Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
CAMBRIAN HERITAGE RAILWAYS LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
OSWESTRY STATION BUILDING TRUST LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
CAMBRIAN HERITAGE RAILWAYS LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
OSWESTRY STATION BUILDING TRUST LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
I'm genuinely confused at what you are trying to suggest or not suggest or prove or not prove here? Unless someone finds multiple millions of pounds to deliver their proposal, its not happening.
I'm genuinely confused at what you are trying to suggest or not suggest or prove or not prove here? Unless someone finds multiple millions of pounds to deliver their proposal, its not happening.
I would expect funding to completion to say ‘funding for delivery’, ‘funding for construction’ or ’funding to implement’.
‘Funded to delivery’ sounds to me very much like “funding up to a point where a decison is taken on delivery”.
If it was funded for construction at this point, based on the SOBC, it would be a first for any rail project of this size or type, let alone one with suspect cost estimates. It would also break several rules about funding for capital investment by Government.
I, as a rate and tax payer who walks, drives and cycles on local roads and pavements, have some difficulty with this, what I would describe as a blind attitude. I've attached here 2 pages of minutes from a Shropshire County Council meeting dated 18th May 2004 (twenty years ago) which details the conditions to the acquisition of the Oswestry branch line, and says at item 16 "...If the proposal contained in this report comes to fruition it is important that both Borough and Town Council commit their long term political and financial backing to the project to minimise the risk of failure of the railway operator."
@Planner. To put it simply, I'm angry that for twenty years I've been paying for a project that, to anybody with a little common sense would realise is a non starter. My MP and local authorities set the wheels on this project turning and committed to "long term political and financial backing" whilst others services (care, libraries, NHS, dental, highways, pavements and God knows everything else) were left unprotected.
I'm making the point that, by clicking on the link above that will take you to the financal statements of Cambrian Heritage Railways as it exists today you can get some idea of how absurd the scale of the investment would be in such a small operation.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Just picked up on this thread and noticed a few comments about delays to A5 traffic if trains were to use the existing level crossing. Having travelled along this section of road just yesterday it struck me that when the A5 is less busy then a couple of minutes delay to traffic wouldn't be a great problem, just as happens in many other locations. Yesterday it wasn't quiet in the least, traffic was nose to tail along the A5, but if a train had necessitated stopping the traffic for a couple of minutes, then once again it wouldn't be much of a problem because the delayed traffic would soon catch up with the queue. So would it really be much of an issue to have trains crossing the A5 here?
Just picked up on this thread and noticed a few comments about delays to A5 traffic if trains were to use the existing level crossing. Having travelled along this section of road just yesterday it struck me that when the A5 is less busy then a couple of minutes delay to traffic wouldn't be a great problem, just as happens in many other locations. Yesterday it wasn't quiet in the least, traffic was nose to tail along the A5, but if a train had necessitated stopping the traffic for a couple of minutes, then once again it wouldn't be much of a problem because the delayed traffic would soon catch up with the queue. So would it really be much of an issue to have trains crossing the A5 here?
Hello Shrops
I travel across the A5 on a daily basis. I can only refer you to the letter from the ORR to the DfT (regarding the use of the level crossing) dated 17th December 2015 in which the phrase "...potentially catastrophic" is used:
Attachments
ORR1 letter to TWA Unit about Cambrian draft TWA Order.pdf
Hello Shrops
I travel across the A5 on a daily basis. I can only refer you to the letter from the ORR to the DfT (regarding the use of the level crossing) dated 17th December 2015 in which the phrase "...potentially catastrophic" is used:
Hi Cambrian, thanks for that info. Having already mentioned the traffic volumes in my previous post, let's look at the speeds. As you'll know, the crossing point is not much over 200m from a roundabout, and as such I would ask whether the (perhaps scaremongering?) use of the phrase "high speed" really is appropriate. To me "high speed" for a road suggests 60mph or above. If drivers are doing this speed northbound (towards the roundabout) at the crossing point then one might question whether they are leaving their braking too late, and if doing this speed southbound then they must be accelerating pretty briskly. In fact they would be accelerating far too quickly if the signing just up the road at Wrexham by-pass (dual carriageway) is anything to go by, which says speeds are kept to 50mph (and enforced by cameras) in order to improve air quality. Double standards or what? Visibility of the crossing point from both directions is very good too, so the dangers expressed by the ORR really do seem to be a scaremongering tactic in attempt to prejudice the case.
