Government petition - preserving old trackbeds

[lejog]

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 ---


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.

So you actually want considerably more than the petition and want millions/billions of Government money to fund reinstatements? Good luck with that.

I see according to wiki that reinstatement of the York to Beverley line was costed at £239m in 2004 and that the Council have rejected zoning for transport since reinstatement "is very clearly currently unaffordable under any source of funding of which we are aware". Is this an example of a line that is of national strategic importance?

Having looked at the planning guidelines for transport I see that councils must "protect sites and routes which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choices for both passenger and freight movements." Critical is the key word here and they still have to consider value for money. But if there's a good case they will protect routes.

 

[yorksrob]

So you actually want considerably more than the petition and want millions/billions of Government money to fund reinstatements? Good luck with that.

Well, yes, I do, but we must run before we can walk. Preserving some trackbeds would be a good place to start. We're happy to spend billions on roads and high speed lines, a few millions on some strategic connections within the existing network would be money well spent. The idea crops up regularly in manifesto's when parties want to get into power. It's about time they got on with it. Nothing will happen without Government action.

I see according to wiki that reinstatement of the York to Beverley line was costed at £239m in 2004 and that the Council have rejected zoning for transport since reinstatement "is very clearly currently unaffordable under any source of funding of which we are aware". Is this an example of a line that is of national strategic importance?

Having looked at the planning guidelines for transport I see that councils must "protect sites and routes which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choices for both passenger and freight movements." Critical is the key word here and they still have to consider value for money. But if there's a good case they will protect routes.

We had this discussion in another thread and it transpired that York - Beverley is very much an ambition of local Authorities, but because they weren't able to confirm when it would go ahead (due to cost) they weren't able to protect the route under the legislation, which is precisely why national legislation is needed.

You ask me whether the line would be of National strategic importance. Look at a map and you will see the A1079 also follows this route, passing from York, through Pocklington, Market Weighton and on to Beverley and Hull. The very fact that this is designated an "A" road, denotes that the route is of National strategic importance as it is part of the trunk route network. The railway would be the same.

Actually, I believe that every railway station on the National network is of strategic importance, precisely because it feeds into the National network, which is what it is - a network.

 

[Gathursty]

The very fact that this is designated an "A" road, denotes that the route is of National strategic importance as it is part of the trunk route network. The railway would be the same.

Playing Devil's Advocate, the A39 corkscrews through Lynton inbetween Minehead and Barnstaple.

 

[GB]

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.

Fully agree. Unless the trackbed can be shown to have potential and likely reuse, the land should be made available for more important things like new houses or public amenities.

 

[The Planner]

You ask me whether the line would be of National strategic importance. Look at a map and you will see the A1079 also follows this route, passing from York, through Pocklington, Market Weighton and on to Beverley and Hull. The very fact that this is designated an "A" road, denotes that the route is of National strategic importance as it is part of the trunk route network. The railway would be the same.

It might be an important route but it isn't a trunk route as the Highways Agency as was doesn't maintain it. An A road is exactly what it is, a designation. It doesn't imply strategic importance or quality in its own right otherwise you could claim, for example, that the A30 is more important that the A303 between Basingstoke and Honiton as it has 2 numbers instead of 3.

 

[yorksrob]

It might be an important route but it isn't a trunk route as the Highways Agency as was doesn't maintain it. An A road is exactly what it is, a designation. It doesn't imply strategic importance or quality in its own right otherwise you could claim, for example, that the A30 is more important that the A303 between Basingstoke and Honiton as it has 2 numbers instead of 3.

Ah, but if it wasn't of strategic importance, it would be designated a B road. Or undesignated.

I don't claim that the Marshlink is as important as the East Coast mainline, but they are both strategically important as parts of the National network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Many of our routes today cost more to run than they receive in ticket sales. Then, as now, it does not follow that they are poorly used.

 

[DaleCooper]

The very fact that this is designated an "A" road, denotes that the route is of National strategic importance as it is part of the trunk route network.

Ah, but if it wasn't of strategic importance, it would be designated a B road. Or undesignated.

Have a look at the A1129 (all 0.75 miles of it) and see if you think it's of "strategic" importance.

 

[yorksrob]

Have a look at the A1129 (all 0.75 miles of it) and see if you think it's of "strategic" importance.

It's not for me to decipher the mysteries of the road DfT's road designation committee, suffice to say that if it has an A designation, it is deemed suitable for longer distance traffic and therefore strategically important.

