Using one half of singled lines as cycle paths.

[DK123GWR]

An idea struck me after commenting on a thread about railway tresspass. There are a number of lines in Britain which were once double track but were subsequently singled. Many are important public transport links, but it is hard to conceive that they would ever revert to double track. A nearby example might be the Chippenham to Trowbridge line. On some of these lines, why not convert half of the trackbed into a path for pedestrians and cyclists to use? The Avon Valley Railway shares the former Mangotsfield to Bath line with the Bristol and Bath cycle path, which shows that cyclists, pedestrians, and trains sharing a route could be possible. This would help to facilitate cycling by cutting the distance travelled and moving most of the journey onto relatively flat, traffic free routes.

 

I have investigated the effects of such a policy on a journey from the bottom of Chippenham High Street to The Shires in the centre of Trowbridge. The overall distance travelled would be cut by 19% from 25.9km to 20.96km. This is based upon a current route which follows the NCN 403 and NCN 4 (a canal towpath which is probably too narrow at several points to cycle safely, and requires regular stops to let pedestrians pass) before using the path alongside the railway to reach Trowbridge town centre. The new route would begin the same way, initially avoiding Bath Road, before crossing it and using Easton Lane to leave Chippenham. You would then turn left at the crossroads and cross the GWML, having followed the NCN 403 to reach this point. However, there would now be an option to turn right onto the cycle path along the railway. This would carry you for 12.06 km to Marsh Road in Staverton. You would then be able to cycle a very short distance along Marsh Road to join the NCN 4, where you would rejoin the existing route along the towpath and the existing path next to the railway. This would also increase the traffic-free milage by 6.51km from 8.35 to 14.86km. This would take the route from 32% traffic free to 71% traffic free, a huge change in the nature of the route. Other benefits would include avoiding Lacock (which is full of tourists walking wherever they please whenever the weather is remotely warm) and Melksham town centre (which can be busy, even if the traffic is slow-moving). It would also eliminate the need to cross the A350 twice, once near Whitehall Garden Centre and once to the south of Melksham.

 

There are already a number of pedestrian level crossings near Beanacre, and connections to the new cycle path here would allow residents of Beanacre to cycle to Chippenham, Melksham or Trowbridge without using the busy A350. In Melksham, connections could be provided at Dunch Lane and the station, and it may be possible to provide connections to Lacock's Corsham Road estate and Station Road, Holt.

 

I have written about this line as I am reasonably familiar with the geography, rather than because I believe that it should be the top priority to receive a shared path. However, I hope to have highlighted some of the potential benefits of constructing shared paths parallel to railways, such as cutting journey times with shorter, flatter routes, improving safety by drastically reducing the amount of cycling on roads used by motor vehicles, and providing better connections for communities without viable cycle routes (eg. Beanacre). Any increase in cycling rates should also take cars off of the road, leading to the associated environmental benefits which have been widely acknowledged. I hope that this will start a debate about whether there are any lines where it might be a viable proposition to have a shared path installed alongside an existing railway in order to facilitate active and environmentally friendly transport solutions by optimising the usage of existing corridors (albeit at a higher cost than selectively closing roads and turning them over to pedestrians an cyclists - which would acheive many of the same objectives).

[KeithMacdonald]

The much-mentioned potential reopening of the Bere Alston - Tavistock line would have been single-line with cycle path.

 

Devon Council initially promoted it as "sustainable", but then, sadly, decided it was not viable.

[009 micro modeller]

I think there are a few heritage lines that have this arrangement - I wonder if Network Rail is reluctant to do more similar schemes because of the potential need to revive the second track (even if this is really unlikely) and in some cases the need to move or retain substantial security fences (generally not needed on preserved lines). In a few cases things like cables and equipment cabinets might have to be expensively relocated.

 

There may also be a perception in some quarters that such a scheme would encourage rail users to cycle instead, thus making the rail service less viable. However, I’d suggest that it might actually encourage more rail use, with people cycling one way and using the train the other way.

 

Don’t forget that there are also railways that have never actually been double track, but where the formation was constructed to leave space for another track. Annoyingly the only example I can think of is the Croxley Green branch, currently closed and with revival plans often involving two tracks, but there are others.