That said, I do struggle somewhat to see the merits of the railway proposal, and that's despite having discussed it personally with Helen Morgan MP at some length and heard her enthusiasm for it. But if it's going to fail as a proposal, as a good number seem to suggest on this thread, then I'd rather see it fail because its business case doesn't stack up, than because of unnecessarily harsh wording used by the ORR.
Hi Cambrian, thanks for that info. Having already mentioned the traffic volumes in my previous post, let's look at the speeds. As you'll know, the crossing point is not much over 200m from a roundabout.
and as such I would ask whether the (perhaps scaremongering?) use of the phrase "high speed" really is appropriate. To me "high speed" for a road suggests 60mph or above. If drivers are doing this speed northbound (towards the roundabout) at the crossing point then one might question whether they are leaving their braking too late, and if doing this speed southbound then they must be accelerating pretty briskly. In fact they would be accelerating far too quickly if the signing just up the road at Wrexham by-pass (dual carriageway) is anything to go by, which says speeds are kept to 50mph (and enforced by cameras) in order to improve air quality. Double standards or what? Visibility of the crossing point from both directions is very good too, so the dangers expressed by the ORR really do seem to be a scaremongering tactic in attempt to prejudice the case.
You can question the driving all you want, but people will absolutely be doing above 60mph 300m out from a roundabout in both directions on a road as straight and wide as this. Most people seem to start breaking between the 200 and 100 yds warnings. The section of A5 immediately south has a traffic counter that suggests an AADT in excess of 20,000 vehicles in both directions, and although I'd expect this section to be slightly lower it's still a fair amount of traffic. https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/58043
A heavy rail crossing for a 60mph railway over a 60mph road is likely to require a closure of 3-4 minutes each time, at 1tph in each direction that's 2 closures so up to 8 minutes of each hour, reasonable evenly spaced, so the impact of the value of time lost by drivers will be quite significant, not to mention the risk mitigation measures required at the crossing of a 60mph vehicle failing to stop. Is it stacked against the railway because of selfish drivers? Probably, but that's the current law.
Hi Cambrian, thanks for that info. Having already mentioned the traffic volumes in my previous post, let's look at the speeds. As you'll know, the crossing point is not much over 200m from a roundabout, and as such I would ask whether the (perhaps scaremongering?) use of the phrase "high speed" really is appropriate. To me "high speed" for a road suggests 60mph or above. If drivers are doing this speed northbound (towards the roundabout) at the crossing point then one might question whether they are leaving their braking too late, and if doing this speed southbound then they must be accelerating pretty briskly. In fact they would be accelerating far too quickly if the signing just up the road at Wrexham by-pass (dual carriageway) is anything to go by, which says speeds are kept to 50mph (and enforced by cameras) in order to improve air quality. Double standards or what? Visibility of the crossing point from both directions is very good too, so the dangers expressed by the ORR really do seem to be a scaremongering tactic in attempt to prejudice the case.
That said, I do struggle somewhat to see the merits of the railway proposal, and that's despite having discussed it personally with Helen Morgan MP at some length and heard her enthusiasm for it. But if it's going to fail as a proposal, as a good number seem to suggest on this thread, then I'd rather see it fail because its business case doesn't stack up, than because of unnecessarily harsh wording used by the ORR.
mmm...I hear what you're saying, but I'm not so sure.
The restoration project for the whole line was unrealistic from the get go, but I still think there will be support for it ("in principle"). I spoke to a councillor many years ago that expressed doubts about it, even then, saying that substantial amounts of money had already been poured into the scheme. The trouble is it has come too far. It cannot be allowed to be seen to fail.
