How Long After A Line Closes Until We Can Give Up On It / It's Treated As A "New" Alignment

[tbtc]

From this month's "let's re-open the Okehampton - Tavistock" thread:

The lesson from the Beeching accolytes seems to be that nimbyism is evil and must be resisted at all costs where a new alignment is concerned, but as soon as an existing alignment is proposed for re-use, the word of the objectors becomes gospel that cannot be contradicted.

I'm sure there would be very reasonable complaints from the users of the granite way that would lose it's alignment. But no doubt it will be argued that a rail alignment is only ever borrowed and must be instantly available to any new rail use, no matter how many decades ago it was discarded!

Many of the 242 objectors to EWR are probably just hanging on for a payoff if offered and will carry on objecting until their price is met.
As for a handful of walkers and cyclists who probably only use the Granite Way a couple of times a year each, should they be allowed to bar the way of progress?
And you're last statement should be compulsory for any trackbed that is disposed of.

Okehampton - Tavistock is a line that closed in 1968; I'd argue that a line that closed over fifty years ago is no longer an "existing alignment", and therefore should be treated as a "new" one

(IMHO Okehampton - Tavistock has passed on! This railway is no more! It's has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet it's maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of trains, it rests in peace...)

But, I'm often in a minority on here, so I'll open this up for wider debate: Is there a cut-off point at which an alignment no longer becomes an alignment (and would be treated as brand new)?

Or do you think that anyone with a house alongside any of the lines on this map https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php should just have to accept the return of heavy rail, even if the line was closed down before that person was born?

Should Estate Agents warn people about the fact that there was a line closed before the First World War nearby which could open without being able to object to planning permission?

Or do we accept that after a line has closed then it's closed and any plans to re-open it should start from scratch just like a brand new alignment would?

(this may then become a discussion about whether "the railway" should therefore keep hold of every square yard of land that once had a line on it, or we are actually okay to give up on it and flog it off)

 

[Ianno87]

I do wish there were some way of collectively wiping closed lines from everybody's memory.

Then discussion would be one "which places need to be connected" rather than "there was once a line between X and Y so obviously it needs to be put back".

 

[HST43257]

I think, with the Okehampton to Tavistock line, it should not be seen as a full alignment, mainly because parts have been deemed to be unsuitable for rail (Meldon Viaduct comes to mind).

If all of the ground and structures on the route were safe, I'd feel differently.

 

[Eyersey468]

I think a lot depends on how much of the original alignment can be used again

 

[D365]

Somebody should invent a ”Monsal scale”. A measure of how much of the trackbed is extant.

 

[quantinghome]

Given that even lines like EWR which were never technically closed end up having to be essentially rebuilt, surely every closed line is treated as a new alignment if reopened. Even operational freight lines need major overhauls to run passenger services.

 

[Bald Rick]

There’s a straightforward legal answer to this, and then a more complicated engineering answer.

The legal answer is: if the railway was officially closed, then building a railway along its alignment is a new railway, even if it reuses some of the former infrastructure.

The engineering answer rests on the answer to the question - What is an ‘extant trackbed’ ? For many former lines, the only reason you can see the former alignment is because you can see the earthworks and occasional structure, or because there is a footpath, bike track or farmers track on it. There are plenty of former lines that have stretches that were at ground level, and have therefore disappeared into agriculture, or in urban areas, development.

Worth pointing out, as I have done several times, that reusing a former alignment can often be a curse rather than a blessing. Bridges, culverts and earthworks untouched by maintenance for 50+ years often need complete removal and rebuilding, which costs far more than just building new for obvious reasons. This is particularly the case in urban environments. See Bletchley flyover.

Then there is the issue of finding the land necessary to enable construction, which is something that is regularly forgotten* even by some of the pros doing early feasibility studies. It may well be feasible to have a railway on an old alignment between x and y, if it could magically appear. But it may not be so feasible to actually build, at least not without requiring more land take and major local disruption. Coming back to OP, this is a factor for Tavistock.

*sometimes conveniently forgotten.

