Government petition - preserving old trackbeds

[bitmadmax]

Wow. All these signatures to preserve trackbeds that haven't seen use in decades, yet you get flamed down at the mention of "heritage" on the ordsall chord thread, its appalling severance of the Liverpool and Manchester after a mere 184 years.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[yorksrob]

A worthy petition - even if it in some way leads to Government protecting some of the more strategically important trackbeds, rather than every one that's ever closed. The point needs to be made, so I've signed it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wow. All these signatures to preserve trackbeds that haven't seen use in decades, yet you get flamed down at the mention of "heritage" on the ordsall chord thread, its appalling severance of the Liverpool and Manchester after a mere 184 years.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Whilst I have misgivings about the Ordsall Chord due to its practicalities, this petition is about preserving trackbeds so that they can become a useful, functioning part of the National network in future. As the section of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway likely to be severed by the chord is never going to be that again, the two threads aren't comparable.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Very happy to sign this.

 

[Western Lord]

A worthy petition - even if it in some way leads to Government protecting some of the more strategically important trackbeds, rather than every one that's ever closed. The point needs to be made, so I've signed it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Whilst I have misgivings about the Ordsall Chord due to its practicalities, this petition is about preserving trackbeds so that they can become a useful, functioning part of the National network in future. As the section of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway likely to be severed by the chord is never going to be that again, the two threads aren't comparable.

Just which "strategically important" trackbeds are there? I doubt that there is a former railway line that has not been obliterated in almost every town it passed through. As I said before, this is fifty years too late.

 

[Greenback]

My feelings are that it's too late to be particularly useful, and that there are practical difficulties that would need to be overcome if such legislation should ever be drawn up.

 

[brompton rail]

Most of the former rail formations transferred from the BR Residiary Board to Sustrans and its associated charity Railway Paths include a condition that they may only be used for transport purposes.

 

[yorksrob]

Just which "strategically important" trackbeds are there? I doubt that there is a former railway line that has not been obliterated in almost every town it passed through. As I said before, this is fifty years too late.

Uckfield - Lewes
Tunbridge Wells West - Grove Junction
Tavistock - Okehampton
Skipton - Colne
Harrogate - Rippon - Northallerton
York - Beverley (I know that there have been incursions onto this route, however, the remainder needs to be protected to ensure no further damage)

To name a few off the top of my head. There should also be a clause that the routes should be available for re-opening even where footpaths etc have been built along the line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My feelings are that it's too late to be particularly useful, and that there are practical difficulties that would need to be overcome if such legislation should ever be drawn up.

My belief is that the practical difficulties would be worth resolving sooner rather than later when further incursions will have taken place.

 

[WatcherZero]

The greatest issue modern planners face when reopening a line closed 50 or more years ago however is simply that the old route may not make sense in a modern context. It might not go near important towns, run through now deserted parts of town meaning a potential station would be miles from residential areas, bus stations or town centres. It might have unsuitable tunnels or gradients, the trackbed may be too narrow for modern requirements.

A whole host of issues that result in planners preferring new alignments to reinstating old ones.

 

[Greenback]

My belief is that the practical difficulties would be worth resolving sooner rather than later when further incursions will have taken place.

I don't disagree in principle about having some sort of statute affording protection to whatever remains of some of the important routes, including those that you've mentioned.

My feeling is that the difficulties that would arise with such a proposal, would, in practice, actually preventing any law from being passed. In addition, as the old alignment will probably have been breached in at least some places, maybe by adverse possession, then any legislation that would be passed may not be as effective as we would wish.

 

[brompton rail]

Uckfield - Lewes
Tunbridge Wells West - Grove Junction
Tavistock - Okehampton
Skipton - Colne
Harrogate - Rippon - Northallerton
York - Beverley (I know that there have been incursions onto this route, however, the remainder needs to be protected to ensure no further damage)

To name a few off the top of my head

Can't say anything about most on your list, but.....
Skipton -Colne: most is in private ownership, though some near Earby owned by Lancs CC intended for a bypass (never built).
Harrogate -Ripon -Northallerton: Nidd viaduct owned by Sustrans but most of route northwards in private ownership except for section on south side of Ripon used in building Ripon Bypass.

