Petition to help save disused railways.

[APOLLO]

Done, No1519

 

Brit15

[28XX]

Done.  Greatest sin in my area is the silly bit of the A4390 built over the Stratford to Honeybourne line in S on A itself.

[brianusa]

In the mid-1960's Dr Beeching was employed to find ways of making the railways more profitable and his report resulted in the closure of a large part of our railway system. The report failed to take into account the growth in population and the necessity for rural transport

 

The last sentence says it all.  Others have noted, cycle and trails so why are we signing this.  Growth will presumably require such amenities as railways and as such I will sign but not necessarily to include other 'amenities' who might want to be included.  The current seemingly unending review of the revival of the SR line around Tavistock and Okehampton is more important for a railway than a convenience for the cycling fraternity and hikers. 

 

Brian.

[Mike Storey]

I read the petition, and I've no idea what it's trying to achieve. By all means protect the small number of routes which may actually be reopened (assuming they aren't already protected, which a lot of them are), but the vast majority will never reopen. Protecting these is pointless. 

 

But everything that local authorities do costs money, as they have to pay people to do it. Councils have enough to do (with limited resources) without having to aid every single fantasist with a 'reopen my local line' Facebook group. 

 

Local authorities already have the power to protect routes under local plans, but many choose not to, or buckle under the first challenge, due to the cost of defending their decision. This proposal seeks to put old routes under the same, national legal protection as that provided in. for example, France, where any person, organisation or company wishing to build or otherwise make part or all of an old route permanently unavailable for future use as a transport corridor, must apply for consent in much the same way as for the process applying to listed buildings or conservation areas. This puts the cost on to the developer and not the Local Authority, reversing the present obligation. Contrary to your view, it will save tax money, or at worst be neutral.

 

As for the "vast majority will never re-open", I suspect "vast" is misplaced - look at the number of re-opening proposals being promoted BY local authorities (or combined authorities or devolved assemblies) across Scotland, England and Wales. Clearly many routes were a nonsense in the first place, but it was not that long ago that any of thought of duplicated routes being re-opened was dismissed out of hand. Now look at Edinburgh - Glasgow, and increasingly likely, Brighton to London. Any legal process which makes it easier and less costly to do this in future, has my vote.

[pete_mcfarlane]

This proposal seeks to put old routes under the same, national legal protection as that provided in. for example, France, where any person, organisation or company wishing to build or otherwise make part or all of an old route permanently unavailable for future use as a transport corridor, must apply for consent in much the same way as for the process applying to listed buildings or conservation areas.

This may be the case (in which case it is a good thing), but it's not readily apparent from the wording of the petition.

[Edwardian]

When someone decides they need to reinstate a railway route, better that they find it still exists as a cycling route than that they find it built over.

 

If they don't, at least it's a cycling route and not a supermarket car park.

 

Don't see the problem with just signing the thing.

[Ramrig]

Done.

[John_Hughes]

In the mid-1960's Dr Beeching was employed to find ways of making the railways more profitable and his report resulted in the closure of a large part of our railway system. The report failed to take into account the growth in population and the necessity for rural transport

 

The last sentence says it all.  Others have noted, cycle and trails so why are we signing this.  Growth will presumably require such amenities as railways and as such I will sign but not necessarily to include other 'amenities' who might want to be included.  The current seemingly unending review of the revival of the SR line around Tavistock and Okehampton is more important for a railway than a convenience for the cycling fraternity and hikers. 

 

Brian.

 

Well, 'making BR profitable' was the openly declared brief, and of course he failed dismally at it.

 

However, I think it's now generally acknowledged that the real reason was that the deeply corrupt Ernest Marples wanted as much business for his road-building company as possible, and this involved closing as many railway lines as he could get away with and diverting traffic onto the roads; and Beeching was his willing sock-puppet - and well-rewarded for it, too!

 

This is not to say that no lines should have been closed, of course - but our traffic-clogged town centres, with their nose-to-tail HGVs mounting pavements and damaging buildings, show the true effects of what he did.

