Lines which perished, but their preservation wishable-for

[Calthrop]

Three similar very short Scottish lines serving tourist areas, but none of them in the public eye.

Choice 1. Ballinluig-Aberfeldy

A nifty route that might have headed off a regeneration need in Feldy nowadays, a picturesque small town that's very much in need of a boost.

2. The Mound-Dornoch

3. Dingwall-Strathpeffer

I've always had a soft spot for the Dornoch branch -- would be splendid if it could have survived in preservation (in its entirety). Rather a long way from any likely sizeable pool of volunteer labour; but to some extent, we're indulging fancies / fantasies here -- not constrained by too much boring reality !

Most of the Lostwithiel-Fowey line remains open for china clay freight traffic. The line between Fowey and St Blazey was closed in October 1968, and the trackbed was converted for use by English China Clays International as a road haul route, and is still (2014) in operation. These routes are therefore not available for conversion to "preserved" leisure lines.

As above -- my OP was meant to be more about playing with what-ifs, than the 100% strictly factual ... Reality demonstrably means that while road clay traffic uses the Fowey -- St. Blazey / Par part of the route, it couldn't be a preserved-rail section. A thought generated here, though -- given flexibility and willingness on the part of all concerned, would it in itself be wildly out of the question, for regular preserved passenger services to operate over a line which was still in use by the relevant national outfit, for commercial freight workings? So far as I know (correction welcomed) this has never been done in Great Britain; but does that mean that it couldn't be done? (Some preserved lines have embarked on initiatives toward carrying freight for potential customers located on their lines, but I gather that little has actually come about, re such ventures.)

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I don't agree. It was built for the railway.

It was built for a timetabled passenger and freight railway, not an enthusiasts' weekend plaything. Just as the canals were built for commercial carriage, not my modern cruising narrowboat.

I benefit from the hard work of volunteers to restore canals (and have joined them in the mud on some occasions), but I don't believe that "it was built for boats" gives me first dibs on every abandoned canal bed. Of course, if it did, that might be interesting. Best warn SouthEastern to get the rail replacement buses ready for when the Thames & Medway Canal Association reclaims Strood Tunnel, and I'm not sure how CrossCountry would take to the Melton & Oakham Waterways Society reinstating the Oakham Canal at the cost of the Melton Mowbray-Oakham line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't agree. It was built for the railway. Cyclists should build their own infrastructure if they feel so strongly about it.

Have you then any thoughts on existing railway lines that were built over canal routes. Would you therefore agree that should a new canal project requiring the use of former canal land now used for railways should be able to reclaim their former land?

 

[yorksrob]

It was built for a timetabled passenger and freight railway, not an enthusiasts' weekend plaything. Just as the canals were built for commercial carriage, not my modern cruising narrowboat.

I benefit from the hard work of volunteers to restore canals (and have joined them in the mud on some occasions), but I don't believe that "it was built for boats" gives me first dibs on every abandoned canal bed. Of course, if it did, that might be interesting. Best warn SouthEastern to get the rail replacement buses ready for when the Thames & Medway Canal Association reclaims Strood Tunnel, and I'm not sure how CrossCountry would take to the Melton & Oakham Waterways Society reinstating the Oakham Canal at the cost of the Melton Mowbray-Oakham line.

You're right, in that I wouldn't deprive the Camel trail for a mere preserved railway. I believe the line from Bodmin Parkway to Padstow should be returned to the national passenger network.

However, you said that you wouldn't give up the Camel Trail for "any" railway, so obviously I couldn't agree with that sentiment.

 

[AM9]

Is not cycling a mode of transport so why does it apparently have an exclusive right to use a former trackbed in perpetuity, and to expect public funding for any facilities

Where did I say that cycling had an exclusive right to use a former trackbed in perpetuity? More to the point, where have you seen evidence of this 'apparent' exclusive right of use that cycling has?
Cycle routes, like footpaths are (just like roads) part of our transport infrastructure and maintained by the public purse. So long as the public deems them necessary of desireable, that status will endure, but there is no perpetual right of use. The fact is that virtually all railways in the UK are on publically owned land (via Network Rail). Even if the rail track has been lifted, that land can be assigned a new use and there is no priority for rail enthusiasts, cyclists or pedestrians, save for that which public consent exists.

 

[ivanhoe]

Have you then any thoughts on existing railway lines that were built over canal routes. Would you therefore agree that should a new canal project requiring the use of former canal land now used for railways should be able to reclaim their former land?

Nice one Paul. May I also quote from Mencken

"Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepare to see them misunderstood."

 

[yorksrob]

Have you then any thoughts on existing railway lines that were built over canal routes. Would you therefore agree that should a new canal project requiring the use of former canal land now used for railways should be able to reclaim their former land?