Therefore which former railway lines currently in UK Government ownership (I.e. Network Rail or Highways England - different arrangements in Scotland and Wales?) are under threat? To do anything about those previously sold would require an agreed price purchase or CPO.

Currently the best protection is to have former lines zoned on the Local Plan as for transport use and not residential. That requires local lobbying and not National intervention

 

[steamybrian]

Uckfield to Lewes is a "protected route" preventing any development although sections are in private ownership.
Tunbridge Wells West to Grove Jn. is also a "protected route" which if required then Sainsburys will have to lose part of the supermarket and public toilets at their cost.
AFAIK.. Both are zoned for transport use.

I can think of two disused lines which have been reopened and involved demolition of houses built on the trackbed after the line closed.
Borders Line (Waverley Route) - a block of new houses were demolished at the site of one of the stations along the line-- readers can advise me of the name.
Croydon Tramlink- a block of new houses on the site of Coombe Road station were demolished before occupation..!! Another block was demolished in the Blackhorse Lane area.

A few years ago I spoke to someone in South Canterbury who house has been built adjacent to the trackbed of the Elham Valley Line (closed in 1947) who said when he bought in the house in the 1970s there was a clause in the deeds saying that BR could buy back his garden to reopen the line. The solicitor at the time said to him that the possibility of that happening was zero.

 

[Carlisle]

Signed

 

[Dave1987]

This petition isn't likely to make these lines reopen. About 5-10 years ago they were going to try and reopen the Stratford-upon-Avon to Honeybourne line which is all still there apart from one bit in Stratford which has a road on it. There was so much local opposition to the cycle path being closed the idea appeared to be dropped and there hasn't been any sign of it progressing. British people are very fickle. We want transport, energy, water etc etc that is convenient but wow betide if it inconveniences us, is built near us, or closes something we use or might use in the future.

 

[Trog]

How do you intend to deal with adverse possession as part of this?

Register the land, and object when informed someone is making a claim?

Although that might take some organising as each landowner would have to do that for what ever they owned.

 

[suzanneparis]

Signed!

And the best of luck.

 

[yorksrob]

Can't say anything about most on your list, but.....
Skipton -Colne: most is in private ownership, though some near Earby owned by Lancs CC intended for a bypass (never built).
Harrogate -Ripon -Northallerton: Nidd viaduct owned by Sustrans but most of route northwards in private ownership except for section on south side of Ripon used in building Ripon Bypass.

Therefore which former railway lines currently in UK Government ownership (I.e. Network Rail or Highways England - different arrangements in Scotland and Wales?) are under threat? To do anything about those previously sold would require an agreed price purchase or CPO.

Currently the best protection is to have former lines zoned on the Local Plan as for transport use and not residential. That requires local lobbying and not National intervention

The point of the legislation would be to protect the relevant track beds, regardless of ownership.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't disagree in principle about having some sort of statute affording protection to whatever remains of some of the important routes, including those that you've mentioned.

My feeling is that the difficulties that would arise with such a proposal, would, in practice, actually preventing any law from being passed. In addition, as the old alignment will probably have been breached in at least some places, maybe by adverse possession, then any legislation that would be passed may not be as effective as we would wish.

Ah well, you would have to outline some of the circumstances which you think would block the legislation for me to comment.

As regards breached trackbeds, I take the example of York - Beverley where campaigners propose to divert around the breached areas.

 

[scott118]

signed

 

[MancMetro]

There is a proposed development that would completely kill off any future attempt to reopen the Warrington and Altrincham Junction Railway. The developers would leave Latchford viaduct intact, but level the embankment to the West and build 280 houses in its place.

Can't believe that such short-sighted schemes can be considered, particularly in an area like that which suffers from significant road congestion.

Application site and main document.