 

[Bald Rick]

An 'A' road does not signify strategic importance. It signifies a standard of road, which naturally there are many exceptions to. Much the same as the 'Fast' lines between London Bridge and Charing Cross are anything but.

Roads of strategic importance are those that are part of the trunk road network, which is (generally) motorways and any 'A' road with a (T) suffix.

 

[yorksrob]

An 'A' road does not signify strategic importance. It signifies a standard of road, which naturally there are many exceptions to. Much the same as the 'Fast' lines between London Bridge and Charing Cross are anything but.

Roads of strategic importance are those that are part of the trunk road network, which is (generally) motorways and any 'A' road with a (T) suffix.

The fast lines between London Bridge and Charing Cross might not be fast, but they do carry main line express trains, hence the designation.

 

[Bald Rick]

The fast lines between London Bridge and Charing Cross might not be fast, but they do carry main line express trains, hence the designation.

No, the designation is purely to help those who have to use it, ie drive along, operate or maintain it. It has nothing to do with it's strategic importance. There are plenty of 'fast' and 'main' lines that are of no strategic importance, in the same way that there are plenty of lines not so designated that are of strategic importance.

 

[yorksrob]

No, the designation is purely to help those who have to use it, ie drive along, operate or maintain it. It has nothing to do with it's strategic importance. There are plenty of 'fast' and 'main' lines that are of no strategic importance, in the same way that there are plenty of lines not so designated that are of strategic importance.

Any "fast" or "main" lines of no strategic importance would have been lifted during a rationalisation years ago. I'm pretty satisfied that the "fast" lines between London Bridge and Charing Cross are a strategically important set of tracks when it comes to transport between London and the Kent and Sussex coast on account of them being the main line into Charing Cross.

As entertaining as this pointless interlude into the twilight zone of semantics has been, the A1079 is the main strategic road between York and Beverley linking the settlements of Pocklington, Stamford Bridge and Market Weighton.

Any reinstated railway route would perform a similar function and would be looked after by Network Rail as part of the national network, so it makes sense to consider its reopening as from a national point of view as well as a local one.

 

[Bald Rick]

Agree, let's not argue this point!

I suspect the difference of opinion is actually what 'strategically important' means, and by extension, on what scale. What might be strategically important to the people of Pocklington is probably not so important to Yorkshire or the UK compared to alternatives.

Let's leave it there.

 

[yorksrob]

Agree, let's not argue this point!

I suspect the difference of opinion is actually what 'strategically important' means, and by extension, on what scale. What might be strategically important to the people of Pocklington is probably not so important to Yorkshire or the UK compared to alternatives.

Let's leave it there.

Agreed.

 

[Greenback]

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

No problem. I have an awful lot of respect for your posts here, and that won't change just because we don't agree on this particular issue!

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

In my view, it also reflects the fact that it is too late for such legislation to be worthwhile. The damage that has been done to many routes already is such that any further breaches are likely to be insignificant in most cases.

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.

While there may be some benefits to some routes in having a national policy supported by statute to prevent any sort of non railway use, I predict that the outcry against setting things as strongly in stone as this would far outweigh any benefits that would result.

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.

I would welcome some sort of strategic body that would decide what routes there may be a strategic interest in developing, and I think that would be a necessary result of this type of legislation. Unfortunately, i think that the creation of any such a body is another reason why it's unlikely to happen.

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

I think that's probably even less likely!

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.

In fairness, times have changed, some of the lines that were closed shouldn't have been closed, and probably would have survived until now if they could have lasted a few years longer.

However, I do agree that most of the former trackbeds don't have any hope of seeing a reopening at all. There are many miles around these parts which only ever existed to serve docks, collieries and other enterprises that went out pf business themselves and will never, ever return to use because they don't go anywhere useful at all. I don't think that anyone would ever regard those lines as of local importance, never mind strategic importance.

 

[tbtc]

Around two hundred years ago, the UK canal network was around four thousand miles long. Around fifty years ago (when railways were being similarly pruned), the UK canal network had shrunk to around two thousand miles – i.e. only half it’s “prime”.

The canal “network” has bounced back marginally since then, but it’s been more of a “dead cat bounce” (in terms of mileage) than a return to the nineteenth century heyday.