[phil-b259]

 

As for the "vast majority will never re-open", I suspect "vast" is misplaced - look at the number of re-opening proposals being promoted BY local authorities (or combined authorities or devolved assemblies) across Scotland, England and Wales. Clearly many routes were a nonsense in the first place, but it was not that long ago that any of thought of duplicated routes being re-opened was dismissed out of hand. Now look at Edinburgh - Glasgow, and increasingly likely, Brighton to London. Any legal process which makes it easier and less costly to do this in future, has my vote.

 

While I admire your optimism, the reality of the situation is rather different. Lots if English councils etc, when approached will make positive noises about rail reopening, but very few have sufficient money to actually turn said noises into working up and pushing for something approaching a scheme with a positive BCR. Analysis of rail reopening in the past decade shows that the DfT / Treasury has been extremely cool about line reopening, preferring to focus on 'easy win' station reopenings on existing passenger lines. In fact it could be argued England has gone backward since Privatisation with things like the BR proposed reopening of the Burton - Leicester line continually being dismissed as 'not representing value for the taxpayer' by Whitehall. As such the biggest threat to disused trackbeds comes not from councils themselves but from the DfT / Treasury - who not only are hostile to reopening bids, but are also the ones pushing councils to release as much land as possible to private sector developers - aided by the communities secretary and the doctrine of "all development is good and we must prevent councils from standing in our way" mantra he and his colleagues regularly spout.

 

This is why, as laudable as it is, and however many signatures it gets, the petition will not change anything in England.

 

The devolved administrations have faired better with Scotland easily being the most prepared to invest substantial monies in bringing trains back to communities who saw them disappear in the 60s and 70s with the Larkhall branch, Airdrie - Bathgate and now the Borders railway rebuilt from scratch. The latter two are even more impressive being comparable in distance terms to say Skipton - Colne or Grimsby - Louth. Wales has also done relatively well over the decades with the reintroduction of passenger services to Ebbaw Vale and from Barry to Bridgend. Note that this was achieved without any statutory duty to protect former railways which shows that legislation is a distraction from the real issue.

 

Finally I would take all this talk of a BML2 with an extremely large pinch of salt. All proposals that have emerged so far have had serious creditability problems once they get to Sandersted and Lewes. I will explain.....

 

Starting with the north end, NR are at pains to point out that rejoining the existing BML at Soiuth Croydon won't be very effective as the line is extremely busy and there are hardly any spare paths inbound from there. Talk of re routing Tramlink (without bothering to consult Tramlink / TfL about the negative impact this would have) and reusing the formation so BML2 trains can access the Hayes line at Elmers End ignores the fact that inbound from Lewisham there is no spare capacity on the existing SE routes into central London. Supporters say this can be addressed with a tunnel under Canary Wharf and link up with the Lea Valley route - conveniently ignoring that the currently safeguarded and well advanced Crossrail 2 scheme is planned to serve the Lea Valley. It also ignores recent proposals by TfL to extend the Bakerloo line to Hayes, plus plenty of experts in the field point out that if you are going to be digging more tunnels under London there are far better candidates to serve them than the Oxted lines / Hayes branch. Finally the Elmers End option ignores the fact that the centre of Croydon is a significant traffic generator which would be completely missed by their ill thought through plan.

 

At Lewes the problem is any reinstatement as to join the existing Keymer Junc - Eastbourne / Seaford line and given the position of Lewes station, west of the convergence of the line to Brighton it means any trains wishing to head to said seaside resort will require a time consuming reversal beyond Lewes station or an even more expensive new section of line hugging the A27 south of the town to turn trains round by 180 degrees and head off to Brighton. OK you could send trains from Uckfield onwards to Eastbourne but that ignores the fact that (1) the main axis for travel in the vicinity of the southern half of the Uckfield branch is actually NE / SW (i.e. Tunbridge Wells - Crowborough - Uckfield - Brighton) and (2) Going from Eastbourne via Uckfield and Eridge is longer in miles than the current route via Haywards Heath.

