Potential Mangotsfield and Bath branch line reopening - Sustrans has got it wrong, says rail group

[Old Yard Dog]

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/news/pl...ng-bristol-and-bath-railway-path-our-response

Rail campaigners locally are fighting back against cyclists who
want to block future rail development. Replying to a recent open
letter published by Sustrans, Railfuture spelt out its support
for re-using the Bristol and Bath railway path for rail, and
dismisses the objections put forward by Sustrans.

"Sustrans have always known that they were allowed to operate the
railway path on the understanding that they would have to give it
back if it was needed for rail. Now it looks like that time
might be coming, and they're trying to renege on the deal" said
Bruce Williamson from Railfuture, who wrote the response. "We all
agree that we need solutions to Bristol's gridlock, but only rail
has the potential to attract people out of their cars and make a
real difference. There simply aren't any realistic alternatives
to re-using the old railway line. Tunnelling is monstrously
inexpensive, and any other route - well take a look at a map -
would involve mass demolitions and major civil engineering."

The response to Sustrans ends by saying "If you succeed in
blocking this scheme you will be perpetuating the pollution and
gridlock of our current road-based transport system. I urge you
to drop your opposition."

 

[SPADTrap]

The first line of 'We were disappointed by recent reports in The Bristol Post about the potential use of The Railway Path for a light rail connecting the two cities' says it all, there is a clue there somewhere.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Sustrans need to look at the bigger picture- always have done.

 

[yorksrob]

Railfuture's response is absolutely spot-on. One of the founding principles of Sustrans was hat it was not there to block future reuse of railway routes by rail.

 

[adamskiodp]

Not difficult - I think all new (or reopened) railway lines should have a cycle path built alongside, with a sturdy fence to prevent cyclists from being blown over by passing trains.

Adam

 

[Raul_Duke]

Not difficult - I think all new (or reopened) railway lines should have a cycle path built alongside, with a sturdy fence to prevent cyclists from being blown over by passing trains.

Adam

That’s a very good idea. In Chesterfield, part of the old Brampton Branch line had been turned into a cycle path to the station reusing bridges over the busy roads. The final section runs on the old trackbed next to the main line with a sturdy, trespasser proof fence in between.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not difficult - I think all new (or reopened) railway lines should have a cycle path built alongside, with a sturdy fence to prevent cyclists from being blown over by passing trains.

Adam

A very good idea, if there’s space (there often isn’t due to existing bridge and tunnel clearances, but sometimes there is).

 

[topydre]

Not difficult - I think all new (or reopened) railway lines should have a cycle path built alongside, with a sturdy fence to prevent cyclists from being blown over by passing trains.

Adam

As I understand it, that's the policy? That's what Network Rail suggested in discussions regarding Aberystwyth - Carmarthen (please remember to keep this thread on-topic), where a lot of the trackbed is used as a cyclepath currently. Although they didn't provide any specification for the fence, the provision of fences of some sort is also policy.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

There isn't space on the Bristol-Bath path due to the sheer number of cyclists using the path.

Generally railways and leisure cycle paths can coexist: it's been done successfully on the Welsh Highland, Peak Rail and many other places. But the Bristol-Bath path isn't purely, or even mostly, a leisure cycle path. It has thousands of commuters using it every day. It's pretty full as it is.

The light rail plans are described as "tram-like", i.e. capable of street running. It's 2018. We should be taking space away from unsustainable modes, i.e. cars, not sustainable modes like cycling.

"Sustrans have always known that they were allowed to operate the
railway path on the understanding that they would have to give it
back if it was needed for rail"

Yeah, I'm going to call "citation needed" on that one, considering that it wasn't even Sustrans that built the path (it was an organisation called Cyclebag).

 

[furnessvale]

Sustrans have NEVER supported any potential rail reopening and have objected to several.

I believe in some cases, they have deliberately installed the cycle track in a way to stop any future rail use.

 

[eastdyke]

.......
Yeah, I'm going to call "citation needed" on that one, considering that it wasn't even Sustrans that built the path (it was an organisation called Cyclebag).