In the case of strood tunnel in Kent, the railway and canal shared the corridor for several years, so perhaps if canal travel becomes the premier mode of inland public transport for passengers and freight, that arrangecould be reprised !

 

[John Luxton]

What about the former GW/LMS West Kirby to Hooton line which became the successful Wirral
Country Park? Both ends connect with existing services passes along the scenic Dee estuary with panoramic views of the Clwydian hills. Also very close to a large centre of population.

I was very young at the time but I recall reading in a railway magazine a suggestion around 1970ish that a group was interested in turning at last part of it into a narrow gauge line. But of course these were the early days of preservation.

John

 

[Andy873]

My favorite line, the Great Harwood loop line would have been a good one.

It was 9 miles in length, mostly ran through beautiful countryside and connected two large towns (Blackburn and Burnley) at either end, via Great Harwood and Padiham.

The typical train in BR days (and would be perfect now in my opinion) was three carriages pulled by a 2-6-4 tank Engine.

The journey took around 30 minutes, so with a 25 MPH limit, it could easily be around 40 minutes each way.

You could have added a stop at Marthohlme for walkers, and a mining museum could have been an added attraction here.

After travelling over the fabulous Martholme viaduct to Simonstone, again walkers could have alighted, or passengers could have looked around Simonstone and the Read area, beautiful countryside.

The track bed I'm told is largely intact, but of course many bridges have now gone, and some cuttings long since filled in. A lot of the track bed is now part of the Sustrans cycle network, and Great Harwood station area is now an industrial estate.

Pity.

 

[Bill EWS]

One line that was a canal and still in use by freight trains today is the Ex GNSR Waterloo Docks (Aberdeen) to Kittybrewster. There were a number of locks up to Kittybrewster. Waterloo was the original GNSR terminal station too and from Elgin and Inverness piror to the present route via the Denburn Valley to Aberdeen Joint, now the General station.

The canal was the Aberdeen to Inverurie Canal. The railway used much of the canal bed when built, bypassing areas that were unsuitable for railway use. Either going higher or lower from the canal.

It would be interesting seeing a Steam train tackle the gradient from Waterloo to Kittybrewster today.

 

[341o2]

Where did I say that cycling had an exclusive right to use a former trackbed in perpetuity? More to the point, where have you seen evidence of this 'apparent' exclusive right of use that cycling has?
Cycle routes, like footpaths are (just like roads) part of our transport infrastructure and maintained by the public purse. So long as the public deems them necessary of desireable, that status will endure, but there is no perpetual right of use. The fact is that virtually all railways in the UK are on publically owned land (via Network Rail). Even if the rail track has been lifted, that land can be assigned a new use and there is no priority for rail enthusiasts, cyclists or pedestrians, save for that which public consent exists.

So you would have no issue with a railway restored between Wadebridge and Padstow. I also note post #26 re Sustrans and fully agree with Yorksrob's comment

 

[GusB]

One line that was a canal and still in use by freight trains today is the Ex GNSR Waterloo Docks (Aberdeen) to Kittybrewster. There were a number of locks up to Kittybrewster. Waterloo was the original GNSR terminal station too and from Elgin and Inverness piror to the present route via the Denburn Valley to Aberdeen Joint, now the General station.

The canal was the Aberdeen to Inverurie Canal. The railway used much of the canal bed when built, bypassing areas that were unsuitable for railway use. Either going higher or lower from the canal.

It would be interesting seeing a Steam train tackle the gradient from Waterloo to Kittybrewster today.

I lived in a flat on Jute Street which backed onto the Waterloo branch. At that point I was under the impression that the line was totally disused until one morning when I was woken up by the weedkilling train.

How often does the line get used these days?

 

[AM9]

So you would have no issue with a railway restored between Wadebridge and Padstow. I also note post #26 re Sustrans and fully agree with Yorksrob's comment

This thread, as confirmed by Calthrop, was a 'what if' topic to elicit views on lines that no longer exist, but might have survived dismantling to be viable today in a preserved role. Many of those dismantled lines are providing well-used cycle routes that are valued by their local communities, and visitors alike. It is very unlikely that similar infrastructures would have been provided from scratch by any government since Beeching's days for cycling, and I suggest that any attempt to return those formations to rail use (full service or leisure/preserved only) would be resisted by some. I have only been on the B&W once so I can't judge the local feeling there although as a preserved line on a gala day in June, it didn't seem that well supported. Transposing the situation to the local line here, the Alban Way from St Albans to Hatfield, I am sure that there would be a lot of local resistance to the removal of a significant link on Sustrans route 61. The fact is that these lines as rail transport routes, are things of the past in 'normals' eyes, and other than harmless wishful thinking here, local communities have moved on, seeing the value of more accessible modes of transport.
The Abbey Line however, which miraculously escaped the axe in the '60s, would be defended heavily if somebody seriously tried to close it even if a luxury sustrans route was offered, (which would be a very good match for the line's route). It's all about the inertia of local public opinion.
However, no transport mode has any absolute priority in perpetuity on any infrastructure, be it road, rail, cycle path or canal, and every mode's entitlement is subject to it's continued viability as viewed by the community that it serves.