 

Oddly, there was a plan at one point for a standard gauge railway with parallel cycleway as a revival of the Amlwch branch on Anglesey, even though I think this was only built wide enough for single track, so I’m not sure how there would have been space. I think Bure Valley (15” gauge on standard gauge trackbed - presumably originally single track) has either a cycleway/bridleway or footpath alongside.

Edited December 21, 2020 by 009 micro modeller

[letterspider]

It's a good idea but as its on Network Rail land they would be responsible for it and I guess they don't want the extra hassle

[Kris]

9 hours ago, DK123GWR said:

An idea struck me after commenting on a thread about railway tresspass. There are a number of lines in Britain which were once double track but were subsequently singled. Many are important public transport links, but it is hard to conceive that they would ever revert to double track. A nearby example might be the Chippenham to Trowbridge line. On some of these lines, why not convert half of the trackbed into a path for pedestrians and cyclists to use? The Avon Valley Railway shares the former Mangotsfield to Bath line with the Bristol and Bath cycle path, which shows that cyclists, pedestrians, and trains sharing a route could be possible. This would help to facilitate cycling by cutting the distance travelled and moving most of the journey onto relatively flat, traffic free routes.

 

I have investigated the effects of such a policy on a journey from the bottom of Chippenham High Street to The Shires in the centre of Trowbridge. The overall distance travelled would be cut by 19% from 25.9km to 20.96km. This is based upon a current route which follows the NCN 403 and NCN 4 (a canal towpath which is probably too narrow at several points to cycle safely, and requires regular stops to let pedestrians pass) before using the path alongside the railway to reach Trowbridge town centre. The new route would begin the same way, initially avoiding Bath Road, before crossing it and using Easton Lane to leave Chippenham. You would then turn left at the crossroads and cross the GWML, having followed the NCN 403 to reach this point. However, there would now be an option to turn right onto the cycle path along the railway. This would carry you for 12.06 km to Marsh Road in Staverton. You would then be able to cycle a very short distance along Marsh Road to join the NCN 4, where you would rejoin the existing route along the towpath and the existing path next to the railway. This would also increase the traffic-free milage by 6.51km from 8.35 to 14.86km. This would take the route from 32% traffic free to 71% traffic free, a huge change in the nature of the route. Other benefits would include avoiding Lacock (which is full of tourists walking wherever they please whenever the weather is remotely warm) and Melksham town centre (which can be busy, even if the traffic is slow-moving). It would also eliminate the need to cross the A350 twice, once near Whitehall Garden Centre and once to the south of Melksham.

 

 

In theory this would be a good idea but, taking Trowbridge to Chippenham as an example, the single section of the line does not start close to the centre of each town. At the Trowbridge end you would still need to get out to Staverton to get there. The Chippenham end is more problematic with the line from Trowbridge joining the main Bath - London line just to the west of the A350. This is away from any sensible road access point. Even if you were to build a new cycle path from this point to the other side of the A350 (massively expensive given you would likely need to bridge this road) you still end up on busy roads heading into Chippenham. 

 

This situation is common with many singled lines, so unfortunately would provide limited benefit for the expense. 

[DK123GWR]

14 minutes ago, Kris said:

 

In theory this would be a good idea but, taking Trowbridge to Chippenham as an example, the single section of the line does not start close to the centre of each town. At the Trowbridge end you would still need to get out to Staverton to get there. The Chippenham end is more problematic with the line from Trowbridge joining the main Bath - London line just to the west of the A350. This is away from any sensible road access point. Even if you were to build a new cycle path from this point to the other side of the A350 (massively expensive given you would likely need to bridge this road) you still end up on busy roads heading into Chippenham. 

 

This situation is common with many singled lines, so unfortunately would provide limited benefit for the expense. 

That's why I suggested using the existing NCN 403 (click here for map) to leave Chippenham before reaching the new path. The busiest road used on this section is Hungerdown Lane, which has reasonably good cycle lanes and so is safer than some other roads. The existing route via the NCN 4 (the canal) also passes along the border of Staverton, and the journey from Staverton to the town centre is traffic free for most of the way as it follows the canal towpath and an existing path alongside the railway. The ends of the journey would therefore be very similar to the present situation, being lagrely on quiet residential streets in Chippenham and shared pedestrian/cycle paths in Trowbridge.

