are keeping their head above water, whilst others sink.

I'm not sure which accounts you're looking at - but that's not what I'm seeing.

The accounts filed at 31st March 2020 (2021's are due by 31.12.2021) show assets of £ 4379 and liabilities of £ 6811 - so their asset base is outweighed by their liabilities. Of those assets about £ 2k was 'cash at bank'.

So I'm not sure they are as financially strong as you seem to think they are.

As far as extending towards Appleby, lets establish some facts here, rather than the "one cap fits all" thoughts by AOwen.
The track bed is in decent shape. It has track insitu, which apart from presumably re-sleepering, drainage repairs and ballasting in places, wont break the bank and of course would be delivered over several years. Given the way the EVR operates and self funds, Im quite sure they will continue with this approach carrying out the works in an affordable manner?
As for the suspect embankment & bridge, again not too many issues here as far as I am told.

And your knowledge that the "track bed is in decent shape" is formed on what basis ?

The fact that there's still track there is irrelevant - that track hasn't been used regularly for over 2 decades, to simply assert because there is still track in-situ it must be OK is madness.

Equally on what basis are you asserting the embankment and bridge have "not too many issues" ? Seen a surveyors report ?

If the maintenance of these weren't a concern, why did DFT block the sale of the trackbed by Sustrans to the EVR ? The DFT clearly have some concerns about the financial ability of the EVR to manage and maintain these.

Yes the EVR isnt particularly well known or high on peoples lists to perhaps visit?
But as Charles Darwin once quoted...It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change.”
The EVR have a business model and despite all the odds over the last several years have survived, so there must be something working.
I'm a realist, nothing is ever easy, however where would we all be without some eternal optimism, particularly when it comes to business.
If your plan in part, was always to connect to Appleby East and you were offered the remaining p-way for a quid, even though you knew that presently you couldn't do anything with it, would you turn it down and perhaps loose it forever? Of course you wouldn't!!

The Darwin quote is irrelevant in this context - has the EVR been adaptable to change ? It's not clear whether their "business model" such as it is, is either sustainable or viable. And the EVR in its current guise has only been operating since 2004 - hardly "many years" - in that sense how does their progress compare to the Ribble Steam Railway opened 2005, the Northampton & Lamport Railway - opened 1996, the Mid Norfolk Railway - opened 1996, East Kent Railway - opened 1995, or Mid Suffolk Light Railway - opened late 1990s,

There are many such 'heritage' railway schemes up and down the country - probably too many in reality. And whether the EVR ever makes it to Appleby is highly debateable. When even long established, well organised lines such as the Bluebell or Great Central see it taking many years to achieve relatively short extensions you do have to ask about the viability of lines like the EVR.

 

[ThetrackMaster]

I'm not sure which accounts you're looking at - but that's not what I'm seeing.

The accounts filed at 31st March 2020 (2021's are due by 31.12.2021) show assets of £ 4379 and liabilities of £ 6811 - so their asset base is outweighed by their liabilities. Of those assets about £ 2k was 'cash at bank'.

So I'm not sure they are as financially strong as you seem to think they are.

Never intimated they were financially strong...that's your interpretation. What I suggested was they appear to "cut according to the cloth". Even with their liabilities, which is actually a loan, they are in better shape than a lot of railways finances!!

And your knowledge that the "track bed is in decent shape" is formed on what basis ?

The fact that there's still track there is irrelevant - that track hasn't been used regularly for over 2 decades, to simply assert because there is still track in-situ it must be OK is madness.

Equally on what basis are you asserting the embankment and bridge have "not too many issues" ? Seen a surveyors report ?

If the maintenance of these weren't a concern, why did DFT block the sale of the trackbed by Sustrans to the EVR ? The DFT clearly have some concerns about the financial ability of the EVR to manage and maintain these.

"Track bed is in decent shape" is formed by my past experience & knowledge as a retired ex-BR/Railtrack P-Way Civil Engineer, who has walked the route several times over the years.