 

[Calthrop]

What about the former GW/LMS West Kirby to Hooton line which became the successful Wirral
Country Park? Both ends connect with existing services passes along the scenic Dee estuary with panoramic views of the Clwydian hills. Also very close to a large centre of population.

I was very young at the time but I recall reading in a railway magazine a suggestion around 1970ish that a group was interested in turning at last part of it into a narrow gauge line. But of course these were the early days of preservation.

In fact I mentioned West Kirby -- Hooton in my OP. A line for which I have considerable affection: we used to have family in those parts, and I saw the line in action (sadly, never travelled on it) -- passenger in last year or so thereof, and freight a few years after that. I find that southern part of the Wirral, attractive countryside; and as you say, nice estuary-edge run with Welsh mountains on the far side.

At twelve miles, a bit on the long side by general UK preserved-lines standards; but there are successful ones which are longer that that. If I ever heard of the "narrow-gauging" scheme, I'd long forgotten about it. I feel personally that part-only of the line, as narrow gauge, would have been a bit "lame".

My favorite line, the Great Harwood loop line would have been a good one.

Snipping rest of post (though read with interest). We have our individual preferences and prejudices (IMO harmless) -- as above, I like Cheshire; but confess to not being a fan of Lancashire other than its extreme north. You make a good case, though !

 

[Andy873]

Thanks Calthrop!

No Problem about Lancashire at all

We all have at times rose tinted glasses!

 

[Calthrop]

Thanks Calthrop!

No Problem about Lancashire at all

We all have at times rose tinted glasses!

Red or white, depending?

 

[Bevan Price]

Whilst there are some interesting suggestions, I think there are major problems (including money).

1. Most heritage lines rely heavily on volunteers to operate them. Some already struggle to get enough helpers. Where are aadditional schemes going to find enough volunteers ?

2. Are there going to be enough passengers to pay to travel on these extra lines ? You need regular, repeat visits to remain financially viable. Having more lines would spread the fare money between more railways -- Are there enough people sufficiently interested to travel on more heritage lines each year - or would their money be spread more thinly between current & new heritage lines?

3. Steam locos. The "Barry" source has gone. Any new heritage line would have to build "new" steam locos - and that is very expensive. And whilst there are diesel enthusiasts, it is only steam power that attracts most of the "non-enthusiast" majority who visit heritage railways.

So, whilst it would have been nice to see Southport / Preston (Fishergate Hill) or West Kirby / Hooton as heritage lines, I fear it would have been very difficult for them to compete with other heritage lines. (And Southport/Preston is now impossible due to building over much of the trackbed..)

 

[Calthrop]

Responding to Bevan Price's post above: I couldn’t agree more, that there are not the resources to sustain an “infinite” number of preserved lines in Britain.

My OP -- I maybe made things insufficiently clear there -- was meant as an exercise in alternative history. Rather than wishing for a significantly larger number of lines to be / have been preserved; I was envisaging things going quite radically differently from the way that they actually did -- with possibly a good many of the railways which were preserved “in our time-line” as the alternative-history-merchants say, not being preserved in my alternative scenario. (I feel that the Bluebell has to be in my alternative picture -- that having been in real life, the standard-gauge first in the field by a considerable margin.) In my fantasy, I take pleasure in “un-happening” the fairly large number of preserved lines active today, of which I have a low opinion ! I’m certainly not envisaging, numerous brand-new preserved lines now -- with building from new, of steam locos for them. (And the loading-gauge factor would scupper the obtaining of steam locos from countries abroad which had kept steam up to the present day, or almost.)

My “alt-hist” scenario would not rule out BR’s acting, in the crucial time-period, more kindly toward the railway enthusiast / preservationist community than happened in real life -- including, maybe, a different steam situation than the “Barry” one which actually obtained -- BR being willing to sell just-withdrawn steam locos, in going order, to enthusiasts / preservers for a nominal sum? I do reckon, though, that in any imaginable situation, the issue of running powers for preserved workings over sections of the “real” rail network, would be a difficult one; and I can, for sure, see the national rail network’s point of view on this -- it’s a thing which in the great majority of cases, they don’t want to occur.

 

[Bill EWS]

There are a number of runs a week with generally a Class 66 on the train. I believe the working is too and from Workington.

There are a number of videos on Youtube of this ranch. Hope this link works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF6_br70cvE

 

[Bevan Price]

BR did sell some locos directly to preservationists. However, it was not willing / able to wait several years whilst they collected enough money to buy the locos. I think that possibly the entire "early" (1960s) steam fleet on the Bluebell came direct from BR.