Now, should those “lost” two thousand miles of abandoned towpaths be protected against development? Should we insist that nobody builds a house/ road/ shop on the site of what was once part of a canal? Are these former sections of canal “a strategic national importance that should be preserved in aspic in case we one day go back to older technologies”?

Or do we just shrug our shoulders and accept that there are a handful of schemes worth investing in (such as the planned link from the Grand Union to the Ouse – i.e. Milton Keynes to Bedford) – though these don’t have to necessarily follow the path of some historic alignment.

Maybe some rail enthusiasts would love to introduce some law forcing us to preserve the path of old canals (even though some old bits of canal were built on to become railway lines, just as some bits of closed railway lines were built on to become roads), but where do you draw the line?

And why do you think that a petition is going to change anything? Every day I have to wade through dozens of these on Facebook/ Twitter – well meaning people encouraging others to sign something that sounds positive (or, often, to Be Seen To Be Doing Something), but what do they change? You might have felt good ticking a box to demand that Ian Duncan Smith lived off Job Seekers Allowance for a year (to pick one high profile one from a year or two ago), but did it amount to anything in the grand scheme of things?

This whole idea is nonsense, pure and simple. I know that clinging to the idea of re-opening some quaint branch lines gives is more important to a significant number of enthusiasts than trying to tackle 21st century problems but we really shouldn’t be encouraging those false hopes.

As for York – Beverley (Hull)… it’s one of the better cases for re-opening, out of the hundreds of closed routes – of course there are always going to be borderline cases. But there’s nowhere particularly large in between (Pocklington has a four digit population) and the existing York – Hull service isn’t even hourly which suggests that there’s no some huge market for linking York to Hull that the railway isn’t tapping into.

Much easier to daydream about reinstating a second line from York to Hull than campaign for improved services between the cities on the existing route? I don’t see anyone demanding a clockface hourly service that connects with ECML services to/from Edinburgh/ Newcastle, or increased services from York to Selby (to provide more journey opportunities to change to existing Selby – Hull services), because that kind of practical improvement seems to be of no interest to the nostalgists signing petitions like these. But if you want to protect/re-open York – Beverley then let’s discuss that route on its own merits, rather than trying to legislate for protection of thousands of miles of abandoned trackbed around the UK.

Also, to be blunt, some railway alignments were stupid. We didn’t need parallel routes built by competing companies, not every route should have got off the drawing board – but should all of these be preserved from 21st century developers? Every branch line to a factory that closed generations ago? Every marshalling yard designed to serve heavy industries that no longer exist? Every chord, junction, former turntable? Where do you draw the lines? I mean, this badly worded petition is about *every* former bit of railway?

Oh to be able to assess catering for current/ future demand with a fresh sheet of paper, like Crossrail/ HS2/ the Dawlish Avoider Line/ HS3/ Crossrail 2, rather than automatically trying to use abandoned lines as “solutions” for everything

For example, if we build an “HS3” to link Manchester to Sheffield then I honestly don’t care whether it follows the old Woodhead route (or the Ewden Railway Company, or any other ancient line). Does this make me a bad person?

(mind you, it’d be amusing to see the Daily Mail get its knickers in a twist re “How Will This Affect House Prices”, featuring pictures of people unable to do anything with their houses because they’ve found they were built on the sidings of a railway closed a hundred years ago)

 

[lincolnshire]

I can remember travelling on the Hull to York via Market Weighton line in its day.

Thats put this back to top of the page again, so has anymore added there names to the petition to the government then?

 

[HH]

There are a lot of aspirations for expanding the current rail network; far more than most people realise. Of course not all of these old track beds will be needed for rail, but they aren't a renewable resource. And because we can't see a use for some today, does that mean that there won't be a use for them tomorrow? I can think of several routes, that if they still existed today, would be extremely busy. Busier than some that still exist even.

 

[infobleep]

Around two hundred years ago, the UK canal network was around four thousand miles long. Around fifty years ago (when railways were being similarly pruned), the UK canal network had shrunk to around two thousand miles – i.e. only half it’s “prime”.

The canal “network” has bounced back marginally since then, but it’s been more of a “dead cat bounce” (in terms of mileage) than a return to the nineteenth century heyday.

Now, should those “lost” two thousand miles of abandoned towpaths be protected against development? Should we insist that nobody builds a house/ road/ shop on the site of what was once part of a canal? Are these former sections of canal “a strategic national importance that should be preserved in aspic in case we one day go back to older technologies”?

