Should disused lines be protected ?

[Halifaxlad]

Just as the title says should disused lines be protected with special status so that they are protected for either walking/cycling paths or for train, tram or light rail ?

 

[tbtc]

1. Who pays for all the maintenance/ upkeep/ repair from inevitable vandalism etc? From the existing NR budget (i.e. meaning they have to cut back on other things)?

2. For how long, until we accept that the railway isn’t coming back? Five years? Fifty? Forever? What about lines to collieries and steelworks that closed decades ago? Entire marshalling yards? Lines were being closed over a hundred years ago, so where to you draw the line?

3. The canals were once an important strategic resource; should we have protected the path of these waterways and stopped anything being built on them? Seems like a daft question today. but they once did the job the railway did, before trains replaced barges (and then lorries on motorways replaced trains), canals were the way of shifting freight around the country

4. Just the track beds or stations too?

5. Is this retrospective and we start using compulsory purchase orders on anything built on ex-railway land? Insist that anything built where once a Railway stood just be knocked down “just in case”?

 

[Halifaxlad]

Probably should have clarified im talking about disused trackbeds that arn't part of the national rail network not disused lines.

 

[RobShipway]

If you mean areas within stations that are no longer used as part of the national rail, such the platform no longer used at Prestatyn or platforms and other areas that have not been used for more than 5 - 10 years at stations then I would say yes, but only for a period of time. If the platforms or the trackbeds have not been used within say 50 years, then the protection should be lifted, because if they are not used in that time then they never will be used again.

 

[zwk500]

I'm fairly sure almost every extant trackbed with even a vague hope of being put back is protected from adverse development by the local authority planning policy.

@tbtc's points 2 and 5 still stand though.

 

[Rescars]

I am sure that zwk500 is correct. That said, the thing that should be protected is the legal right of way. That would preserve the possibility of renewed use in the future without creating any significant cost in preserving redundant infrastructure. Had this been done then, for example, some single portions of the Borders line could have been laid as double track and the new houses constructed across the closed lines in Croydon would not have had to be demolished to make way for Tramlink. No doubt others can think of similar examples where reopenings have been frustrated because the right of way has been lost.

 

[Sm5]

Theres logic in preserving the right of way, even if its just as use for a dirt track.

We have oodles of ancient footpaths protected from ancient times, I dont see why modern ones shouldnt be offered the same protections for societal use.

This imo was a failing in the 1960’s.

 

[Trainbike46]

I agree that the right of way should be protected, so that it could be reused if the railway reopens, or for local bike or foot paths.

I don't think there would be any need for maintenance of a disused right of way, at least not until something is reopened in it, and if something is reopened (e.g. a footpath) maintenance liability would fall on the authority responsible for whatever is reopened.

This imo was a failing in the 1960’s.

I agree on this; EWR between bedford and cambridge would have been quite a bit easier if it could follow the old route into cambridge, for example

 

[zwk500]

I don't agree that *Every* former trackbed should be preserved as a right of way - there are many lines where reinstatement is undesirable, let alone uneconomic or unfeasible. Further, there are other lines where travel patterns and development has changed so you wouldn't put the line back on it's original alignment.

A comprehensive policy would see space for future rail links baked into housing developments by specifying appropriate-width cycle tracks, while letting development take place over railways that served industries long-departed or were the result of inter-company competition, or were needed for Steam loco operations and are now redundant.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2022 ==

This imo was a failing in the 1960’s.

Worth pointing out it was a deliberate policy in the 60s to sell of railway land in as fragmented a fashion as possible to prevent talk of reinstatement. Station houses and associated goods yards were also ripe for redevelopment, although much of that didn't take place until a bit later.

 

[Dr Hoo]

We have oodles of ancient footpaths protected from ancient times, I dont see why modern ones shouldnt be offered the same protections for societal use.

But these 'ancient footpaths'/rights of way can fairly readily be re-routed or diverted provided that linear continuity is preserved. There are plenty of former rural paths that now exist as dingy alleyways through the middle of modern housing estates, footbridges over motorways, etc. This might be fine for a determined hiker but little use for reinstating a double-track railway line.

Worth pointing out it was a deliberate policy in the 60s to sell off railway land in as fragmented a fashion as possible to prevent talk of reinstatement. Station houses and associated goods yards were also ripe for redevelopment, although much of that didn't take place until a bit later.

Do you have an official source for that?

There is no doubt that BR did try to sell off a lot of surplus land (and scrap rail, rolling stock and so forth) as quickly as possible to raise cash. Given that some portions were 'ripe for re-development' it is hardly surprising that they would be the first to go. Would you seriously expect an estate agent to say "We'll be happy to flog you this prime town centre site but only if you take the adjacent few miles of waterlogged cuttings/collapsing coastal defence works/rusty viaducts as well"?