 

Ultimately the problem is this. Reinstating the Uckfield - Lewes section cannot be justified because the BCR of the most straightforward scheme (a single line to Lewes with a new passing loop at Uckfield and a simple extension of the current service pattern) comes out with a very poor BCR. As a result the promoters have had to find ways of building up the BCR (which doesn't involve lots of new housebuilding in Lewes, Uckfield and the surrounding area due to local residents implacable opposition to such talk - yet this is the one thing that might change the BCR enough to make the DfT start thinking seriously about the scheme). The result is the BML2 scheme which, is more about trying to find a substantive role for any reinstated Uckfield - Lewes than anything else (or a 'solution looking for a problem to solve' situation) demonstrated by the severe lack of detail or firm proposals once trains leave the core of the scheme.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I get the impression that BML2, like many of these schemes, is driven by a handful of people. There's a lot of noise but little substance.

[Chy Mengrowyn Paul]

Number 1687. Let's not forget the value to nature they searve too. Although now a cycle track and of course the AVR, miss walking the former MR Bristol to Bath line when closed.

[Mike Storey]

BLM2 is under renewed investigation by NR currently (according to their latest draft Route Strategy document), so I would not write this off, despite the well-known obstacles you cite. A route BCR is as nothing to a strategic BCR, as I discovered when trying to justify the Filton re-doubling, which then happened but which lasted but a decade before they want to expand it yet again.

 

You also fail to acknowledge the unbelievable success of the Oxford to Cambridge line re-opening. Even I thought this would never happen back in the '90's but look at it now - maybe it won't get all the way to Cambridge, but I would not put money on it either way now. Likewise the Robin Hood line, Thameslink and London Overground to some extent. Such re-openings as March to Spalding, ridiculed a decade ago, are now being supported with seedcorn funding, by cross-boundary county council teams. Perhaps we were all too used to findings reasons not to do things back in the day, as that is what our paymasters told us to do, but that attitude has, thankfully, changed somewhat in the last decade. As decision devolution increases across England and Wales, along with budgets (as is the case in say Germany, and to a cross-regional extent, France) the DfT and Treasury will have far less of a say. That is effectively demonstrated in Scotland. Northern Powerhouse, in whatever form it eventually takes, may exploit this, in the way that counties like Cornwall and Devon can only dream of.

 

A very good example of where intrinsic protection would have proven to be a far-seeing blessing, is the old Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace branch (which should have originally become part of the Northern Line extension, but Hitler stopped that). Whilst there is a groundswell to re-open it by Muswell Hill and Crouch End residents, it is probably impractical now, given the developments on key parts of the route, but, with large sections of it still quite useable (usable?) who knows?

 

If we don't remain in the EU, then much of this is probably dead in the water, as their funding contribution is usually critical to such schemes.

[B18 DUD]

Hi,1812 getting there......

[hayfield]

Signed, it is very unlikely that many will re-open as railways ever. But they can form wonderful cycle or walking routes with very little money required.

 

You never know, as the Croxley (LMR) branch is being reinstated with the Metropolitan line being connected/diverted on to it. Given that there is a large (and controversial) development behind Watford General Hospital it must have been a near thing that the track bed was not swallowed up by the new link road into the developement where a bridge must be built

[SR DUNCAN]

Done, No1821

 

Duncan

[Kylestrome]

1822

[phil-b259]

You also fail to acknowledge the unbelievable success of the Oxford to Cambridge line re-opening.

 

Its hardly a success yet is it

 

ALL the Government have committed themselves to is the upgrading and rebuilding of the Bicester - Bletchley section in the near future. The Oxford - Bicester upgraded bit has been mainly funded by Chiltern trains whose primary aim has been to capture a slice of the Oxford market (which is why work has been progressing quite quickly). So far all we have had with regards to the Bedford - Cambridge section is a succession of feasibility studies - all of which have been funded by external bodies rather than the DfT, with no clear statement as to if or when they will come to fruition. The way things are going it wouldn't surprise me to see Scotland have rebuilt the whole of the Waverley route before the DfT gets round to providing the Bedford - Cambridge end.