I could give you chapter & verse as to the finer details of the condition of the track bed, but wont save as to say....Vegetation clearance & de-forestation is required at eastern end: Drainage clearance & easement is also required in places to the track bed, which last time I looked, a 40 mt section was the worst, on the approach to the road bridge near Appleby etc. I could go on and draw you a few pictures......?? Look no one, not I are saying its a walk in the park, but it should always be considered, or its lost forever.

As for Highways England, not DFT these days, their reason for blocking sales is almost generic and country wide, because they seemingly have a policy, written or not, where they do not wish sales going through to HR's because of road bridge liabilities.....nothing else and I get this completely. The path these days seems to be RPL/Sustrans are encouraged to sell to County Councils, who in turn lease to the HR via a peppercorn rent. I dont doubt that there will be discussions going on as we communicate, along the same lines?

The Darwin quote is irrelevant in this context - has the EVR been adaptable to change ? It's not clear whether their "business model" such as it is, is either sustainable or viable. And the EVR in its current guise has only been operating since 2004 - hardly "many years" - in that sense how does their progress compare to the Ribble Steam Railway opened 2005, the Northampton & Lamport Railway - opened 1996, the Mid Norfolk Railway - opened 1996, East Kent Railway - opened 1995, or Mid Suffolk Light Railway - opened late 1990s,

There are many such 'heritage' railway schemes up and down the country - probably too many in reality. And whether the EVR ever makes it to Appleby is highly debateable. When even long established, well organised lines such as the Bluebell or Great Central see it taking many years to achieve relatively short extensions you do have to ask about the viability of lines like the EVR.

Disagree....its certainly relevant, because its not the strong or smart organisations that survive. I would agree with you in one context that there probably are too many HR's and the like up and down the country. Big isnt beautiful or manageable. No one is saying that the EVR is going to make it happen overnight. There has to be a business case for it. I cant speak from any knowledge within the EVR, they might have considered it and thought this isn't viable or even possible and just may be happy with what they've got.
Look at another local Railway, the Wensleydale. They sold off what was deemed the "jewel in the crown", Aysgarth Station. I can vouch for this and it certainly was a destination to get to. It almost split the membership, but in the cold light of day, the cost and practicalities of laying just over 2 miles of track along, on a very poor bed at that and replacing a small bridge over a beck near Redmire, just simply didn't add up.
As one person in authority I recall saying at the time suggested "there wasn't a snowballs chance in hell" of getting there - sadly he was correct!

 

[Marmaduke]

My word, my query for enlightenment certainly stirs a few up. Guys it was simply about flushing out peoples thoughts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I guess to every action there is a reaction!!
I think every opportunity should be considered when it comes to track beds, because once they have gone...they're gone for ever!!

 

[paul1609]

I don't have any connection to the Eden Valley but as Understand it they currently run to a farm level crossing at a place called Southfields, running beyond that would as I understand it require transport and works order. That would cost at least a six figure sum by the time you take in to account all the environmental reports etc that are now required. More likely if you have to deal with any objections ORR etc it would cost well in to seven figures.
Whilst most of the rail is still in situ no trains have run over the disused section since 1989 which means that the line would need to be completely rebuilt. There is a major structure at Coupland Beck Viaduct and several other bridges that have not seen maintenance in over 30 years. Realistically it needs a much larger organisation or individual to finance it than the current Eden Valley Railway Society.

 

[The Bear]

no trains have run over the disused section since 1989

The last train that I know of that would have traverse the whole branch from Appleby would have been when the two 4-CEP units were delivered by GBRF on the afternoon of 6/4/2005, hauled from Wimbledon to Appleby by 66711.

 

[paul1609]

The last train that I know of that would have traverse the whole branch from Appleby would have been when the two 4-CEP units were delivered by GBRF on the afternoon of 6/4/2005, hauled from Wimbledon to Appleby by 66711.

I stand corrected, 1989 would have been the last MOD trains I think, however a quick glance at Google Maps suggest that after 16 years it would no longer be possible.

 

[The Bear]

I stand corrected, 1989 would have been the last MOD trains I think, however a quick glance at Google Maps suggest that after 16 years it would no longer be possible.