 

[irish_rail]

If the Borders railway in Scotland was good enough to go then I can't see why a more sound route to be reopened shouldn't be. Cancel HS2 if need be and distribute the money throughout the regions. Schemes like this would have a huge effect, and help get people throughout Devon out of cars and onto public transport, whilst adding resilience for long distance services and preventing Plymouth and Cornwall becoming cut off.

 

[Bald Rick]

Schemes like this would have a huge effect

It really wouldn’t.

help get people throughout Devon out of cars and onto public transport

It really wouldn’t, at least not sufficiently to make any noticeable difference to road traffic levels.

whilst adding resilience for long distance services and preventing Plymouth and Cornwall becoming cut off

Only in certain circumstances. Doesn’t help if Cowley Bridge floods. Or anything happens west of Devon. And in any event, such ‘cut off’ events are thankfully rather rare, and likely to be rarer given the recent investment.

 

[pdeaves]

Worth pointing out, as I have done several times, that reusing a former alignment can often be a curse rather than a blessing.

In addition to the reasons you've given, modern standards may mean that it is incredibly difficult to put a railway with appropriate curvature and clearance on an old formation, requiring extra land purchase to allow for said curves, etc.

 

[YorksLad12]

Somebody should invent a ”Monsal scale”. A measure of how much of the trackbed is extant.

Wouldn't that just be the percentage?

It's not a bad idea though. If you devised a scale with 100 being easiest to open and 0 being most difficult you'd say 100 minus (how many new river crossings x length) minus (how many tunnels x length) minus (something for the topology) minus (what else has been built nearby or next to the former alignment).

Most times you'd just build something on a new alignment, and have done with.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Using a former trackbed saves the cost of surveying a new one.
Many have said about reopening the Heathfield-Exeter City Basin route as an alternative to the SR route. Well that line in my opinion is a route that is totally lost,whereas Poulton to Fleetwood for example isn't and a good contender for reopening in some form.
I admit there are some routes that are impossible to reopen like Teign Valley or not warrant it like Brent-Kingsbridge.

 

[HSTEd]

Using a former trackbed saves the cost of surveying a new one.

Surveying is not the major job it once was, thanks to the plethora of GIS tools and computerisation at our disposal.

The hardest part of building a railway in the modern era is getting people to let you turn loose the earthmovers.

 

[NoRoute]

The hardest part of building a railway in the modern era is getting people to let you turn loose the earthmovers.

Surely not, the hardest part is finding the funding to build it. Most rail line construction isn't not financially viable as a profit making activity, so the private sector won't fund it, so it relies on public funding from a limited pot of investment.

There are closed lines which could be reopened with minimal objections, but the issue is they cannot get the funding.

As we may shortly see with HS2 Eastern leg, even where permission is likely, everything stops when the money runs out.

 

[Ianno87]

It really wouldn’t.



It really wouldn’t, at least not sufficiently to make any noticeable difference to road traffic levels.

Is there any data from Borders railway on how much road traffic has (or hasn't) changed by, seeing as that is probably a comparable example?

 

[irish_rail]

It really wouldn’t.



It really wouldn’t, at least not sufficiently to make any noticeable difference to road traffic levels.



Only in certain circumstances. Doesn’t help if Cowley Bridge floods. Or anything happens west of Devon. And in any event, such ‘cut off’ events are thankfully rather rare, and likely to be rarer given the recent investment.

Can you actually back any of this up with anything other than "it really wouldnt".....?

 

[Bald Rick]

Using a former trackbed saves the cost of surveying a new one.

It doesn’t. You still have to survey every square metre of your proposed route. And to prove that you have properly considered alternatives (in order to get consent to build the railway) you have to survey them too.

Can you actually back any of this up with anything other than "it really wouldnt".....?

Yes. The business case.

 

[The Planner]

If the Borders railway in Scotland was good enough to go then I can't see why a more sound route to be reopened shouldn't be. Cancel HS2 if need be and distribute the money throughout the regions. Schemes like this would have a huge effect, and help get people throughout Devon out of cars and onto public transport, whilst adding resilience for long distance services and preventing Plymouth and Cornwall becoming cut off.