 

[The Planner]

Surely that is killed off at the Altrincham end anyway? Looking at it the M6 is a big barrier too.

 

[Greenback]

Ah well, you would have to outline some of the circumstances which you think would block the legislation for me to comment.

I'm thinking along the lines of the wording of the legislation and of the Parliamentary process being used to slow and block it by MP's who feel that it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut, not much practical use, and more or less a flight of fantasy from railway enthusiasts.

I also think that there are too many vested interests who would oppose it in principle, and that they would ensure that sufficient MP's would support them.

In essence, I think that the legislation would be generally seen as an attempt to preserve the past in a way that would just serve to hinder the future.

 

[MancMetro]

Maybe, but the message of this petition is that railway corridors are precious commodities and should not so readily be disposed of.

I visit the area often, and whilst Grappenhall, Thelwall and Lymm are lovely villages, the bus service is dire, often getting held up in traffic or by the swing bridge. Even if a future service only ran Warrington - Lymm, I still think it would be worth leaving open that possibility rather than losing it to housing.

 

[Greenback]

There is a proposed development that would completely kill off any future attempt to reopen the Warrington and Altrincham Junction Railway. The developers would leave Latchford viaduct intact, but level the embankment to the West and build 280 houses in its place.

Can't believe that such short-sighted schemes can be considered, particularly in an area like that which suffers from significant road congestion.

Whether we like it or not, there is tremendous political and economic pressure regarding housing. I feel it is very unlikely that a campaign against building this number of home sis going to be seen positively, based as it is on the desire to protect an alignment that will likely never return to its original use.

Surely that is killed off at the Altrincham end anyway? Looking at it the M6 is a big barrier too.

Indeed. As many have said, it's far too late for most abandoned trackbeds. The additional costs involved in rerouting past obstacles, and buying back land is huge problem when reopening any route is being considered. And hardly any are being seriously considered int he first place. I'm afraid I just can't see how any legislation protecting what's left of trackbeds now would have any real use at all. Nor will it have a great deal of support amongst the general public, most of don't care much at all about such things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe, but the message of this petition is that railway corridors are precious commodities and should not so readily be disposed of.

I visit the area often, and whilst Grappenhall, Thelwall and Lymm are lovely villages, the bus service is dire, often getting held up in traffic or by the swing bridge. Even if a future service only ran Warrington - Lymm, I still think it would be worth leaving open that possibility rather than losing it to housing.

I'm sure you'd get quite a lot of support and agreement in principle. Once the costs became known a lot of that support would probably fall away, then you'd also have the usual objections form those who think they would be adversely affected by the building work, the noise of the trains, and so on.

I think that there are already sufficient protections, trying to add more may even turn people against the railway.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm thinking along the lines of the wording of the legislation and of the Parliamentary process being used to slow and block it by MP's who feel that it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut, not much practical use, and more or less a flight of fantasy from railway enthusiasts.

I also think that there are too many vested interests who would oppose it in principle, and that they would ensure that sufficient MP's would support them.

In essence, I think that the legislation would be generally seen as an attempt to preserve the past in a way that would just serve to hinder the future.

As I mentioned, it might be better if the legislation designated particular routes of strategic potential, rather than every old trackbed.

I'm not sure MP's would necessarily block it. Re-openings are generally popular with the public, with the Establishment forever having to justify them not happenning, rather than the other way round. I read somewhere that Lord Adonis once mentioned that he had far more correspondence as transport minister requesting the reopening of local railway lines closed by Dr Beeching than supporting HS2.

 

[satisnek]

Isn't this a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? Like about half a century after the horse has bolted....

 

[yorksrob]

Isn't this a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? Like about half a century after the horse has bolted....

Yes and no. Obviously this would have been better done sixty years ago, but York-Beverley is already going to have to divert around some encroachments. It would help if they didn't have any more to contend with.