 

Similarly there is a desire by local stakeholders to reopen the mothballed Wisbeach line - this was first suggested back in the dieing days of BR, and again when freight ceased. In Wales, when the Ebaw vale branch lost its freight, the Welsh assembly quickly worked up a scheme to reopen it to passenger traffic - while when freight disappeared from the Wisbeech line the DfT did.... absolutely nothing - a stance they still seem to be taking today.

 

March - Spalding however will never achieve a positive reopening case - even for freight. Grade separation in the Peterborough area, plus the closure of level crossings is a far more effective use of funds, particularly given the size and dominance of Peterborough in terms of potential travellers.

 

You need to face the uncomfortable truth that as long as railway policy in England remains in the hands of the DfT and subject to micromanagement by the paymasters in the Treasury, the likelihood of extensive railway reopenings happening in England will remain extremely week. Scotland and Wales have shown what is achievable if you can break the stranglehold of Whitehall on the finances and priorities. Its also a fact that while this (and the previous government) makes a big show of 'devolution' and 'returning decisions to local people' the attack on local authority budgets, changes to planning rules and the freedoms being given to developers these days mean all the talk of localism is precisely that - just talk.

 

The big test in my opinion will come with the 'northern powerhouse' strategy and whether the Treasury is finally willing to cede control of big chunks of the budget to elected Mayors in the region, as they have promised. If successful and replicated elsewhere then we might get to see the apparent bias against railway reopenings change.

 

As for the BML, while it is true NR have been looking at the proposals, this is because (1) the politicians have told them too and (2) NR are the ones with the expertise to say whether the ideas put forward by others are viable (particularly with regard to what happens when services get beyond Sandersted or Lewes. NR are certainly not tasked with developing the BML2 or including necessarily including it in their long term route strategies for Susex. What NR have recently proposed instead is a series of upgrades to the existing route that would release significant capacity and be far more useful to services serving both east and west of Brighton including grade separation at Keymer, Stoats Nest, Windmill Bridge Junc (north of Croydon) plus extra platform capacity at Victoria, Clapham junction, East Croydon.

 

So as I said earlier - while the petitions originators have the best of intentions, and I support their efforts - a practical analysis will show that (1) it will be ignored by the politicians in the Westminster bubble / civil servants in the Treasury /  DfT and (2) Legislation is not the answer to protecting former railway alignments - having politicians who see the value they represent (as is the case in Scotland and Wales) most definitely is.

[pete_mcfarlane]

March - Spalding however will never achieve a positive reopening case - even for freight. Grade separation in the Peterborough area, plus the closure of level crossings is a far more effective use of funds, particularly given the size and dominance of Peterborough in terms of potential travellers.

A quick Google of that scheme suggests that it (along with quite a few of the others) are popular with the anti-HS2 campaigners as 'better' uses of the money. 

 

If you think the Hornby/Bachmann wishlists on this sites are bad, then check out this: http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/re-opening-rail-lines. You can email them suggesting additions, which presumably explains why they've listed the Midland line through the peak twice (Matlock - Buxton and Ambergate - Manchester)!

 

(Resists temptation to pick a random and completely hopeless line and start a campaign.... GN&LNW joint anyone?)

[brianusa]

Just think what will happen if a certain MP of a certain party becomes PM.

 

Brian

[Colin_McLeod]

Done but there are thousands more needed.

[Mike Storey]

Its hardly a success yet is it

 

ALL the Government have committed themselves to is the upgrading and rebuilding of the Bicester - Bletchley section in the near future. The Oxford - Bicester upgraded bit has been mainly funded by Chiltern trains whose primary aim has been to capture a slice of the Oxford market (which is why work has been progressing quite quickly). So far all we have had with regards to the Bedford - Cambridge section is a succession of feasibility studies - all of which have been funded by external bodies rather than the DfT, with no clear statement as to if or when they will come to fruition. The way things are going it wouldn't surprise me to see Scotland have rebuilt the whole of the Waverley route before the DfT gets round to providing the Bedford - Cambridge end.