Or do we just shrug our shoulders and accept that there are a handful of schemes worth investing in (such as the planned link from the Grand Union to the Ouse – i.e. Milton Keynes to Bedford) – though these don’t have to necessarily follow the path of some historic alignment.

Maybe some rail enthusiasts would love to introduce some law forcing us to preserve the path of old canals (even though some old bits of canal were built on to become railway lines, just as some bits of closed railway lines were built on to become roads), but where do you draw the line?

And why do you think that a petition is going to change anything? Every day I have to wade through dozens of these on Facebook/ Twitter – well meaning people encouraging others to sign something that sounds positive (or, often, to Be Seen To Be Doing Something), but what do they change? You might have felt good ticking a box to demand that Ian Duncan Smith lived off Job Seekers Allowance for a year (to pick one high profile one from a year or two ago), but did it amount to anything in the grand scheme of things?

This whole idea is nonsense, pure and simple. I know that clinging to the idea of re-opening some quaint branch lines gives is more important to a significant number of enthusiasts than trying to tackle 21st century problems but we really shouldn’t be encouraging those false hopes.

As for York – Beverley (Hull)… it’s one of the better cases for re-opening, out of the hundreds of closed routes – of course there are always going to be borderline cases. But there’s nowhere particularly large in between (Pocklington has a four digit population) and the existing York – Hull service isn’t even hourly which suggests that there’s no some huge market for linking York to Hull that the railway isn’t tapping into.

Much easier to daydream about reinstating a second line from York to Hull than campaign for improved services between the cities on the existing route? I don’t see anyone demanding a clockface hourly service that connects with ECML services to/from Edinburgh/ Newcastle, or increased services from York to Selby (to provide more journey opportunities to change to existing Selby – Hull services), because that kind of practical improvement seems to be of no interest to the nostalgists signing petitions like these. But if you want to protect/re-open York – Beverley then let’s discuss that route on its own merits, rather than trying to legislate for protection of thousands of miles of abandoned trackbed around the UK.

Also, to be blunt, some railway alignments were stupid. We didn’t need parallel routes built by competing companies, not every route should have got off the drawing board – but should all of these be preserved from 21st century developers? Every branch line to a factory that closed generations ago? Every marshalling yard designed to serve heavy industries that no longer exist? Every chord, junction, former turntable? Where do you draw the lines? I mean, this badly worded petition is about *every* former bit of railway?

Oh to be able to assess catering for current/ future demand with a fresh sheet of paper, like Crossrail/ HS2/ the Dawlish Avoider Line/ HS3/ Crossrail 2, rather than automatically trying to use abandoned lines as “solutions” for everything [emoji38]

For example, if we build an “HS3” to link Manchester to Sheffield then I honestly don’t care whether it follows the old Woodhead route (or the Ewden Railway Company, or any other ancient line). Does this make me a bad person?

(mind you, it’d be amusing to see the Daily Mail get its knickers in a twist re “How Will This Affect House Prices”, featuring pictures of people unable to do anything with their houses because they’ve found they were built on the sidings of a railway closed a hundred years ago)

Are there any disused railway lines that took over canals which could be reverted to their former canal use?

I guess the difference between canals and railways is the speed. Canal boats go at 4mph, railway trains much faster.

Doesn't mean all branch lines should be reopen though.

As for where we draw the line with protection. One could say why build a new line. Where will it stop. After you've built one line, what then? Build another and then another and litter the country with hundreds of lines.

Clearly for old routes would need to decide which are considered useful for populations they serve and those that would not be and wouldn't be protected.

 

[Dave1987]

This petition is about protecting all old track beds, even those that stand no chance of reopening apart from in the eyes of a few nostalgic people. I remember The Green Party pledged to scrap HS2 in favour of reopening old closed lines but gave no details of how they would do so and how many hundreds of houses would need to be demolished to do so. If a line has a realistic chance of reopening and is worth doing so then a group should petition the local authority to protect it. Not put an arbitrary protection on all track beds.

 

[yorksrob]

This petition is about protecting all old track beds, even those that stand no chance of reopening apart from in the eyes of a few nostalgic people. I remember The Green Party pledged to scrap HS2 in favour of reopening old closed lines but gave no details of how they would do so and how many hundreds of houses would need to be demolished to do so. If a line has a realistic chance of reopening and is worth doing so then a group should petition the local authority to protect it.

If it encourages Government to reconsider the issue, I regard that as a good thing.