Don't fall into the trap of "cancel HS2 and give the money to the normal railway". Its not the same pot and doesn't solve any of the issues you then put back by cancelling it.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is some, but it’s a little out of date. The one year post implementation review reckoned that the Borders line saved 40,000 single car trips per year, which works out at about 60 per day each way into Edinburgh. Some of this is offset by new car trips to Tweedbank to pick up the railway. In the context of traffic on the south side of Edinburgh, that’s essentially negligible.

Also worth pointing out that Borders led to a reduction in bus patronage on the corridor, which led to the removal of some bus services. The review makes no comment on what effect that had on road traffic levels.

 

[Ianno87]

There is some, but it’s a little out of date. The one year post implementation review reckoned that the Borders line saved 40,000 single car trips per year, which works out at about 60 per day each way into Edinburgh. Some of this is offset by new car trips to Tweedbank to pick up the railway. In the context of traffic on the south side of Edinburgh, that’s essentially negligible.

Also worth pointing out that Borders led to a reduction in bus patronage on the corridor, which led to the removal of some bus services. The review makes no comment on what effect that had on road traffic levels.

Thanks.

 

[yorksrob]

In addition to the reasons you've given, modern standards may mean that it is incredibly difficult to put a railway with appropriate curvature and clearance on an old formation, requiring extra land purchase to allow for said curves, etc.

There clearly need to be grandfather rights apportioned to old alignments as well as in use ones. A simple legislative issue.

 

[Ianno87]

There clearly need to be grandfather rights apportioned to old alignments as well as in use ones. A simple legislative issue.

So, for example, old standards on things like track curvature will just lead to excessive wear and tear and a high maintenance liability

 

[yorksrob]

So, for example, old standards on things like track curvature will just lead to excessive wear and tear and a high maintenance liability

It will add to operational costs, yes. But it will reduce construction costs as well.

 

[Ianno87]

It will add to operational costs, yes. But it will reduce construction costs as well.

Which negatively impacts the business case in the long run.

 

[yorksrob]

Which negatively impacts the business case in the long run.

Not as much as not being able to build the thing in the first place.

 

[A0wen]

It will add to operational costs, yes. But it will reduce construction costs as well.

Bit in bold - Not sure it does as @Bald Rick commented in post 17 "You still have to survey every square metre of your proposed route. And to prove that you have properly considered alternatives (in order to get consent to build the railway) you have to survey them too."

 

[Ianno87]

Not as much as not being able to build the thing in the first place.

Business cases must consider whole life cost. No point skimping on construction cost to only cost you more in the long run.

 

[tbtc]

I do wish there were some way of collectively wiping closed lines from everybody's memory.

Then discussion would be one "which places need to be connected" rather than "there was once a line between X and Y so obviously it needs to be put back".

Agreed - it'd be really refreshing to read a proposal that starts with identifying a genuine problem (e.g. a new town that was built without a decent railway provision like Skelmersdale/ Glenrothes or a place that has a railway line but in the wrong direction to a lot of commuter flows like Atherstone which has trains but not into the nearest big city) rather than rehashing the familiar list of abandoned routes through the middle of nowhere Tweedbank - Carlisle, Skipton - Colne, Tavistoke - Okehampton, Uckfield - Lewes and working backwards to find a "problem" that they can somehow "solve"

I think a lot depends on how much of the original alignment can be used again

Agreed, but I was partly asking the question of whether people should be able to object to such re-openings (e.g. I see suggestions on here that people upset that they'll have to deal with the disruption of constructing a railway line near their house, and then the ongoing noise once open, shouldn't be allowed to complain since they knew full well that the abandoned route might be re-opened one day, even though it's been closed for over fifty years)

Somebody should invent a ”Monsal scale”. A measure of how much of the trackbed is extant.

Brilliant!

Worth pointing out, as I have done several times, that reusing a former alignment can often be a curse rather than a blessing. Bridges, culverts and earthworks untouched by maintenance for 50+ years often need complete removal and rebuilding, which costs far more than just building new for obvious reasons. This is particularly the case in urban environments. See Bletchley flyover.