Yes, 1989 would have been the last MOD trains and I agree that now 16 years later since the two 4-CEP's arrived it's now so overgrown it's impassable to trains (not to mention the state of the track).
The last time I looked at the level crossing at Appleby East about 4 years ago or so, the gates on the NR side had been replaced with green palisade fencing.

 

[ThetrackMaster]

I don't have any connection to the Eden Valley but as Understand it they currently run to a farm level crossing at a place called Southfields, running beyond that would as I understand it require transport and works order. That would cost at least a six figure sum by the time you take in to account all the environmental reports etc that are now required. More likely if you have to deal with any objections ORR etc it would cost well in to seven figures.
Whilst most of the rail is still in situ no trains have run over the disused section since 1989 which means that the line would need to be completely rebuilt. There is a major structure at Coupland Beck Viaduct and several other bridges that have not seen maintenance in over 30 years. Realistically it needs a much larger organisation or individual to finance it than the current Eden Valley Railway Society.

I entirely agree with you on all counts....It will never be easy and it will certainly cost a lot of money, but nothings impossible, where theres a will, there's a way!
We surmise that its actually what the EVR wants? They may take a view on it and say, they're happy with what they've got already and don't wish to burden the society with any debt.
To get to Appleby would be a massive undertaking, both financially and practically, but there will always those that see it as a challenge to be accomplished!!

 

[EbbwJunction1]

This may be more than somewhat off topic, but I'm gong to ask two questions anyway, because they have been prompted by the posts (nos. 1 & 6) above.

This is: if a loco was owned by an individual or a group, and then hired or loaned to a heritage railway, who would be responsible for the maintenance of the loco? Would it be the host railway, or would the group have to provide people to do the work?

 

[Marmaduke]

This may be more than somewhat off topic, but I'm gong to ask two questions anyway, because they have been prompted by the posts (nos. 1 & 6) above.

This is: if a loco was owned by an individual or a group, and then hired or loaned to a heritage railway, who would be responsible for the maintenance of the loco? Would it be the host railway, or would the group have to provide people to do the work?

It depends on the hire agreement.
A loco owner / group is usually paid per mile and with supplementary qualifications about guaranteed use over a given period etc.
It can be a larger amount if the the owner has to take care of maintenance or a smaller amount if the railway looks after it.
There's various connotations.

 

[madannie77]

I don't have any connection to the Eden Valley but as Understand it they currently run to a farm level crossing at a place called Southfields, running beyond that would as I understand it require transport and works order. That would cost at least a six figure sum by the time you take in to account all the environmental reports etc that are now required. More likely if you have to deal with any objections ORR etc it would cost well in to seven figures.
Whilst most of the rail is still in situ no trains have run over the disused section since 1989 which means that the line would need to be completely rebuilt. There is a major structure at Coupland Beck Viaduct and several other bridges that have not seen maintenance in over 30 years. Realistically it needs a much larger organisation or individual to finance it than the current Eden Valley Railway Society.

The Eden Valley Railway Trust has a Transport & Works Order for the line from the level crossing at Appleby (limit of Network Rail's line) to Flitholme (current end of the line to the east of Warcop Station)

The Eden Valley Railway Order 2004

This Order provides for the transfer to the Eden Valley Railway Trust of the statutory powers to maintain and operate a portion of the existing Eden Valley branch railway in the county of Cumbria, district of Eden, extending from Appleby to Warcop, and makes other provisions as to the railway...

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[paul1609]

The Eden Valley Railway Trust has a Transport & Works Order for the line from the level crossing at Appleby (limit of Network Rail's line) to Flitholme (current end of the line to the east of Warcop Station)

The Eden Valley Railway Order 2004

This Order provides for the transfer to the Eden Valley Railway Trust of the statutory powers to maintain and operate a portion of the existing Eden Valley branch railway in the county of Cumbria, district of Eden, extending from Appleby to Warcop, and makes other provisions as to the railway...

www.legislation.gov.uk

Hasn't the northern section of the line and presumably the liabilities thereof been transfered to Railway Paths subsequent to that order?