I've seen the idea of reversing some of the Beeching cuts occur in various manifestos over the years. I would like to see such a thing brought forward in policy, something Local Government has neither the power nor the funding to do.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This petition is about protecting all old track beds, even those that stand no chance of reopening apart from in the eyes of a few nostalgic people. .

What would be the raison d'etre for "protecting" something that had "no chance of reopening"....protecting against what exactly in such a circumstance ?

 

[yorksrob]

What would be the raison d'etre for "protecting" something that had "no chance of reopening"....protecting against what exactly in such a circumstance ?

A disused railway route with no chance of reopening could be an important piece of green infrastructure. A green lung for wildlife and recreation, if you will.

 

[Dave1987]

A disused railway route with no chance of reopening could be an important piece of green infrastructure. A green lung for wildlife and recreation, if you will.

Protecting old track bed could cause serious problems in the future years down the line if/when the land is to be used for other purposes. Grade 1 listings of buildings has caused major issues around the country and this has the potential to cause the same problems in the future.

 

[yorksrob]

Protecting old track bed could cause serious problems in the future years down the line if/when the land is to be used for other purposes. Grade 1 listings of buildings has caused major issues around the country and this has the potential to cause the same problems in the future.

Yet we are undoubtedly better off with grade 1 listings than without them.

 

[MarkyT]

I signed the petition, not because I think such a cover-all 'protection act' is likely to come about, nor because I think it's very beneficial to preserve ALL former alignments, possibly even counterproductive in many cases. I signed because I think some further measures are required to identify and protect strategic alignments that could never realistically be recreated economically if destroyed for the sake of a few houses built without any regard to maintaining a corridor. It may be that current planning laws today already provide mechanisms to allow LAs to protect corridors, but some strengthening might be provided and some additional legitimate grounds for objection could be developed for cases where LAs are not seen to be doing this effectively. I see the petition and it's wording being a way to highlight and publicise the issues, a starting point for discussion and negotiation.

 

[Dave1987]

Yet we are undoubtedly better off with grade 1 listings than without them.

Not ones that are falling apart and beyond repair but because they are grade 1 listed are unable to be touched.

 

[Western Lord]

The way some people on here are talking you would think that old railway lines have existed since the dawn of time and are part of the natural landscape. How about a petition to return disused rail routes to their natural state? The fact is that if you wanted to open a new route you might as well start from scratch and build a new alignment. You would have to do this on almost all old routes in any case to avoid areas that have been lost to development.

 

[yorksrob]

Not ones that are falling apart and beyond repair but because they are grade 1 listed are unable to be touched.

To be honest, most grade 1 buildings are looked after. It's the much more numerous grade 2 buildings which tend to be at risk of falling into disrepair.

However, I'd still far rather have the listing system to influence planners and developers to restore the built heritage of the country where appropriate, than give the developers carte blanche to flatten enything they wanted to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The way some people on here are talking you would think that old railway lines have existed since the dawn of time and are part of the natural landscape. How about a petition to return disused rail routes to their natural state? The fact is that if you wanted to open a new route you might as well start from scratch and build a new alignment. You would have to do this on almost all old routes in any case to avoid areas that have been lost to development.

Given that most of our landscape hasn't been in its natural state since the iron age, you'd have difficulty achieving such a thing even if you wanted to. However, a wild ex railway corridor could add much to biodiversity, particularly if it cuts through an area of agricultural monoculture.

 

[Dave1987]

To be honest, most grade 1 buildings are looked after. It's the much more numerous grade 2 buildings which tend to be at risk of falling into disrepair.

However, I'd still far rather have the listing system to influence planners and developers to restore the built heritage of the country where appropriate, than give the developers carte blanche to flatten enything they wanted to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Given that most of our landscape hasn't been in its natural state since the iron age, you'd have difficulty achieving such a thing even if you wanted to. However, a wild ex railway corridor could add much to biodiversity, particularly if it cuts through an area of agricultural monoculture.

If a building is to be kept in good condition and showcase the countries heritage then yes list it and protect it. If it is going to be left to be vandalised and degrade to be an eye sore then why protect it?

Same with old track bed. If there is a realistic prospect of the line reopening and seeing plenty of trains then fine protect it. If it stands no chance of reopening then what on earth is the point? In a few decades time someone might want to put the land to good use but will be thwarted by a protection law because someone had some vain hope that the line might be reopened.