Perhaps not a sold off route, but I'd suggest that it's probably easier to reopen a dismantled route if the alignment remains clear, than it is to reinstate the second line alongside an existing single line (which might need a lot of work itself anyway), and do the necessary work to upgrade the existing infrastructure, all with limited opportunities for full possessions.
Why do we need a second line at all. Granted, we'll need signalling improvements and possibly a loop or two, but there's no automatic reason reason why this route would have to be double.
The fact that when we were capable of reopening routes, these tended to be existing freight routes, suggests that reopening freight routes is easier than building from scratch.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Surely that in itself says something?
It says everything about our woeful record on reopenings.
Take freight. For Matlock - Chinley even though the local freight customers were found in the reopening study to feel that the Hope Valley wouldn't be adequate in the longer term for their needs, the study still concluded that there wasn't enough freight demand to justify reinstating the link.
Then take this case - we have a link which already has an existing freight flow. Surely this must count in favour of upgrading the link to passengers and freight ? Surely this must help the business case for passenger reopening resulting in a better maintained railway?
Alas no. As freight already exists on this route, it is has to be presented as an obstacle to reopening.
The fact is, in this country, we will take any reopening proposal and use all details to persuade ourselves against reopening because we are biased against railway reopenings.