 

[EbbwJunction1]

It depends on the hire agreement.
A loco owner / group is usually paid per mile and with supplementary qualifications about guaranteed use over a given period etc.
It can be a larger amount if the the owner has to take care of maintenance or a smaller amount if the railway looks after it.
There's various connotations.

Ah, thank you, that's very interesting.

 

[dpemberton]

A long post, for which apologies, but might at least be of interest to @Marmaduke and @A0wen

Railway Paths Limited owns the unused section of the EVR between Sandfields and Appleby, zoom in to map here. We have been working hard on this issue, but not responding on this forum as we have been abiding by a no-publicity agreement. The agreement ended on 31 August, and a detailed report is below (spoiler alert, no happy ending).

Condition of the remaining land, structures and track as of August 2022
Since November 2021 we have walked line three times with people from: Eden Valley Railway Trust (EVRT); Cumbria County Council; Department for Transport; a large heritage railway; and an experienced ex-BR and ex-Welsh Highland Railways engineer. The full-length was last walked on 24 August and the bridges had the 6-yearly principal inspections in August.

The track from Appleby to Bridge 45 (approx) is laid on concrete sleepers with plenty of life left in the metals. Although it looks like all it needs is vegetation clearance, we are advised that it is a 'dirty bed' and the track needs to be lifted and the ballast cleaned/replaced. The track from Bridge 45 to Bridge 38 (approx) is laid on wooden sleepers with around a third in need of replacement to keep gauge for even for works trains.

The bridges generally are in fair condition, i.e. within 90% of original strength, with defects affecting durability or marginally affecting strength, and safety not compromised. But as a caution, Railway Paths maintains and inspects bridges sufficient for paths, not trains.

Approximately 100 metres of the line near Bridge 43 has suffered from slip. EVRT and the aforementioned experienced engineer independently said the cost to rectify would be circa £100k.

The fencing along the line is in variable condition, with recent complaints relating to that between Bridges 45 and 38, likely to need significant renewal if the line goes back into service.

Transfer to EVRT
DfT have blocked any permanent transfer to EVRT on the grounds that they have insufficient financial strength for the potential liabilities. To be fair to EVRT, although their financial resources are small, DfT have the same reservation about any organization. To try to solve this, Railway Paths offered EVRT a 99-year lease, with the ultimately liabilities falling back on Railway Paths, and DfT approved this approach.

Heads of Terms for a lease between Railway Paths and EVRT were signed on 1 November 2021, extended and improved on 22 April 2022, but expired on 31 August. The 99-year lease on offer was for all the land and track, except that residing in the scrapyard in Appleby, in return for £1 and the release of EVRT's restrictions on the sale of the land in the scrapyard and at Great Musgrave.

Although EVRT signed the Heads of Terms and entered into line-by-line discussions which resulted in an agreed draft lease, in the end they felt they could not forego the land within the scrapyard, so they have withdrawn.

The land within the scrapyard
We understand that EVRT want the land in the scrapyard for three reasons: a site for a platform; connection to the S-C mainline; to preserve the original EVR.

As a site for a platform, whilst on level ground, it is within a scrapyard and has no vehicular access. The scrap business also oppose the plan and it would not be an picturesque stopping point. Railway Paths land immediately to the SE was inspected by a group from EVRT, DfT and our experienced heritage railway engineer. This land is sufficient for a platform and run-around, and is adjacent to a field earmarked for development where space could be found for road access as part of 'planning gain'. The 1:100 gradient, whilst not ideal, is better than that used for at least one platform on the Welsh Highland, and our engineer (also ex RAIB) says the safety-case could be made.

The connection to the mainline is already severed, the level crossing filled-in and the spur owned by NR is overgrown with large trees. Our understanding from other heritage railways is that a mainline connection is, at best, a mixed blessing for visitors, and most stock movements are by road.

Whilst we can't argue with the EVRT desire to preserve every inch of the original EVR alignment, they seem to be holding out for 200 metres at the risk of losing 4500 metres.

