Could a Preserved Railway be Compulsorily Purchased

[daikilo]

Some interesting responses, particularly the Ffestiniog one. The difference with say the Bluebell is that the railway would not be removed, just upgraded and operated by someone else.

At the time, the Ffestiniog was not operating over that part of the route and, as far as I am aware, whilst having an aspiration and a name to go with it, had no concrete plan to be able to do so. Had it been in operation or in progress, the outcome may have been different, especially as it now is operating to the relevant destination, i.e. in exchange for the compulsory purchase, a funding to divert the line would be needed.

In my opinion, a compulsory purchase of all or part of an existing heritage line would be viewed in the same way i.e. an operating one would need to be adequately compensated, one with unfunded ambitions may not.

As I understand, the same will apply to HS2 i.e. compulsory purchase of an existing house has one price, purchasing land which could at some time in the future have planning permission for said house has another.

It could actually lead to some rather interesting future values e.g. the Bluebell accountants could see a possible future CPO for re-integration into the national network as a semi-tangible asset, indeed they may have already. I can't see the same for e.g. the Ffestiniog, nor for a possible dam accross the Ravenglas and Eskdale.

 

[Trog]

Wouldn't they be doing the complete opposite of Beeching - opening a new part of the national network, rather than closing it? Assuming it was needed by the local community I'd imagine it would be an electoral boost more than anything.

I have to say I'm quite surprised by the hostility people here have and believe there would be towards integration of these railways into the national network. I'd have thought that, for others, re-opening of the line as a "real" railway would be a bit of a dream come true.

A lot would depend on the balance between the benefit of the new service and the dis-benefit of the loss of the steam railway. Also people tend to hold a grudge for longer than they are grateful. A current partial example might be the reopening of part of the GC south of Rugby as HS2, look how popular that is.

 

[21C101]

A lot would depend on the balance between the benefit of the new service and the dis-benefit of the loss of the steam railway. Also people tend to hold a grudge for longer than they are grateful. A current partial example might be the reopening of part of the GC south of Rugby as HS2, look how popular that is.

Stations at Brackley, Aylesbury Parkway and Amersham North (where it crosses the Aylesbury line) would go a long way to winning round public support.

As would building it four track from Northholt to Brackley and then reopening the GC to Leicester, enabling Chiltern Javelins on the "Slow" line to run to a M1/M6 Parkway and Leicester using Chiltern Javelins as per their original aspiration.

 

[Helvellyn]

Go on Network Rail, purchase the Mid Hants Watercress line and reinstate the missing link to allow through Southampton-Guildford trains, divert Ascot-Guildford to run Ascot-Bordon and provide a useful diversionary route.

In compensation reinstate the Meon Valley line, which becomes an Alton-Fareham heritage line with National Rail connections at either end.

~Wakes up~

 

[Busaholic]

What if a National Lottery grant had been made to a preserved railway? Would that have to be repaid?

 

[HSTEd]

Stations at Brackley, Aylesbury Parkway and Amersham North (where it crosses the Aylesbury line) would go a long way to winning round public support.

As would building it four track from Northholt to Brackley and then reopening the GC to Leicester, enabling Chiltern Javelins on the "Slow" line to run to a M1/M6 Parkway and Leicester using Chiltern Javelins as per their original aspiration.

Unless you want 18tph stopping at every one of those places you just ate up all the paths serving random shacks in the Chilterns.
Also 4 tracking is a complete waste of time - it would be better to have a second two track route than desperately trying to widen one.

 

[jnty]

What if a National Lottery grant had been made to a preserved railway? Would that have to be repaid?

No, unless it had been fraudulently obtained or special conditions were attached - for example, the railway had applied for it on the basis of a project on a section they knew was about to be CPed. Just as with every other entity, the company/society/organisation which owns the line would get the money and would have a duty to spend it, along with their existing funds, in line with their constitution. This might mean an executive committee or AGM could make the decision to devote these funds to another project, or that the organisation should be wound up and dissolved. In the latter case, constitutions generally specify how remaining funds should be disposed - often by donation to related causes or a "parent" organisation.

 

[21C101]

Unless you want 18tph stopping at every one of those places you just ate up all the paths serving random shacks in the Chilterns.
Also 4 tracking is a complete waste of time - it would be better to have a second two track route than desperately trying to widen one.

Not really, you have through lines for fast trains as with HS1. Yes there is some loss of capacity, but not that much if only a couple of trains an hour stop there.

I was arguing for making it four track from day one, which would cost little more than building it to two track in terms of overall scheme cost, and would also solve the issue you refer to with intermediate stations.