As for the ORR! Look at that letter! They weren't even aware of 2 of the 4 level crossings Cambrian Heritage Railways had originally left out of the TWAO application.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You can question the driving all you want, but people will absolutely be doing above 60mph 300m out from a roundabout in both directions on a road as straight and wide as this. Most people seem to start breaking between the 200 and 100 yds warnings. The section of A5 immediately south has a traffic counter that suggests an AADT in excess of 20,000 vehicles in both directions, and although I'd expect this section to be slightly lower it's still a fair amount of traffic. https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/58043
A heavy rail crossing for a 60mph railway over a 60mph road is likely to require a closure of 3-4 minutes each time, at 1tph in each direction that's 2 closures so up to 8 minutes of each hour, reasonable evenly spaced, so the impact of the value of time lost by drivers will be quite significant, not to mention the risk mitigation measures required at the crossing of a 60mph vehicle failing to stop. Is it stacked against the railway because of selfish drivers? Probably, but that's the current law.
Probably because you don't consider detailed Level Crossing design at SOBC level, and that the SOBC was done some time ago. The SOBC, as you saw, noted there was a level crossing and considered what options were practical to deal with that. The OBC would narrow that down to a shortlist (might be very short!). The FBC would then select an option and draw up a representative design. The whole idea of the process is that you don't waste time going into details for completely unrealistic ideas.
The difficulty of this project is that there are a number of elements to it that do make sense, so it can't just be laughed out of the room. However there's a number of other elements that don't make sense, and while some of them could be reworked to make sense some of them never will (e.g. the onwards connectivity at Gobowen). So it gets stuck in this purgatory.
For a bit of interest, a former level crossing over the Bicester-Bletchley line (aka East-West Rail) at Charbridge lane, Bicester was replaced by an on-line bridge with ramps of approximately 250m either side. It looks to me like it would be feasible to build a temporary alignment immediately west of the existing A5 at the current level, adjacent to the power line running north-south. Then you build a bridge on the current alignment of the A5, potentially with a small amount of lowering the railway. You'd require a couple of brief closures to diver the road and then tie it back in, and probably would need that transition pylon to the east of the road moving, but it's not a ridiculous engineering challenge. However, the economics of the option connecting at Gobowen are very weak.
@zkw500: the SOBC does go into a number of different options and includes the advantages and disadvantages, many of them retaining use the the level crossing over the A5 (because it's the cheapest option). And, or course it's just looking at restoring the service between Oswestry and Gobowen.
The wider issue is the total 8.5 miles of track under public ownership, 2 to 3 miles of it is used/can be used without further investment. South, they can go no further than Weston because of the A483, and North not much further than Oswestry Station as they run into the first of the level crossings.
Hmm, if HS2 can be publicly decimated after spending £billions of public money with the Government being completely hard-faced about it, then I doubt that anyone would bat much of an eyelid about allowing Oswestry to Gobowen being seen to fail!
It hasn’t come far at all. And of course it can ‘fail’. That won’t stop people reigniting it every so often (see other examples on this forum passim ad nauseam).
It hasn’t come far at all. And of course it can ‘fail’. That won’t stop people reigniting it every so often (see other examples on this forum passim ad nauseam).
I agree, but my point about the project not being seen to have failed refers to the amount of public money that has been spent, and is still being spent on supporting the project, but rather than billions, it's millions (directly and indirectly).
It's only the cancelation of the second stage of HS2 that provided the funding for these two reports to be created (RyR and the SOBC), so we now have at least a reasonable idea of the capital expenditure (based on the idea that the line would be up and running by 2025).
In the spirit of this "speculative" thread I'm now trying to think of funding streams available that would provide somewhere in the region of 20 million for the restoration of 3 miles of single track line - other than central government. We're out of the European Funding Zone now, which leaves the Lottery, unless someone knows better...
I agree, but my point about the project not being seen to have failed refers to the amount of public money that has been spent, and is still being spent on supporting the project, but rather than billions, it's millions (directly and indirectly).