Railway Paths wants to sell the land in the scrapyard to the scrap business. It is protected by a DfT covenant that gives a presumption of future railway use. As Railway Paths exists to build paths, not run heritage railways, the only way we can keep to the strict charity law on land disposal is to sell 200m at commercial value as justification for leasing the rest for £1.

The future
Stalemate has prevailed since 1998. The land was given to Railway Paths, not EVRT, by DfT on the condition that it was shared. In 2004 half was given to EVRT, and DfT confirmed that the sharing condition had been met. In 2021-22 a further 95% of what remains has been offered to EVRT. We think it would create a vibrant railway, perhaps strong enough so that one day they would have the funds to buy the entire site of Appleby East: station, track, yard and sheds. We have the support of the local councillor and DfT, but not EVRT.

If EVRT want to reconsider we'll put the lease back on offer, but compromise is needed and they need to walk towards us. Having invested nearly two years in this, and signed heads of terms in good faith, we move on with great disappointment. We're not anti-heritage railways, as we hope the effort above shows: two of the Railways Paths team volunteer at heritage railways themselves, and another two live within short distance of Appleby.

David Pemberton
Director
Railway Paths Limited

 

[Train Maniac]

That's disappointing...

Apologies for the speculation, but why not build a new Appleby East station (as suggested in the report) and buy out the scrapyard as and when an opportunity arises? That way everyone would be happy?

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

What about extending the other way towards Kirkby Stephen East and the Stainmore Railway which I think has been mooted by both companies. ?

 

[A0wen]

That's disappointing...

Apologies for the speculation, but why not build a new Appleby East station (as suggested in the report) and buy out the scrapyard as and when an opportunity arises? That way everyone would be happy?

The reality is that opportunity will probably never arise - there's been development around the area and the spur is, to all intents and purposes, closed. Getting it reinstated would probably be both costly and opposed by the locals - the very same locals who you need on side.

This smacks of the railway letting perfection become the enemy of the good. And it's such dogmatic attitudes of "it's got to be all or nothing" that often leads to such schemes failing. The railway is a small organisation with a couple of thousand pounds in the bank. The reality is by taking the approach they have, they'll only ever end up with a couple of miles of line running around Warcop station.

Even if they decided to forego Appleby station, they've got something between 10 and 20 years (wet finger in air guess) of work to get themselves back into Appleby. Take a look at the Llangollen railway as an example - far better established, far more direct tourist trade - their Corwen extension has been in progress (as in actually having "spades on the ground") for the last 10+ years - and the planning was many years before that.

Other railways are being more pragmatic - the Northampton and Lamport (local to me) has decided to forego trying to ever get back into Northampton - a level crossing would be needed and other challenges. So they've decided to focus on terminating at Boughton Crossing where a lot of new housing is being built, it's next to a large, family friendly pub, and then work northwards towards Brixworth. In the 20 years I've been watching them, they've almost got their station at Boughton complete and they've got a clear path northwards. Better to have a working railway which brings in money than to be arguing over a relatively small thing which prevents any progress.

 

[A0wen]

What about extending the other way towards Kirkby Stephen East and the Stainmore Railway which I think has been mooted by both companies. ?

You'd need some pretty obliging farmers and landowners - the trackbed has largely disappeared in the intervening years. And a bridge over the River Eden which I don't imagine would be cheap.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

You'd need some pretty obliging farmers and landowners - the trackbed has largely disappeared in the intervening years. And a bridge over the River Eden which I don't imagine would be cheap.

Oh Ok, thanks.

 

[Marmaduke]

A long post, for which apologies, but might at least be of interest to @Marmaduke and @A0wen

Railway Paths Limited owns the unused section of the EVR between Sandfields and Appleby, zoom in to map here. We have been working hard on this issue, but not responding on this forum as we have been abiding by a no-publicity agreement. The agreement ended on 31 August, and a detailed report is below (spoiler alert, no happy ending).

Condition of the remaining land, structures and track as of August 2022
Since November 2021 we have walked line three times with people from: Eden Valley Railway Trust (EVRT); Cumbria County Council; Department for Transport; a large heritage railway; and an experienced ex-BR and ex-Welsh Highland Railways engineer. The full-length was last walked on 24 August and the bridges had the 6-yearly principal inspections in August.