Then there is the issue of finding the land necessary to enable construction, which is something that is regularly forgotten* even by some of the pros doing early feasibility studies. It may well be feasible to have a railway on an old alignment between x and y, if it could magically appear. But it may not be so feasible to actually build, at least not without requiring more land take and major local disruption. Coming back to OP, this is a factor for Tavistock.

*sometimes conveniently forgotten.

Excellent point that need to be remembered for such discussions

preventing Plymouth and Cornwall becoming cut off

Spend a billion pounds on an Okehampton - Tavistock line if you want but there'll still be just one line from Plymouth to St Austell/ Truro/ Penzance etc, with single track sections, so it wouldn't prevent them from being cut off

Using a former trackbed saves the cost of surveying a new one

So you don't think that we should survey the ground, if there was a line that closed over fifty/ one hundred years ago?

Just stick the tracks down without checking the conditions?

Is there any data from Borders railway on how much road traffic has (or hasn't) changed by, seeing as that is probably a comparable example?

There is some, but it’s a little out of date. The one year post implementation review reckoned that the Borders line saved 40,000 single car trips per year, which works out at about 60 per day each way into Edinburgh. Some of this is offset by new car trips to Tweedbank to pick up the railway. In the context of traffic on the south side of Edinburgh, that’s essentially negligible.

Also worth pointing out that Borders led to a reduction in bus patronage on the corridor, which led to the removal of some bus services. The review makes no comment on what effect that had on road traffic levels.

Ouch, all that money and it's only one daily busload of cars removed from Edinburgh's roads?

There clearly need to be grandfather rights apportioned to old alignments as well as in use ones. A simple legislative issue.

Okay, I'll take you seriously then... are you suggesting that any old alignment should be okay to build a railway on without allowing objections from locals/ requiring planning permission/ doing thorough ground surveys?

Even if the line was closed over fifty years ago (as is the case in Okehampton - Tavistock), nobody should be allowed to complain if a railway is built at the end of their garden?

No need to apply modern surveys to the underlying conditions or the state of Victorian embankments/structures that have been untouched for generations, just plonk the tracks down and get on with it?

Is there a line that you'd draw? Twenty years since the line closed? Fifty years? One hundred? Or would grandfather rights apply to anything that ever had a bit of railway on it?

Looking at https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php, that might be bad news in places like Newton Aycliffe where there used to be lots of railway lines/ yards, many years before the New Town was built on the site... still it'd make all those dreary "Property" programmes more interesting, if the annoying couple trying to get their first house found out that there was a risk that a branch built to serve a Victorian colliery could be built through their garden without the right to protest!

Would you apply the same rules to other infrastructure, e.g. canals, airports? Or is it just historic railway land that gets this sacred status?

 

[quantinghome]

So, for example, old standards on things like track curvature will just lead to excessive wear and tear and a high maintenance liability

And the alignment will limit you to the original linespeeds. Most reopenings are proposed for secondary or branch lines; these would have been designed for fairly low speeds - acceptable for unbraked wagonload freight back in the day but almost certainly inadequate for a modern passenger railway looking to compete against road traffic.

Using a former trackbed saves the cost of surveying a new one.

Earthworks on the operational network are regularly surveyed and maintained, yet even then they are showing increasing signs of instability, as seen by the rising number of slope failures in recent years.

That's the operational network; how do you think the old embankments and cuttings will have fared after being left unmaintained for 50+ years? It's inconceivable that a reopening could go ahead without first assessing the trackbed conditions and stability of the supporting formation and earthworks.

Appropriate engineering pragmatism can of course be applied, but you still need to do the surveys to understand whether you have a problem or not, and if there is a problem, how big it is.

 

[zwk500]

Would you apply the same rules to other infrastructure, e.g. canals, airports? Or is it just historic railway land that gets this sacred status?

What about tramways? Or, indeed, roads built on former rail alignments? I'd love to see the public reaction to any suggestion of tearing up the south-east corner of the M25 to relay the Westerham branch.