 

[lejog]

Currently the best protection is to have former lines zoned on the Local Plan as for transport use and not residential. That requires local lobbying and not National intervention

I agree. what is the point of this petition? It is already in the power of local councils to prevent development on ex-lines by designating them as transport zones. IIRC this has already happened for the Colne to Skipton line.

Surely the decision about the relative need for new development or re-opening lines is best taken at local level? "Requiring" councils to reject planning imposes a total ban on development . This seems to be anti-democratic and would possibly be found to be an illegal breach of landowners rights by the courts. "Requiring" councils to aid re-instatement groups would be just a waste of public money when their aims are often totally unrealistic, you expect Bradford Council to waste valuable resources to support this group when they've just encouraged a £260m development its path? (True, only a partily a reinstatement)

 

[Greenback]

I can't dispute that legislation which is targetted at specific routes as opposed to every old trackbed would be better, but I'd still question a) how popular it would be and b) how effective it would be in practice.

I also think that it's too little too late, and I don't think that such legislation would in any way help a line such as York to Beverley to be reopened in reality.

Finally, I think that lejog makes some good points about landowners rights. I'm trul;y sorry I can't support this petition, but there we are. I can't sign something that I believe is flawed.

 

[lejog]

I must admit I'm struggling to think of any examples of line reinstatement which would be best enforced at a central UK government level rather than local/regional level. If routes are nationally significant, then they are more likely to involve new lines, not reinstatement.

I was sympathetic to the petition until I read the conclusion. As too often with these petitions the call for is for legislation to enforce one side's point of view, when there is a public debate to be had.

The government has given councils a big push via the new National Planning Policy to consider sustainable transport in their Local Plans (4th out of 13 priorities), this presents a great opportunity for campaigners to lobby councils as they are all in the process of preparing new Local Plans. But there are also great pressures on councils to provide new housing, they can't satisfy everybody.

 

[yorksrob]

I can't dispute that legislation which is targetted at specific routes as opposed to every old trackbed would be better, but I'd still question a) how popular it would be and b) how effective it would be in practice.

I also think that it's too little too late, and I don't think that such legislation would in any way help a line such as York to Beverley to be reopened in reality.

Finally, I think that lejog makes some good points about landowners rights. I'm trul;y sorry I can't support this petition, but there we are. I can't sign something that I believe is flawed.

I'm going to have to disagree profoundly with you on this.

The fact that people are saying it is too little, too late really reflects the urgency of not letting the situation deteriorate any further.

York-Beverley is a genuine campaign which is having to take account of breaches in the trackbed. This campaign will be negatively affected if further breaches end up being made in it. A re-think of legislative powers in this area seems long overdue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely the decision about the relative need for new development or re-opening lines is best taken at local level? "Requiring" councils to reject planning imposes a total ban on development . This seems to be anti-democratic and would possibly be found to be an illegal breach of landowners rights by the courts. "Requiring" councils to aid re-instatement groups would be just a waste of public money when their aims are often totally unrealistic, you expect Bradford Council to waste valuable resources to support this group when they've just encouraged a £260m development its path? (True, only a partily a reinstatement)

The problem with Councils is that they never have the funding to actually do anything. It's fairly pointless giving Councils the right to protect a route for transport when they will never have the funding to actually reinstate it. This is why I believe there needs to be a think about some reinstatements which would be strategically important for the National network, and a National guiding hand, above the hurly burly of competing local priorities that can ensure that these projects aren't derailed in the future.

Then, of course, there needs to be some National movement on funding, but that would likely take longer.

 

[Dave1987]

I disagree totally with this principle. The reason many of these lines were shut is that they were is they were poorly used and cost far more to run than they got in in ticket sales. If this came in you would get into a similar situation that you have with a lot of grade 1 listed buildings and structures. A lot of them are falling to bits, neglected and battered by the elements for decades gets you can't touch them because of the grade 1 listing and they just become an eye sore. Some of these track beds don't stand a hope of reopening so why protect them? Unless a group can show a clear case that a line could be realistically reopened and well used I don't see any reason for old track bed to be protected.