The track from Appleby to Bridge 45 (approx) is laid on concrete sleepers with plenty of life left in the metals. Although it looks like all it needs is vegetation clearance, we are advised that it is a 'dirty bed' and the track needs to be lifted and the ballast cleaned/replaced. The track from Bridge 45 to Bridge 38 (approx) is laid on wooden sleepers with around a third in need of replacement to keep gauge for even for works trains.

The bridges generally are in fair condition, i.e. within 90% of original strength, with defects affecting durability or marginally affecting strength, and safety not compromised. But as a caution, Railway Paths maintains and inspects bridges sufficient for paths, not trains.

Approximately 100 metres of the line near Bridge 43 has suffered from slip. EVRT and the aforementioned experienced engineer independently said the cost to rectify would be circa £100k.

The fencing along the line is in variable condition, with recent complaints relating to that between Bridges 45 and 38, likely to need significant renewal if the line goes back into service.

Transfer to EVRT
DfT have blocked any permanent transfer to EVRT on the grounds that they have insufficient financial strength for the potential liabilities. To be fair to EVRT, although their financial resources are small, DfT have the same reservation about any organization. To try to solve this, Railway Paths offered EVRT a 99-year lease, with the ultimately liabilities falling back on Railway Paths, and DfT approved this approach.

Heads of Terms for a lease between Railway Paths and EVRT were signed on 1 November 2021, extended and improved on 22 April 2022, but expired on 31 August. The 99-year lease on offer was for all the land and track, except that residing in the scrapyard in Appleby, in return for £1 and the release of EVRT's restrictions on the sale of the land in the scrapyard and at Great Musgrave.

Although EVRT signed the Heads of Terms and entered into line-by-line discussions which resulted in an agreed draft lease, in the end they felt they could not forego the land within the scrapyard, so they have withdrawn.

The land within the scrapyard
We understand that EVRT want the land in the scrapyard for three reasons: a site for a platform; connection to the S-C mainline; to preserve the original EVR.

As a site for a platform, whilst on level ground, it is within a scrapyard and has no vehicular access. The scrap business also oppose the plan and it would not be an picturesque stopping point. Railway Paths land immediately to the SE was inspected by a group from EVRT, DfT and our experienced heritage railway engineer. This land is sufficient for a platform and run-around, and is adjacent to a field earmarked for development where space could be found for road access as part of 'planning gain'. The 1:100 gradient, whilst not ideal, is better than that used for at least one platform on the Welsh Highland, and our engineer (also ex RAIB) says the safety-case could be made.

The connection to the mainline is already severed, the level crossing filled-in and the spur owned by NR is overgrown with large trees. Our understanding from other heritage railways is that a mainline connection is, at best, a mixed blessing for visitors, and most stock movements are by road.

Whilst we can't argue with the EVRT desire to preserve every inch of the original EVR alignment, they seem to be holding out for 200 metres at the risk of losing 4500 metres.

Railway Paths wants to sell the land in the scrapyard to the scrap business. It is protected by a DfT covenant that gives a presumption of future railway use. As Railway Paths exists to build paths, not run heritage railways, the only way we can keep to the strict charity law on land disposal is to sell 200m at commercial value as justification for leasing the rest for £1.

The future
Stalemate has prevailed since 1998. The land was given to Railway Paths, not EVRT, by DfT on the condition that it was shared. In 2004 half was given to EVRT, and DfT confirmed that the sharing condition had been met. In 2021-22 a further 95% of what remains has been offered to EVRT. We think it would create a vibrant railway, perhaps strong enough so that one day they would have the funds to buy the entire site of Appleby East: station, track, yard and sheds. We have the support of the local councillor and DfT, but not EVRT.

If EVRT want to reconsider we'll put the lease back on offer, but compromise is needed and they need to walk towards us. Having invested nearly two years in this, and signed heads of terms in good faith, we move on with great disappointment. We're not anti-heritage railways, as we hope the effort above shows: two of the Railways Paths team volunteer at heritage railways themselves, and another two live within short distance of Appleby.