 

[delt1c]

the branch to Aberfoyle, closed bewfore the preservation movements got going but today would have been a wonderful line

 

[gg1]

Flicking through the book "Britain's Lost Railways" yesterday I came across a line which I think could well have been a success if preserved, the 13 mile Ross and Monmouth railway through the Wye Valley. It's a beautiful part of the country with good potential for tourist traffic, unfortunately it closed a little too early in 1959, it wasn't until the mid 60s that the preservation movement really kicked off.

 

[Thebaz]

Did no-one mention the Somerset & Dorset??

 

[bramling]

I don't agree. It was built for the railway. Cyclists should build their own infrastructure if they feel so strongly about it.

Agree with this.

Like one or two other cycle trails, the Camel Trail is actually a pain-in-the-backside to use. Quite simply, even on weekdays, there are too many bikes, and it doesn't work well as a shared-use path. Some kind of heritage railway would work much better in my view.

 

[Calthrop]

Did no-one mention the Somerset & Dorset??

To my personal taste (which I'm shamelessly indulging in this thread), preferable "would have been nice, if..." subjects, are lines which would appear to make some kind of sense as traffic routes in their own right -- however little traffic other than recreational, they would actually carry under preservation.

In my perception, the S & D even in a "partial" secondary-main-line role would have been too lengthy for its rescue to be within the scope of a preservation operation; and short "rags and tatters" of the S & D, preserved, would not please me greatly, aesthetically. "That's just me" -- have no doubt that there are / would be around, serious and passionate protagonists of S & D-centred preservation.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

To my personal taste (which I'm shamelessly indulging in this thread), preferable "would have been nice, if..." subjects, are lines which would appear to make some kind of sense as traffic routes in their own right -- however little traffic other than recreational, they would actually carry under preservation.

In my perception, the S & D even in a "partial" secondary-main-line role would have been too lengthy for its rescue to be within the scope of a preservation operation; and short "rags and tatters" of the S & D, preserved, would not please me greatly, aesthetically. "That's just me" -- have no doubt that there are / would be around, serious and passionate protagonists of S & D-centred preservation.

Exactly - there is huge emotion over the S+D , (possibly due to it being so well covered by Ivo Peters the acclaimed photographer) - the truth is it was an economic basket case almost from day one ,and the glories of the Pines Express (one decent train a day - but slow - and probably well used on a few months of the year) , should really have been rationalised to a freight only line from the 1930's serving Radstock - Bath. However it was a good source of local , and well paid (relatively) jobs.

Ditto the Midland and Great Northern - where as someone tellingly said that at one of their key stations , the lowing of cattle could be heard in the extensive intervals between trains.

 

[RichmondCommu]

My suggestion is the above which was closed in the 1960s as part of the through route from Ashbourne to Buxton. The track bed is completely intact but is now used as a cycle track. Reopening the stations at Thorpe Cloud, Tissington , Alsop and of course Hartington would take cars off the A515 with a local bus service operating between Hartington station and the village down the hill.

 

[Nonsense]

Lakeside and Haverswaite could and should have connected with Ulverston. A major loss that this wasn't possible.

 

[Calthrop]

Lakeside and Haverswaite could and should have connected with Ulverston. A major loss that this wasn't possible.

In any context of an independent operator of the Lakeside branch, we of course come up against the running-powers bugbear. Plumpton Junction, where the branch diverged northward from the main line, was some two miles east of Ulverston station: running-over-the-main was obviously involved, in the days when the line was a "real railway".

The national rail network, under whichever guise, have always been very loath to have preserved-line workings travelling regularly over their own tracks, even on relatively lightly-used lines -- and I can, reluctantly, see their point of view here. (Doings around Whitby in recent times, I see as an exceptional case.) Outside of a radical policy change on this matter by the national undertaking, it strikes me that this factor would inevitably scupper any regular working into and out of Ulverston station by a preserved "Lakeside railway". I personally would find / have found any solution involving the preserved line's trains running as far as a meaningless new terminus at or close to Plumpton Junction, a cringe-inducing fatuity: I'd rather have the real-life situation of their terminating at Haverthwaite.

 

[DerekC]

Calthrop has asked a difficult question - in this alternative reality we have to consider not only what line we would like to have survived to preservation, but which real preserved lines might not have happened if it had. In my local area the Meon Valley (as has been said already) would have been a great preserved line, but it's hard to see that the Watercress Line could have happened as well, and I do like the Watercress! Similarly the Bridport branch would have been great, but then we might not have had Swanage. Some suggestions which might not have suffered from this problem and could have attracted volunteers and traffic:

Hayling Island
Weston, Clevedon and Portishead
Leominster to Kington