It's only the cancelation of the second stage of HS2 that provided the funding for these two reports to be created (RyR and the SOBC), so we now have at least a reasonable idea of the capital expenditure (based on the idea that the line would be up and running by 2025).
In the spirit of this "speculative" thread I'm now trying to think of funding streams available that would provide somewhere in the region of 20 million for the restoration of 3 miles of single track line - other than central government. We're out of the European Funding Zone now, which leaves the Lottery, unless someone knows better...
Well most of our medallists at the Olympics seemed to thank Lottery funding for their successes, you might think this funding needs an alternative outlet straight straight after the Olympics has finished for the time being ...
Well most of our medallists at the Olympics seemed to thank Lottery funding for their successes, you might think this funding needs an alternative outlet straight straight after the Olympics has finished for the time being ...
Well most of our medallists at the Olympics seemed to thank Lottery funding for their successes, you might think this funding needs an alternative outlet straight straight after the Olympics has finished for the time being ...
You think they only get funded in Olympics year?
AIUI the funding is done in Olympic cycles, and they are effectively pro or semi pro sportsmen funded/part funded all cycle to prepare.
I cant believe this project is still being discussed - there isn’t a viable railway solution to a problem that doesn’t need a railway anyway
@ Meerkat
I did receive a communication from a Shropshire Councillor last week who expressed disappointment in the apparent cancellation of funding for this restoration project (although as yet that is unconfirmed) and saying that work would be done on looking again at a dedicated bus service.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The Oswestry branch line wasn't purchased for the restoration of the railway alone, there were a number of reasons. I've attached here a copy of the minutes of a Shropshire County Council meeting dated 18th May 2004 that recommends the purchase for "various projects" as listed in item 2:
"The County Council's proposal for Regional Cycle Route 31 which would run along the railway land for part of its route from Gobowen to Llanymynech.
The management of the road over rail structures along the line.
Access to the 5 acre development site acquired by Advantage West Midlands adjacent to the old station in Oswestry.
Development of a heritage railway from Gobowen to Llanymynech."
As of now in 2024, here's where we are regarding those 4 bullet points:
I'm being generious by including the contruction of "The Greenway" here, a path that runs alongside the line for less than a mile in Oswestry between the Coney Green pedestrian level crossing and the Gasworks Bridge.
The Gasworks Bridge that had been propped underneath has had it's props removed to allow for train services underneath.
The 5 acre site was never developed due to objections from local people. It was landscaped and turned into Wilfred Owen Green, a play area. A new access was constructed over the railway line but the SOBC identifies it as illegal.
There are very large doubts about getting the funding to restore the line between Oswestry and Gobowen, let alone Gobowen and Llanymynech.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And concentrating on the Gasworks Bridge, which was propped to support over traffic by the Highways Agency, from the same document under the heading "Risks and Benefits" at Item 12 it states: "...The provisional cost of reconstructing Gasworks Bridge to carry full highway loading and retain a through route beneath it is estimated to be £800,000. This compares with the cost of £80,000 for propping. Irrespective of ownership, it is likely that the major part of the cost difference will be the responsibility of the County Council if weight restrictions on a main access to Oswestry are to be avoided".
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's my understanding, although I cannot provide written evidence, the reconstruction work on the Gasworks Bridge cost less than the estimated £800,000, nevertheless, costs did turn out to be toublesome for Cambrian Heritage Railways as the 2 press releases from "The Advertizer" both dated December 2016 attached here testify.
The 2nd press release details doubts that some Oswestry Town Councillors were having at that time about the whole restoration project, and that it seems a decision to grant funding was made at a closed meeting.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And the 5 acre development site? I will quote from a private individual who will remain nameless, but I can assure readers that this person is not connected with the local authorities or the railway restoration scheme:
"Wilfred Owen Green was bought by Advantage West Midlands to develop for blocks of flats like those on Gobowen road, office blocks, a medical centre to replace Victoria clinic site which The NHS and the council wanted to develop for housing and profit. Local Politicians and the local media made it appear that the development on The Green, which was then known as the railway land or 5 acre site, would be a three million pound medical development, but most of the money and the site was destined for blocks of flats and office blocks..."