Cyclebag was formed in Bristol and 'morphed' into Sustrans. Sustrans HQ is in Bristol and we are talking about their first, and in many ways flagship, project.
I believe, initially at least they received help from Avon? Council to lease the route.
Not sure about what has happened since.
They are a registered Charity and have had substantial lottery funding as well as money from the DfT. They used to include public transport as part of their development goals but now seem focused on cycle and footpath routes.
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/pe...hy-new-government-needs-step-its-cycling-game
Part quote:

Cyclebag
When in 1977 a group called Cyclebag was formed in Bristol to respond to the growing dominance of cars on the UK’s streets, the environmental impacts of motor vehicle emissions had already been felt whilst the world had been grappling with the rocketing of oil prices in the Middle East.

The car’s dominance was the aftermath of policies that had over 20 years facilitated the development of motorised traffic across the UK (and had led to the savage Beeching cuts which decimated Britain’s national railway and many rail routes).

Cyclebag responded with a practical solution. It transformed one of the decommissioned rail routes, Bristol to Bath, into a 13-mile traffic-free bike path, showing what could be done to give some positive life back to these routes that were judged as uneconomic.

The first section of the Bristol to Bath opened to cyclists and walkers in 1979. It was an instant success providing an integral commuting route, an attractive leisure path and an important wildlife corridor.

It inspired the formation of similar routes across the UK, mainly using disused railways and canal towpaths; and preceded the Cycle Tracks Act of 1984 which empowered local authorities to ‘convert sections of footpath to shared cycle and pedestrian use’

 

[bastien]

There isn't space on the Bristol-Bath path due to the sheer number of cyclists using the path.

I'm sure it'd be fine given some 'lane discipline'. The time trailing would have to stop though.

 

[HowardGWR]

There isn't space, unless substantial single line working is proposed (as is currently used on the Avon Valley Railway portion, with adjacent cycle path). If single track with passing places, then one doubts that the system would handle the 15 minute frequency that one would expect to be employed, at least as far out as Bitton, from central Bristol. If lower capacity trams are envisaged, a higher frequency might well be needed. I am sure it would be very well-used, but I doubt whether it could be implemented, politically, never mind financially.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Sustrans have NEVER supported any potential rail reopening and have objected to several.

Not true. Sustrans strongly supported the Borders reopening: "[we] warmly welcome the proposal to reopen this line and look forward to the early completion of the project". Their representation to the planning authority was to ensure an equal-standard cycle route was provided after the opening of the railway.

I believe in some cases, they have deliberately installed the cycle track in a way to stop any future rail use.

Also not true. That's an urban myth based on the fact that cycle routes on former railway trackbeds are sometimes slewed back and forth across the trackbed - I remember someone claiming to me in the pub that was deliberately to stop rail reuse. It's nothing of the sort. The slewing is entirely to make the route less attractive to motorbikes by reducing opportunities for going fast!

Cyclebag was formed in Bristol and 'morphed' into Sustrans.

Sustrans was largely founded by some Cyclebag members but it's not a direct successor organisation - indeed, Cyclebag continues as a cycling club in east Bristol.

 

[tbtc]

We can't electrify the heavy rail line from Bristol to Bath until (possibly?) the 2020s - despite the fact that it should be up and running by now - but people are up in arms about potential obstacles to a scheme that isn't realistically going to happen any time soon?

Much easier to complain about an imagined threat from pesky cyclists than deal with the actual problems within the rail industry, I guess - quick, blame the cyclists rather than deal with why the trains from Bristol to Bath (running on diesel) will continue to pollute the environment for years to come.

 

[eastdyke]

Sustrans was largely founded by some Cyclebag members but it's not a direct successor organisation - indeed, Cyclebag continues as a cycling club in east Bristol.

That isn't quite what Cyclebag East (the current cycling club) say in their 'about us':

Cyclebag East started in 1984 as the East Bristol ride section of Cyclebag. Cycle Bristol Action Group (Cyclebag) was one of the first cycle campaigning groups in Bristol and one of its greatest successes was the Bristol to Bath cyclepath. Cyclebag is no more, having evolved into Sustrans, and other groups such as Bristol Cycling Campaign have taken over the campaigning torch in Bristol. Cyclebag East has continued, however, as a local touring club.

http://www.cyclebageast.btik.com/About us

 

[TBirdFrank]

Sustrans - spit - wouldn't give them the scrapings from under my fingrnails.

Is Grimshaw still involved or has he cycled off to pastures new?