[russ p]

The problem is with this idea is that should traffic levels pick up some cycling organisations would get on their high horses and try and prevent it .

I believe this is now a major obstacle in reopening the Midland line through the peak district 

[Reorte]

12 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Don’t forget that there are also railways that have never actually been double track, but where the formation was constructed to leave space for another track. Annoyingly the only example I can think of is the Croxley Green branch, currently closed and with revival plans often involving two tracks, but there are others.

All closed now but most (all?) of the Stainmore line started off single, although most of the structures were built double track (although one or two oddly weren't). Smardale Viaduct (well worth seeing, an impressive location) was one that was never doubled even though built to double track standards, the single track still managed to use the whole width though to get an easier alignment.

 

edit - or was it Smardale Gill viaduct? Can never remember which is which - I'm talking about the now not used one rather than the still in use one on the Settle-Carlisle.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Reorte

[EmporiaSub]

I’m sure many lines that have been singled will have passing loops , or the track uses both former track beds in places. Certainly is the case on the Uckfield line, and the Appledore to Ore line.

[Nearholmer]

Its definitely feasible to create cycle routes on the unused sides of singled routes, its been done in a few places, but a lot depends on how much money is available to spend on creating a cycle route, getting round passing-loops, difficult section etc.

 

If you know of a really good prospect that fills a gap in the NCN, I advocate writing direct to the CEO of Sustrans with your ideas. I can vouch for him being both a listening sort of chap, and a bit of a railway enthusiast on the quiet, because I used to work very closely with him when we were both at TfL. He is a genius for getting bodies like local councils, NR, the canal and river trust (CEO another ex-TfL chap with a railway bent) to collaborate to make things possible, but money is always the challenge.

[Zomboid]

There's really no reason for Network Rail to take on the liability of a public footpath along the railway right if way off their own back. It's not necessarily a bad idea if there's really no chance of redoubling and it would form a useful part of the cycling/ walking infrastructure, but I suspect there's very few such sections.

 

Wholly closed lines with no hope of reopening are a better bet.

[009 micro modeller]

23 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

and a bit of a railway enthusiast on the quiet

 

That’s interesting to hear and actually makes a lot of sense - so I wonder what it was (apart from conflicting ideas about what should be done with specific schemes) a few years ago that apparently gave some people the impression of Sustrans being anti-railway preservation?

[Trog]

One possible problem is that sometimes the retained line swaps sides every so often as the better of the two tracks was retained with the lines being slued to suit at the changeovers.

[Nearholmer]

22 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

gave some people the impression of Sustrans being anti-railway preservation?

 

Well, he's only been there since about 2015, so it may have been "previous management", but I think also that some "artificial conflicts" have arisen over disused track-beds where ideas for cycle/walking routes have been put forward for sections that people have part-formed, not-yet-funded, plans to reopen as preserved railways.

 

Its a touchy subject, especially on a railway forum, and I've given my three penn'orth in another thread about it, but, in summary, my personal view is that England has too many miles of preserved railway to be truly sustainable, and too few miles of traffic-free cycling route. A view which will probably attract opprobrium.

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

Such an arrangement exists on the re-opened Airdrie/Bathgate line. 

 

 

Sorry, that path is on extra land purchased from non-railway owners for the specific purpose of building a cycle path - the reopened railway being all double track electrified at 25KV having zero space for such a facility

[phil-b259]

44 minutes ago, Trog said:

One possible problem is that sometimes the retained line swaps sides every so often as the better of the two tracks was retained with the lines being slued to suit at the changeovers.

 

Or where the alignment has been slewed on curves (on the outside at either end but the inside in the middle) to raise speeds.

 

In some cases the track has been moved to the centre to provide grater clearances under bridges.

 

[Nearholmer]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

In some cases the track has been moved to the centre to provide grater clearances under bridges.

 

Or, because the earthworks have slumped, and it makes no sense in railway terms to maintain a full-width route-way. I think some of the Uckfield branch is like that.