 

Similarly there is a desire by local stakeholders to reopen the mothballed Wisbeach line - this was first suggested back in the dieing days of BR, and again when freight ceased. In Wales, when the Ebaw vale branch lost its freight, the Welsh assembly quickly worked up a scheme to reopen it to passenger traffic - while when freight disappeared from the Wisbeech line the DfT did.... absolutely nothing - a stance they still seem to be taking today.

 

March - Spalding however will never achieve a positive reopening case - even for freight. Grade separation in the Peterborough area, plus the closure of level crossings is a far more effective use of funds, particularly given the size and dominance of Peterborough in terms of potential travellers.

 

You need to face the uncomfortable truth that as long as railway policy in England remains in the hands of the DfT and subject to micromanagement by the paymasters in the Treasury, the likelihood of extensive railway reopenings happening in England will remain extremely week. Scotland and Wales have shown what is achievable if you can break the stranglehold of Whitehall on the finances and priorities. Its also a fact that while this (and the previous government) makes a big show of 'devolution' and 'returning decisions to local people' the attack on local authority budgets, changes to planning rules and the freedoms being given to developers these days mean all the talk of localism is precisely that - just talk.

 

The big test in my opinion will come with the 'northern powerhouse' strategy and whether the Treasury is finally willing to cede control of big chunks of the budget to elected Mayors in the region, as they have promised. If successful and replicated elsewhere then we might get to see the apparent bias against railway reopenings change.

 

As for the BML, while it is true NR have been looking at the proposals, this is because (1) the politicians have told them too and (2) NR are the ones with the expertise to say whether the ideas put forward by others are viable (particularly with regard to what happens when services get beyond Sandersted or Lewes. NR are certainly not tasked with developing the BML2 or including necessarily including it in their long term route strategies for Susex. What NR have recently proposed instead is a series of upgrades to the existing route that would release significant capacity and be far more useful to services serving both east and west of Brighton including grade separation at Keymer, Stoats Nest, Windmill Bridge Junc (north of Croydon) plus extra platform capacity at Victoria, Clapham junction, East Croydon.

 

So as I said earlier - while the petitions originators have the best of intentions, and I support their efforts - a practical analysis will show that (1) it will be ignored by the politicians in the Westminster bubble / civil servants in the Treasury /  DfT and (2) Legislation is not the answer to protecting former railway alignments - having politicians who see the value they represent (as is the case in Scotland and Wales) most definitely is.

 

I think we basically agree Phil, seeing as your post repeats many of the points in mine (37). Whilst you see the obstacles, and I can too, you must at least acknowledge that it IS politicians, local or national, who are asking for re-opening possibilities to be seriously evaluated. That is an almost complete reversal of the 1990's and before. That is why a petition such as this is good timing. Many great achievements started off in such a small, seemingly hopeless way, to start with.

[Graham Walters]

I've signed this on the basis that reinstatement of the railway network is the only way forward for transport in this country.

 

The amount of land being covered by tarmac to get vehicles to the next bottle quicker is stupid, we need a complete re-think on how we transport goods and people in this country.

[phil-b259]

I think we basically agree Phil, seeing as your post repeats many of the points in mine (37). Whilst you see the obstacles, and I can too, you must at least acknowledge that it IS politicians, local or national, who are asking for re-opening possibilities to be seriously evaluated. That is an almost complete reversal of the 1990's and before. That is why a petition such as this is good timing. Many great achievements started off in such a small, seemingly hopeless way, to start with.

Oh don't get me wrong, the increasing numbers of people / groups / local government making positive calls with regard to rail reopening is indeed welcome compared to previous decades. But simply saying you support a proposal is not the same as actually doing the donkey work to produce a proposal that is willing to be considered with any seriousness in Whitehall.