 

[ooo]

At one point on the path I believe houses have been built meaning the path has to go around which could cause problems for future conversion unless they were demolished

 

[Jonny]

Besides, a simple glance at a map suggests that Mangotsfield is a long way off-route for a line to Bath; it is at a bearing of about 50 to 60 degrees from central Bristol... vs about 100 to 120 degrees towards Bath. It may have been a good route in the steam era; but modern diesel and/or electric traction can make short work of a 1% incline.

 

[rf_ioliver]

Not difficult - I think all new (or reopened) railway lines should have a cycle path built alongside, with a sturdy fence to prevent cyclists from being blown over by passing trains.

Do cyclicst really get blown over from passing trains? Are we talking US-Mexico border wall here or some chainlink fencing?

t.

Ian

 

[NotATrainspott]

Besides, a simple glance at a map suggests that Mangotsfield is a long way off-route for a line to Bath; it is at a bearing of about 50 to 60 degrees from central Bristol... vs about 100 to 120 degrees towards Bath. It may have been a good route in the steam era; but modern diesel and/or electric traction can make short work of a 1% incline.

The main justification for using this line is that it would be cheap to serve a big section of the suburbs of Bristol. I'm not sure what they've got planned closer to the city centre, but needing to tunnel and provide frequent stations all the way out to the edge of the suburbs will push costs well above what's affordable. Street running into the suburbs would be less expensive than tunnelling but then there would be more traffic disruption, and journey times would be longer. It has to be noted that every modern tramway in the UK and Ireland was initially designed around re-use of railway alignments.

The Bristol and Avon cycle path might be a victim of its own success. Such a high quality path will encourage commuters and development, and that build-up of travel demand is now enough to justify a proper public transport link. While the path is nice for all of the people who use it today, a light metro along that route would benefit far more people than would lose out. I don't think they could get away without re-instating some sort of good cycle path along the route, but it could never be as wide and uninterrupted. The metro would also need to be a little compromised, with sections of single track or gauntlet track in places where there's no way to fit both a twin-track metro and a cycle path together.

 

[yorksrob]

We can't electrify the heavy rail line from Bristol to Bath until (possibly?) the 2020s - despite the fact that it should be up and running by now - but people are up in arms about potential obstacles to a scheme that isn't realistically going to happen any time soon?

Much easier to complain about an imagined threat from pesky cyclists than deal with the actual problems within the rail industry, I guess - quick, blame the cyclists rather than deal with why the trains from Bristol to Bath (running on diesel) will continue to pollute the environment for years to come.

Well, if we must forever have a network stuck in aspic from the mid 1990's, then your logic is quite correct.

 

[furnessvale]

Not true. Sustrans strongly supported the Borders reopening: "[we] warmly welcome the proposal to reopen this line and look forward to the early completion of the project". Their representation to the planning authority was to ensure an equal-standard cycle route was provided after the opening of the railway.

Fair enough. Sustrans supported one. A pity they were allowed to scupper several others having been given the trackbeds in good faith that they would return them if needed for rail, or other transport need, which IMO does not include leisure cyclists bringing the bikes on the roof of 4 x 4s.

 

[OxtedL]

A pity they were allowed to scupper several others

which ones are those?

 

[furnessvale]

which ones are those?

Wenford dries, Rugby cement branch and another in Gloucestershire, I don't have the details to hand, to name but three.

 

[OxtedL]

When you have time, could you dig out the details?

It'd be good to understand how involved Sustrans were in killing those off, and what other factors were in play. (The Rugby Cement branch looks like it passes through literally nowhere of any size?)

Fundamentally it is Sustrans' job to object to schemes that would remove good quality cycling/walking infrastructure, since that is the scarce resource they were founded to promote.

 

[The Planner]

Not sure about the Rugby Cement branch either, the Rugby bypass put paid to that one.

 

[adamskiodp]

Do cyclicst really get blown over from passing trains? Are we talking US-Mexico border wall here or some chainlink fencing?

t.

Ian

Depends how fast the trains are going and how close to the cyclists/pedestrians they are. Don’t forget we also have to protect every idiot who thinks it’s a good idea to trespass on the railway as well.

 

[Searchlight]

CPO should take care of it! Maybe Act of Parliament in difficult cases. No-one owns land Absolutely.
Such things do not stop Road Schemes do they?

 

[furnessvale]

Fundamentally it is Sustrans' job to object to schemes that would remove good quality cycling/walking infrastructure, since that is the scarce resource they were founded to promote.

I thought Sustrans agreed to give routes back if needed?