[caradoc]

8 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Sorry, that path is on extra land purchased from non-railway owners for the specific purpose of building a cycle path - the reopened railway being all double track electrified at 25KV having zero space for such a facility

 

OK - My post has been hidden. 

[eastglosmog]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Or, because the earthworks have slumped, and it makes no sense in railway terms to maintain a full-width route-way. I think some of the Uckfield branch is like that.

The singled part of the Cotswold line from Oxford to Charlbury is certainly like that, the track is kept to the center of the formation so as to be as far away as possible from the steep cutting sides.

[Zomboid]

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

my personal view is that England has too many miles of preserved railway to be truly sustainable, and too few miles of traffic-free cycling route. A view which will probably attract opprobrium.

You're probably about right. Whether there's any crossover between the "excess" preserved railway and routes that would be any use as cycle/ pedestrian/ bridle paths is another matter. (And of course the "excess" will be largely determined by whichever operations are well run and located, rather than how useful the trackbed might be for other purposes - one might think that the ones that might be most useful for cycling etc are the ones with the busiest locations, and therefore least likely to fail).

[Nearholmer]

I wasn't thinking of the "excess" in current preserved railway operations, wherever fate may eventually decide that is,  but of the occasional competition for routes over currently disused track-beds, when I wrote that. In short, I think that, in general, there is a good case to create more cycle/walking routes, and a poor case for more/extended preserved railways.

 

I stirred-up enough trouble when I said it on RMWeb before; I don't really want a rumour abroad that I'm advocating tearing-up everyone's favourite bit of heritage railway so that people can cycle and walk along the route!

 

A good place to see harmonious co-existence, BTW, is on the Northampton to Market Harborough route, where NCN6 and the Northampton and Lamport Railway get along splendidly. It also has two tunnels on the section with no railway, which are great fun to ride through. 

 

Or, try the French method http://veloraildefrance.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Bernard Lamb]

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I wasn't thinking of the "excess" in current preserved railway operations, wherever fate may eventually decide that is,  but of the occasional competition for routes over currently disused track-beds, when I wrote that. In short, I think that, in general, there is a good case to create more cycle/walking routes, and a poor case for more/extended preserved railways.

 

I stirred-up enough trouble when I said it on RMWeb before; I don't really want a rumour abroad that I'm advocating tearing-up everyone's favourite bit of heritage railway so that people can cycle and walk along the route!

 

A good place to see harmonious co-existence, BTW, is on the Northampton to Market Harborough route, where NCN6 and the Northampton and Lamport Railway get along splendidly. It also has two tunnels on the section with no railway, which are great fun to ride through. 

 

Or, try the French method http://veloraildefrance.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is a first class example of how an old track bed can be used.

Not ridden it for a few years but getting onto it from Northampton was a bit of a pain.

Again a costly situation to improve.

One of the biggest problems I see in making a joined up cycle network is that many routes developed in a bit here bit there way and there is a lack of coordination when it comes to trying to join them up.

Then there is the variation in attitude between local councils.  Not to mention local landowners.

While being keen on wanting to see the development of traffic free cycle routes I do sympathise with some of them given the antics of a few cyclists.

This was especially so during the lockdown when the head of police at Chequers was pleading with people not to ride down the main drive.

Any joint use has to take into account the threat posed to both themselves and others by these numpties.

Bernard

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

there is a lack of coordination when it comes to trying to join them up.

Then there is the variation in attitude between local councils.  Not

No more visible than on the southern part of NCN6. Between MK and Windsor it is immensely varied in terms of how good a cycle route it is - some bits are superb, but I thought the section Harpenden to south of St Albans, and again some of it through Watford were very poor, as if the local council actively detests cyclists.

[Bernard Lamb]

38 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

No more visible than on the southern part of NCN6. Between MK and Windsor it is immensely varied in terms of how good a cycle route it is - some bits are superb, but I thought the section Harpenden to south of St Albans, and again some of it through Watford were very poor, as if the local council actively detests cyclists.

Got it in one.

Bernard

[101]

One of the biggest problems with using track beds as paths is that they are generally isolated/away from prying eyes. The Bristol to Bath path is already becoming a bit of a no go zone with the amount of crime on it, and not just in darkness.