 

The big difference is it that while in Scotland and Wales such calls tend to be heed and embraced by the devolved administrations and people like the first minister etc (who exercise the powers the DfT still hold in England) when you turn to England itself , the attitude from the DFT / Treasuary has been and continues to be hostility. Whether that's because of a 'not invented here' mentaility within the department or a desire by the Treasuary to not spend a penny more on the railways than they have to, the net result is Westminster ministers always seem to talk down proposals with comments about BCRs, the impact of franchise agreements, the problems if said railway doesn't live up to its expectations passenger wise despite Scotland and Wales having shown such worries are nonsense.

 

So is this a case of one person seeing a glass half full and another half empty? Yes possibly so. I am very much in the former category when it comes to Scotland and Wales but very much the latter when it comes to England and the attitudes coming out of the relevant bodies in Whitehall.

[phil-b259]

I've signed this on the basis that reinstatement of the railway network is the only way forward for transport in this country.

 

The amount of land being covered by tarmac to get vehicles to the next bottle quicker is stupid, we need a complete re-think on how we transport goods and people in this country.

which won't happen because going back 100 years isn't feasible in the current globalised world. Most of the growth in motor traffic is down to how we live our lives - from consumer goods to food to raw materials we domestically produce very little of what we consume in this country. We have in our personal lives enthusiastically embraced home delivery with all the increases in van doing drop offs that creates, yet our employment patterns mean people have to travel further afield to find work than ever. Business has moved to a 'just in time' delivery and supply arrangement plus it has enthusiastically embraced the freedoms advocated by the WTO to move production to the most cost effective rather than most environmentally sustainable model with ease of transportation a cornerstone of this philosophy. Shopping has moved to be dominated by big stores and we expect them to be fully stocked at all times requiring lots of lorry movements. Busses in rural areas have been decimated by cuts in subsidy plus the fall in the overall cost of buying and running a car (when adjusted for inflation over past decades) has all contributed to the rise of motor transport.

 

In short any serious attempt to adjust the economic and social reasons why motor transport is such a feature of the modern world will necessitate several years if not decades of painful adjustment by society including significant financial and behavioural sacrifices by every single family across the UK. Any political party attempting such a plan would be never be elected because, as the old saying goes turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

[Graham Walters]

which won't happen because going back 100 years isn't feasible in the current globalised world. Most of the growth in motor traffic is down to how we live our lives - from consumer goods to food to raw materials we domestically produce very little of what we consume in this country. We have in our personal lives enthusiastically embraced home delivery with all the increases in band doing drop offs, yet our employment patterns mean people have to travel further afield to find work than ever. Business has moved to a 'just in time' delivery and supply arrangement plus it has enthusiastically embraced the freedoms advocated by the WTO to move production to the most cost effective rather than most environmentally sustainable model with ease of transportation a cornerstone of this philosophy. Shopping has moved to be dominated by big stores and we expect them to be fully stocked at all times requiring lots of lorry movements. Busses in rural areas have been decimated by cuts in subsidy plus the fall in the overall cost of buying and running a car has all contributed to the rise of motor transport.

 

In short any serious attempt to adjust the economic and social reasons why motor transport is such a feature of the modern world will necessitate several years if not decades of painful adjustment by society including significant financial and behavioural sacrifices by every single failing across the UK. Any political party attempting such a plan would be never be elected because, as the old saying goes turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

 

The last recession took us back 100yrs economically as it is, we are so up to our eyes in debt as a country that it will be the grandchildren of our children who will really be the ones to suffer. The present policy's of borrowing to furnish debt is unsustainable, the large grocers you speak of, especially TESCO are already cutting back on stores and jobs.

 

Without faster and cleaner means of transport, food will become even more expensive, meaning producers will have to sell more locally to pay workers.

 

The relatively poor growth in this country is set to continue because large companies are failing to invest in more ecological forms of production and transport, there is a growing wave of Eco support in this country, which may not manifest itself in my time, but it will manifest itself eventually, the growth in alternative energies is proof of that.