David Pemberton
Director
Railway Paths Limited

Thank you David for explaining the position on the EVR. I confess I hadn't noticed the response until now.
On the face of it, its a sad situation I think for the EVRT.
There are a number of HR railways that would give their "top teeth" to ostensibly have a P-WAY for a £1. I cant really get my head around why the EVRT Management would use the reason behind not taking up the offer due to the Scrap Yard land not being included to?
Surely its a case of grab what you can now and work on the rest when the opportunity next arises?
Without wishing to suggest in anyway that the EVRT are expondiating, perhaps they are in fact happy to develop what they already control? Perhaps this is one step too far for the membership?
Maybe someone from the EVRT could comment?
I have visited the EVRT a few times. The volunteers I have met are dedicated and friendly.
Personally its always struck me that had they been able to reach the vicinity of Appleby East or indeed within the confines of the yard, the real opportunities would present themselves for access to the S&C, not 150mts away in walking distance.
Not only would visitors alight at Appleby West on the S&C to visit the EVR, through put would also touch the Market Town of Appleby as well boosting trade.
I think if this is the final position, its a very big missed opportunity all round.
Only time will tell, but as they say "time waits for no man" and whether any opportunity prevails in the future..only knows.

 

[A0wen]

Personally its always struck me that had they been able to reach the vicinity of Appleby East or indeed within the confines of the yard, the real opportunities would present themselves for access to the S&C, not 150mts away in walking distance.
Not only would visitors alight at Appleby West on the S&C to visit the EVR, through put would also touch the Market Town of Appleby as well boosting trade.
I think if this is the final position, its a very big missed opportunity all round.
Only time will tell, but as they say "time waits for no man" and whether any opportunity prevails in the future..only knows.

Bits in bold - most heritage railways which have either a direct link or a close link with a mainline station still find the numbers visiting having travelled in by train are marginal.

The Bluebell was cited previously as one railway where it's higher than average, but it's still not significant. Swanage have, it seems, given up trying to run a link to the mainline. Other railways seem to thrive even though a mainline link will probably never happen for them - Lakeside & Haverthwaite for example.

Getting to Appleby as the main destination absolutely makes sense - Appleby's a destination in its own right, but any additional passengers numbers coming from the S&C will be marginal at best.

 

[Speed43125]

Bits in bold - most heritage railways which have either a direct link or a close link with a mainline station still find the numbers visiting having travelled in by train are marginal.

The Bluebell was cited previously as one railway where it's higher than average, but it's still not significant. Swanage have, it seems, given up trying to run a link to the mainline. Other railways seem to thrive even though a mainline link will probably never happen for them - Lakeside & Haverthwaite for example.

Getting to Appleby as the main destination absolutely makes sense - Appleby's a destination in its own right, but any additional passengers numbers coming from the S&C will be marginal at best.

Which rather makes the insistence on the final trackage up to the NR station seem rather frivolous given the difficulty associated with doing so!

 

[driverd]

Bits in bold - most heritage railways which have either a direct link or a close link with a mainline station still find the numbers visiting having travelled in by train are marginal.

Could you provide a source for this assertion? I'm not doubting the premise but I'm curious as to the actual nitty gritty and figures.

I think, in this case and with the right marketing, this could really capitalise on the railway connection as it forms part of a bigger day out. The Skipton - Appleby section of the S&C is by far the most scenic run and provides for an excellent itinerary for a day out as it stands - specificifically looking at the Settle-Appleby group trips that are dropped off by and picked up by coach. I would have very little doubt that throwing in a "scenic steam train journey" at the Appleby end would garner significant interest.

I personally belive the remote nature of this route is a specific reason that a rail link would be of more value than in other cases. Its certainly far enough from anywhere that it puts me off driving all that way.

(And, on an embarrassing aside, thanks to a skim reading of the Wikipedia page, I attempted to find the line at Appleby East, having travelled up via the S&C, only to be bitterly disappointed!)