 

[Falcon1200]

Worth pointing out it was a deliberate policy in the 60s to sell of railway land in as fragmented a fashion as possible to prevent talk of reinstatement.

I would question this assertion too; Given the prevailing attitudes towards rail versus road transport in the 1960s, is it simply not more likely that there was thought to be no prospect of a closed railway ever re-opening, so usable land was sold off to raise money as quickly as possible?

 

[td97]

Yes.
This is the state of the disused alignment on the Radcliffe - Bolton line, which has future aspirations to be used as a Metrolink extension.
As housing has been built on the alignment, a further hurdle to opening is clearing those newly built houses.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

 

[Wynd]

Lines need protecting even more than they have been. Development is still rife, blocking future routes.

BR did sell of land, publicly owned land, in a way that has made putting back lines a challenge.

To think that this was done purely in the spirit of raising cash valid, to a point.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I'm fairly sure almost every extant trackbed with even a vague hope of being put back is protected from adverse development by the local authority planning policy.

@tbtc's points 2 and 5 still stand though.

Rare if anything!

Before I shall address points 2 and 5, it just goes to show no-one can suggest something on here without someone else going off on a tangent.

Personally I wouldn't bring most alignments back into use as railways, some bits of trackbeds yes in conjunction with new bits of line but Im certainly not someone who wants to reinstate railways as they were!

Specifically regarding points 2 & 5

My suggestion is for the linear trackbed I am not suggesting protection for disused platforms/stations (if there is any) just the route. If a line passed through a large station or adjacent marshalling yard I would protect the formation as wide as the single track or double track section. The objective is about protecting route so ideally as straight as possible its not about preventing development!

As for point 5 I certainly wouldn't pull down buildings on rail alignments “just in case” someone later decides to build a cycle path! To be fair that's one hell of a condrum as surely no-one is going to build a cycle path on a line that has been built upon ? Ironically thats exactly why I think trackbeds need specific protection to stop this from happening so that they can later be turned into cyclepaths.

Obviously it also keeps trackbeds protected for reinstatement, tram lines, light rail lines and even guided busways if you want but for any of that they need to be protected!

 

[MarkyT]

Yes.
This is the state of the disused alignment on the Radcliffe - Bolton line, which has future aspirations to be used as a Metrolink extension.
As housing has been built on the alignment, a further hurdle to opening is clearing those newly built houses.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

Of course a system using light rail vehicles is easier to divert where there has been some obstruction, often able to negotiate steeper gradients and tighter turns than the original rail route and including level crossings and some non-fully-segregated street or streetside sections as necessary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2022 ==

Worth pointing out it was a deliberate policy in the 60s to sell of railway land in as fragmented a fashion as possible to prevent talk of reinstatement. Station houses and associated goods yards were also ripe for redevelopment, although much of that didn't take place until a bit later.

Agree they wanted shot of all liabilities associated with abandoned routes as soon as possible, together with the useful income from the sale of the most desirable sites suitable for redevelopment. It's possible some railway Acts may have required authorities to sell back to original estates the land was acquired from once railway use was no longer required.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Agree they wanted shot of all liabilities associated with abandoned routes as soon as possible, together with the useful income from the sale of the most desirable sites suitable for redevelopment. It's possible some railway Acts may have required authorities to sell back to original estates the land was acquired from once railway use was no longer required.

Yes, 'Reversion clauses' were quite common. Some early dodgy railway schemes had obtained Acts with the associated compulsory purchase powers, bought land and then, having gone bust without ever opening, flogged said land off at a profit.

BR did get general powers to extinguish these reversion powers around 1970, I believe, but that was rather after the initial Beeching round of closures. The 'test case' was on the Yatton-Clevedon line, ISTR.

In a wider context there is a respectable school of thought that if 'brownfield land' (including but not limited to former railways) had been more systematically remediated and re-purposed for housing the nation might not have such a shortage/price crisis in that sphere.

 

[Bald Rick]

Probably should have clarified im talking about disused trackbeds that arn't part of the national rail network not disused lines.

What do you consider to be a ‘disused trackbed’?

Consider the former line between Beverley and York. Below is a stretch of that line. Which part is disused trackbed that should be protected?




Another example: the line from Muston to Woolsthorpe Quarries. Should that be protected?

 

[Sonik]

Theres logic in preserving the right of way, even if its just as use for a dirt track.