"...local people had walked on the land and valued and used it for well over 20 years for all kinds of recreation, walking, watching wildlife, photography, wild plant collection and study etc that any Oswestrian could claim the land as a Town Green if they gathered enough evidence to prove it."
"The Old Railway Land, as the Green was formerly known was remediated and top soil removed and new soil brought in before Shropshire Council landscaped the site with children's play equipment. We believe this was wrong as it brought contaminants which had been stable and locked deep in lower layers in the ground to the surface and a greater risk was posed to local people at that point than if the ground had been undisturbed. Also the law at the time stated that the land should remain as people had enjoyed it for their pastimes, that is not built on, no new man-made structures imposed on it. The law was conveniently ignored by Shropshire Council at times, when installing the play equipment etc. The money for the landscaping and the play equipment was obtained by Shropshire Council through grants and the councils own funds."
"As far as the law regarding level crossings and proximity of traffic lights, I don't know if this has been complied with by the Highways Agency when the new access road was installed to the Medical Centre. I should think there could be a problem if trains were running and an emergency ambulance was trying to traverse the level crossing."
On the 20th January 2023 Shropshire Council published the "Shropshire Cycling and Walking Plan" produced by City Science. The report looks in detail at various ways to encourage more people to use active transport to commute around Shropshire in general, but there is a section that looks in detail at Oswestry.
The report is copyrighted, so I'm not able to upload it here, but I can tell you there are a number of references to linking Gobowen to Oswestry. I haven't had the opportunity to read it all yet, but when I get time I'll edit some highlights together in respect to references to the unused railway line.
As someone who knows the area reasonably well (keen attender of the Oswestry Show etc.), has a professional background in train planning and served as a councillor for over 20 years ... some observations.
1. It's a shame Gobowen-Oswestry closed to passengers but it was (we assume) losing money even 60 years ago.
2. Reinstating it now would cost a lot of money.
3. Operating it would cost a lot of money (hard even to estimate since it seems unclear whether it's meant to be heavy rail, light rail or heritage).
4. People will project their own wishes onto it - those who look toward Shrewsbury will assume a through train to Salop; those who look to Wrexham/Chester will assume through trains, someone else will think there'll be a perfect link to their particular work needs and so on.
5. Since, these days, most people would drive to the station how is Oswestry any more convenient to most locals than Gobowen?
6. Local politicians cannot seem to be negative over such a project because they'll get hammered by their opponents.
7. So the idea struggles on wasting energy and money when better bus links could do the job within a year and for a fraction of the price.
As someone who knows the area reasonably well (keen attender of the Oswestry Show etc.), has a professional background in train planning and served as a councillor for over 20 years ... some observations.
1. It's a shame Gobowen-Oswestry closed to passengers but it was (we assume) losing money even 60 years ago.
2. Reinstating it now would cost a lot of money.
3. Operating it would cost a lot of money (hard even to estimate since it seems unclear whether it's meant to be heavy rail, light rail or heritage).
4. People will project their own wishes onto it - those who look toward Shrewsbury will assume a through train to Salop; those who look to Wrexham/Chester will assume through trains, someone else will think there'll be a perfect link to their particular work needs and so on.
5. Since, these days, most people would drive to the station how is Oswestry any more convenient to most locals than Gobowen?
6. Local politicians cannot seem to be negative over such a project because they'll get hammered by their opponents.
7. So the idea struggles on wasting energy and money when better bus links could do the job within a year and for a fraction of the price.
Your point 5 is probably the most important of all, and the others stem from it to a greater or lesser extent. It's a fact of life that it's been a great many years since people have walked any significant distance to catch trains, and that isn't about to change at any time in the forseeable future. (Note, there are some people who will walk a mile or even two to catch a train, and I'm one of them, but well over 90% would use the car in preference and wouldn't dream of a long walk when they have a car available).