We have oodles of ancient footpaths protected from ancient times, I dont see why modern ones shouldnt be offered the same protections for societal use.

This imo was a failing in the 1960’s.

What I find most criminal/short sighted is the loss of loops and bypasses at many junctions.

Most of which were only closed to save (very little) cash on maintenance, but often cannot now be (easily) reinstated due to being built on or turned into roads etc. Thus preventing full use of the remaining infrastructure due to conflicts.

Utter stupidity.

 

[Dr Hoo]

What I find most criminal/short sighted is the loss of loops and bypasses at many junctions.

Most of which were only closed to save (very little) cash on maintenance, but often cannot now be (easily) reinstated due to being built on or turned into roads etc. Thus preventing full use of the remaining infrastructure due to conflicts.

Utter stupidity.

I am not sure that I fully understand your terminology. Can you give some examples of specific locations in mind, please?

 

[30907]

Yes.
This is the state of the disused alignment on the Radcliffe - Bolton line, which has future aspirations to be used as a Metrolink extension.
As housing has been built on the alignment, a further hurdle to opening is clearing those newly built houses.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

That bit could be resolved quite easily, but just further west a new estate has been built - so new that Street View hasn't reached it - completely blocking that route, but clearly protecting Bury-Bolton. If a Radcliffe-Bolton route was recently a possibility then someone could have told the planning authority, surely?

 

[Halifaxlad]

What do you consider to be a ‘disused trackbed’?

Consider the former line between Beverley and York. Below is a stretch of that line. Which part is disused trackbed that should be protected?

View attachment 122760


Another example: the line from Muston to Woolsthorpe Quarries. Should that be protected?

It would be helpful if you could show where the line went ?

I presume you're talking retrospectively as I'm certainly not talking about protecting lines that already have been built upon!

 

[zwk500]

It would be helpful if you could show where the line went ?

I presume you're talking retrospectively as I'm certainly not talking about protecting lines that already have been built upon!

But are you talking about protecting sections of extant trackbed between towns where development has taken place on the trackbed within the town?

Also, would your protection for cycle paths allow for development to encroach where a suitable alternative cycle path is provided and the railway is not going to reopen? A Cycle path can weave and squeeze through very tight gaps a railway simply wouldn't be able to.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

What a shame this was not considered at the time of the Beeching cuts. In many places double lines could have been singled and an excellent cycle way could have replaced the removed track.

I certainly think closed routes should be protected. Is fifty years an appropriate time period?

 

[BayPaul]

I don't really understand this idea. If a railway is closed, it is because it isn't needed or wanted. Surely it's then better to use that land for some more productive use. Why would anyone say 'but let's keep this scar across the land for the next 100 years, just in case'. Should we also preserve unwanted car parks, supermarkets and hospitals, just in case?

Take Buckfastleigh to Ashburton, for example. Surely its better reusing the trackbed for the a38, than having to cut another line through the countryside for the road.

For me it makes more sense to protect alignments that may be useful in the future, even if they have never had tracks.

 

[A0]

I don't really understand this idea. If a railway is closed, it is because it isn't needed or wanted. Surely it's then better to use that land for some more productive use. Why would anyone say 'but let's keep this scar across the land for the next 100 years, just in case'. Should we also preserve unwanted car parks, supermarkets and hospitals, just in case?

I agree. Many of the reopening "campaigns" are on the basis there used to be a railway there ergo 60 years later we should reinstate one, rather than looking at *where* a railway ought to run, what the demand is etc. Often the old Victorian alignments were slow and winding, far better to build a totally new alignment, fit for purpose than reinstate a substandard one ?

 

[Dr Hoo]

What a shame this was not considered at the time of the Beeching cuts. In many places double lines could have been singled and an excellent cycle way could have replaced the removed track.

I certainly think closed routes should be protected. Is fifty years an appropriate time period?

I'm not clear what you point is.

A great many former railway alignments have been successfully converted into recreational footpaths or trails (some of them now seeing far more 'journeys' than they ever did as active lines).

This process had started long before the closures of the 1960s. I believe that the Leek & Manifold railway between Waterhouses and Hulme End, closed by the LMS in the 1930s and converted to a footpath (later also opened to cyclists and equestrians) was the first significant example.

Or are you suggesting that a 'mothballed' single line should be retained and maintained for 50 years, with cycle ways only created alongside?

 

[Bald Rick]

It would be helpful if you could show where the line went ?

Neatly demonstrating my point. Should we protect disused lines where you can’t tell where they were?

I presume you're talking retrospectively

I thought so. I’m assuming that the lines that will be closed in future will be closed for very good reasons and thus either used for something much more worthwhile, or protected.