So I have to say that although such a service is a lovely romantic notion, I can't for the life of me see how the numbers using an Oswestry to Gobowen train would ever pay for even the maintenance of such a service, let alone the costs of setting it up. And I can't see it being cost-effective if freight trains were to ever use it from further down the line in future either.
As someone who knows the area reasonably well (keen attender of the Oswestry Show etc.), has a professional background in train planning and served as a councillor for over 20 years ... some observations.
1. It's a shame Gobowen-Oswestry closed to passengers but it was (we assume) losing money even 60 years ago.
2. Reinstating it now would cost a lot of money.
3. Operating it would cost a lot of money (hard even to estimate since it seems unclear whether it's meant to be heavy rail, light rail or heritage).
4. People will project their own wishes onto it - those who look toward Shrewsbury will assume a through train to Salop; those who look to Wrexham/Chester will assume through trains, someone else will think there'll be a perfect link to their particular work needs and so on.
5. Since, these days, most people would drive to the station how is Oswestry any more convenient to most locals than Gobowen?
6. Local politicians cannot seem to be negative over such a project because they'll get hammered by their opponents.
7. So the idea struggles on wasting energy and money when better bus links could do the job within a year and for a fraction of the price.
I feel this thread may be going around in circles, but I do agree with many of the points you make.
As an attendee of the Oswestry Show and as a former councillor perhaps you'd like to tell me who owns the existing tunnel that runs underneath the A5 and is sometimes used to access fields beyond as overfill parking during large events?
The reason I asked for this thread to be reopened is that further information has come to my attention regarding potential use of the disused Oswestry branch railway line. In 2023 Shropshire Council published a report titled "Local Cycling and Walking infrastructure Plan (LCWIP)" part of which looks at developing a cycle/walking route alongside at restored branch line at item 0.52:
The reason I asked for this thread to be reopened is that further information has come to my attention regarding potential use of the disused Oswestry branch railway line. In 2023 Shropshire Council published a report titled "Local Cycling and Walking infrastructure Plan (LCWIP)" part of which looks at developing a cycle/walking route alongside at restored branch line at item 0.52:
The reason I asked for this thread to be reopened is that further information has come to my attention regarding potential use of the disused Oswestry branch railway line. In 2023 Shropshire Council published a report titled "Local Cycling and Walking infrastructure Plan (LCWIP)" part of which looks at developing a cycle/walking route alongside at restored branch line at item 0.52:
Interesting, but the route description is "Provide a greenway between Gobowen and Oswestry alongside the railway line". If there is no serious intention to re-open the railway (as many respondents to this thread above have said), then why build "alongside" it and not along the railway itself (having removed the track first of course). Does this mean the owners of the railway want the track to remain in situ for some reason, and if so why? Surely discussions have already taken place between the railway owners and Shropshire Council prior to the release of this document?
Interesting, but the route description is "Provide a greenway between Gobowen and Oswestry alongside the railway line". If there is no serious intention to re-open the railway (as many respondents to this thread above have said), then why build "alongside" it and not along the railway itself (having removed the track first of course). Does this mean the owners of the railway want the track to remain in situ for some reason, and if so why? Surely discussions have already taken place between the railway owners and Shropshire Council prior to the release of this document?
I haven't had the opportunity to read the "Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan" in too much detail yet, but from what I have read I would say it doesn't go into as much detail as the SOBC. I've extracted the pages from the SOBC relevant to the creation of a cycle path both alongside and instead of the railway, giving advantages and disadvantages.
I'd also like to point out some points made earlier in this thread:
The land was originally purchased to further various bulleted projects, including Cycle Route 31 (in other words, not exclusively the restoration of the railway).
As of now, both Oswestry Train Station and Gobowen Train Station are undergoing extensive restoration work. And for the record, the last time Oswestry Station was restored it cost £2.15 million funded by the European Structural Funds West Midlands in 2006.
and finally, Ester, there has still been no official anouncement that funds will not be provided to restore the branch line.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk
