Abandoned rails in the road.....(or elsewhere...)

[eastglosmog]

A bit different sort of road and not sure if they are still there, but at the bottom of this page http://www.fairfordbranch.co.uk/Bampton.htm

is a picture of the East Gloucestershire's rails across the Brize Norton airfield taxiways.

[Royal42]

On 01/04/2021 at 18:30, KeithAnthony said:

Weymouth Quay tramway that is currently being ripped up.

 

I've only just come across this wonderful thread and noticed the comment here.  I believe this was mainline to the ferry wharf, rather than a tramway?

 

cheers,

Mike

Edited August 29, 2021 by Royal42
text missing.

[Northmoor]

21 minutes ago, Royal42 said:

 

I've only just come across this wonderful thread and noticed the comment here.  I believe this was mainline to the ferry wharf, rather than a tramway?

 

cheers,

Mike

Both are correct; "Tramway" refers to the fact that the railway - which was part of the National network - runs within a Public Right of Way, not that trams operated on it.  Trams operate on tramways, but not all tramways are operated by trams, if that makes sense?

[Royal42]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Mike

[uax6]

On 27/08/2021 at 16:10, rockershovel said:

A couple from memory.... remnants of the MoD railway at Spurn Point. Mostly fragmented due to the constantly changing topography of the sand spit..... the (recently removed) level crossing on the Wisbech bypass (A47) which survived to be incorporated into the new road, in the 1990s although I doubt that any train ever crossed it. Dockside lines at Victoria Dock, Plymouth - long disused but still in situ

 

The Wisbech A47 crossing certainly did get trains across it, the bypass being older than it looks. Indeed its also an interesting legal crossing too. It retains its Level Crossing Order, even through it has had the track lifted. NR lifted the track through the crossing (its still there either side) to help the Highways Authority keep the surface of the A47 smooth (that part  is truly awful BTW), but will re-instate the track when it re-opens. But it probably won't be an AOCL again...

 

Andy G

[009 micro modeller]

One from a few years ago (I don't think I've already posted this). This is just south of Swannington incline and just north of where the trackbed crosses Spring Lane near Coalville. Oddly, there is about 150 metres of track north of the road (as photographed) and about another 60 south of the road (also visible on Google Street View). I wonder how it got there? It doesn't look like original track, looks fairly well preserved and I find it strange that there are two very long sections here specifically. I now realise it's near Snibston but I don't think it's to do with the former Discovery Park there, especially the track north of the road. There's also some other remains preserved - I don't think the extant track is on the incline itself.

 

 

[ianmacc]

2 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

One from a few years ago (I don't think I've already posted this). This is just south of Swannington incline and just north of where the trackbed crosses Spring Lane near Coalville. Oddly, there is about 150 metres of track north of the road (as photographed) and about another 60 south of the road (also visible on Google Street View). I wonder how it got there? It doesn't look like original track, looks fairly well preserved and I find it strange that there are two very long sections here specifically. I now realise it's near Snibston but I don't think it's to do with the former Discovery Park there, especially the track north of the road. There's also some other remains preserved - I don't think the extant track is on the incline itself.

 

 

Intriguing. I hope someone can answer this !

[009 micro modeller]

19 minutes ago, ianmacc said:

Intriguing. I hope someone can answer this !

 

From the local history websites it just sounds like it was put there as part of the restoration/interpretation of the incline site. However, I'm still intrigued to find out if anything bigger was ever planned, given the relatively long length of track on both sides of the road.

 

Somebody needs to turn up there with a Wickham trolley or similar. In fact, actually you could do that with a few of the places on this thread; we've had guerrilla gardening so what about a guerrilla heritage railway?  But actually, on a very slightly more serious note, I do sometimes wonder whether you could run a short heritage line somewhere operated by these kinds of rail trolleys, with light rail, reduced track maintenance and low platforms

[Axlebox]

20 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

One from a few years ago (I don't think I've already posted this). This is just south of Swannington incline and just north of where the trackbed crosses Spring Lane near Coalville. Oddly, there is about 150 metres of track north of the road (as photographed) and about another 60 south of the road (also visible on Google Street View). I wonder how it got there? It doesn't look like original track, looks fairly well preserved and I find it strange that there are two very long sections here specifically. I now realise it's near Snibston but I don't think it's to do with the former Discovery Park there, especially the track north of the road. There's also some other remains preserved - I don't think the extant track is on the incline itself.

 

 

From memory, it was laid by the Swannington Heritage Trust who set about preserving the site of the engine house, the incline and at least one of the bridges on the incline. They did have a long term aim to rebuild the engine house and re-install the engine...but that was back in the 1990s...more info here... https://swannington-heritage.co.uk/coal-rail/incline/

[009 micro modeller]

11 minutes ago, Axlebox said:

From memory, it was laid by the Swannington Heritage Trust who set about preserving the site of the engine house, the incline and at least one of the bridges on the incline. They did have a long term aim to rebuild the engine house and re-install the engine...but that was back in the 1990s...more info here... https://swannington-heritage.co.uk/coal-rail/incline/

 

Did they ever plan to run or display anything on the track? It also seems slightly odd that it was laid on both sides of the road.

[ianmacc]

On 31/08/2021 at 19:05, 009 micro modeller said:

 

From the local history websites it just sounds like it was put there as part of the restoration/interpretation of the incline site. However, I'm still intrigued to find out if anything bigger was ever planned, given the relatively long length of track on both sides of the road.

 

Somebody needs to turn up there with a Wickham trolley or similar. In fact, actually you could do that with a few of the places on this thread; we've had guerrilla gardening so what about a guerrilla heritage railway?  But actually, on a very slightly more serious note, I do sometimes wonder whether you could run a short heritage line somewhere operated by these kinds of rail trolleys, with light rail, reduced track maintenance and low platforms

On YouTube there are people who do just that! They take motorised PW trolleys on abandoned lines (mainly in the much more vast USA) 

[bradfordbuffer]

8 hours ago, ianmacc said:

On YouTube there are people who do just that! They take motorised PW trolleys on abandoned lines (mainly in the much more vast USA) 

Yep would love to do a us abandoned line on a speeder.....May not be the most comfortable rides but fun!

Had several 'high' speed rides on a pw trolly when mucking around in tuebrook sdgs in liverpool (90s)....surprising how fast they go!...when shoved by a 47! By gum you feel every joint and frog!....

[Kris]

Minor road crossing on the Bodmin to Wenfordbridge line. 

 

[phil-b259]

On 19/08/2021 at 12:17, cctransuk said:

 

The rails forming level crossings are often left in-situ even when the rest of the line has long-since been lifted.

 

 

That has more to do with it being a pain in the backside to did them out and reinstate the road surface than anything else!

 

Moreover the portion of road lying between the mythical fence line (i.e. the railway boundary if the road wasn't there) is usually under the ownership of the railway authority - who are liable for road markings and the crossing surface so its going to be up to the railway to remove them if they want.

 

Of course in some cases like the situation on the A47, it pays for the railway to remove the rails and make good the road as if the road surface deteriorates too much and is found to be a contributory cause of an accident then the railway can end up being prosecuted or having to pay out for insurance claims for damage.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by phil-b259

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

That has more to do with it being a pain in the backside to did them out and reinstate the road surface than anything else!

 

Moreover the portion of road lying between the mythical fence line (i.e. the railway boundary if the road wasn't there) is usually under the ownership of the railway authority - who are liable for road markings and the crossing surface so its going to be up to the railway to remove them if they want.

 

Of course in some cases like the situation on the A47, it pays for the railway to remove the rails and make good the road as if the road surface deteriorates too much and is found to be a contributory cause of an accident then the railway can end up being prosecuted or having to pay out for insurance claims for damage.

 

 

 

I'm afraid that you are incorrect in all points.

 

a) I am a retired local government highway engineer, and it was my job to know and implement highway legislation;

 

b) I have it from the current professionals in both rail and highway engineering that the reason that the rails remain is precisely that which I have quoted;

 

c) again, from a professional perspective, you will have to accept my word for the fact that it would be MUCH cheaper for the Railway to lift the rails  and reinstate the road as soon as they were redundant, than to revisit and maintain the crossing every couple of years - which is necessary at Dunmere and similar locations.

 

There is a good reason why they incur the cost - insurance against possible future rail traffic requirements.

 

Sometimes, posters here DO know what they are talking about!

 

CJI.

[phil-b259]

11 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I'm afraid that you are incorrect in all points.

 

a) I am a retired local government highway engineer, and it was my job to know and implement highway legislation;

 

b) I have it from the current professionals in both rail and highway engineering that the reason that the rails remain is precisely that which I have quoted;

 

c) again, from a professional perspective, you will have to accept my word for the fact that it would be MUCH cheaper for the Railway to lift the rails  and reinstate the road as soon as they were redundant, than to revisit and maintain the crossing every couple of years - which is necessary at Dunmere and similar locations.

 

There is a good reason why they incur the cost - insurance against possible future rail traffic requirements.

 

Sometimes, posters here DO know what they are talking about!

 

CJI.

 

With respect, its not just highways legislation you are dealing with.

 

(I should also say that my comments relate to main lines as it were - sidings and spurs into docks or industrial plants are much more varied and can easily have different arrangements over ownership and liabilities for crossings).

 

I don't doubt your experience in highway matters - but the basic fact from a railway perspective is the decision on whether a level crossing exists is a matter of law (the existence of a section 66 level crossing order signed by the SOS for transport or the authorising acts for the railway with respect to gated crossings) - not what is physically on site!

 

If the crossing (or site thereof) doesn't match what is stated the level crossing order then all it means is the crossing cannot be used till the two do match, but it remains, in law, a level crossing.

 

What that means is technically the crossing could be reinstated exactly as it was with the only expenditure being on renewal / repair of the equipment being needed - even if the rails have been ripped out (though in practice a ROGS legislation will demand a fresh risk assessment be carried out and the former arrangements may well need to be improved with a new section 66 order being made as a consequence).

 

Thats why Network Rail can remove the track across the A47 but still state its a temporary measure which can easily be reversed - it is! The level crossing order remains in force even though there are no rails!

 

Similarly the level crossings on the officially 'mothballed' Leamside line - which has in fact had all its track lifted by metal thieves and NR there are still level crossings with section 66 orders against them - with NR being the highways authority for the tiny strip of road where the railway used to run.

 

Where a railway has been officially closed its a very different matter - as the closure process will revoke any level crossing orders or authorisations for a crossing being there. Any rails left behind then simply become part of the highway surface and its up to whoever takes on responsibility for the highway* to deal with them. In places like Dunmere the rails in the road have nothing to do with the railway industry anymore - that railway was closed and land disposed off to other parties. The former crossing they will either have been passed to the highways authority (the council) upon dismantling of the rest of the branch,  or be part of the ex railway infrastructure now in the ownership of National Highways / Highways England.

 

Finally it should also be noted that in some cases local interests may have campaigned for the rails to stay as a memorial to the railway or have sought legal protection which forces them to be left alone. I have a feeling that the rails in the road at Dunmere fall into this situation.

 

 

 

 

* As I said where a public highway crosses a railway it is NOT under the ownership of the highway authority and all liabilities lie with the railway infrastructure owner regardless of whether the railway is used or not!  A motorist whose car gets damaged by a pothole be it on the 'crossing without rails' at Wisbech or the very much in use one at Reigate will need to claim off Network Rail for damage - not the highway authority. On the other hand a motorist suffering damage to their vehicle at Dunmere will need to claim off the local council / National Highways

 

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by phil-b259

[cctransuk]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

With respect, its not just highways legislation you are dealing with.

 

(I should also say that my comments relate to main lines as it were - sidings and spurs into docks or industrial plants are much more varied and can easily have different arrangements over ownership and liabilities for crossings).

 

I don't doubt your experience in highway matters - but the basic fact from a railway perspective is the decision on whether a level crossing exists is a matter of law (the existence of a section 66 level crossing order signed by the SOS for transport or the authorising acts for the railway with respect to gated crossings) - not what is physically on site!

 

If the crossing (or site thereof) doesn't match what is stated the level crossing order then all it means is the crossing cannot be used till the two do match, but it remains, in law, a level crossing.

 

What that means is technically the crossing could be reinstated exactly as it was with the only expenditure being on renewal / repair of the equipment being needed - even if the rails have been ripped out (though in practice a ROGS legislation will demand a fresh risk assessment be carried out and the former arrangements may well need to be improved with a new section 66 order being made as a consequence).

 

Thats why Network Rail can remove the track across the A47 but still state its a temporary measure which can easily be reversed - it is! The level crossing order remains in force even though there are no rails!

 

Similarly the level crossings on the officially 'mothballed' Leamside line - which has in fact had all its track lifted by metal thieves and NR there are still level crossings with section 66 orders against them - with NR being the highways authority for the tiny strip of road where the railway used to run.

 

Where a railway has been officially closed its a very different matter - as the closure process will revoke any level crossing orders or authorisations for a crossing being there. Any rails left behind then simply become part of the highway surface and its up to whoever takes on responsibility for the highway* to deal with them. In places like Dunmere the rails in the road have nothing to do with the railway industry anymore - that railway was closed and land disposed off to other parties. The former crossing they will either have been passed to the highways authority (the council) upon dismantling of the rest of the branch,  or be part of the ex railway infrastructure now in the ownership of National Highways / Highways England.

 

Finally it should also be noted that in some cases local interests may have campaigned for the rails to stay as a memorial to the railway or have sought legal protection which forces them to be left alone. I have a feeling that the rails in the road at Dunmere fall into this situation.

 

 

 

 

* As I said where a public highway crosses a railway it is NOT under the ownership of the highway authority and all liabilities lie with the railway infrastructure owner regardless of whether the railway is used or not!  A motorist whose car gets damaged by a pothole be it on the 'crossing without rails' at Wisbech or the very much in use one at Reigate will need to claim off Network Rail for damage - not the highway authority. On the other hand a motorist suffering damage to their vehicle at Dunmere will need to claim off the local council / National Highways

 

 

 

I can only tell you what I was told by the Highway Authority lawyer who is reponsible for the Dunmere and the upper Camel valley crossings; that they remain in place to protect the railway right-of-way against the possibility of china clay extraction returning to Bodmin Moor.

 

CJI.

[phil-b259]

3 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I can only tell you what I was told by the Highway Authority lawyer who is reponsible for the Dunmere and the upper Camel valley crossings; that they remain in place to protect the railway right-of-way against the possibility of china clay extraction returning to Bodmin Moor.

 

CJI.

 

I don't dispute that mighty be the case at Dunmere, but that doesn't mean such a situation applies across the UK to every disused crossing (though I accept variations on the theme could occur from time to time, particularly lines serving docks or industrial plants).

 

At Dunmere, much like local authorities might purchase a redundant trackbed and safeguard it for future use for transport use, or oppose the demolition of a redundant railway bridge, it could be that when BR shut the Wedford Bridge line a  bespoke legal undertaking was given or written into a sale agreement that the rails would stay in the road 'just in case' rail use returned.

 

I can see that faced with an increase in HGVs on narrow roads as the line shut a local authority might well wish to do all it could to maintain the ability for a return to rail in future. I can also see that even if such a eventuality becomes almost an impossibility, it might be simpler and cheaper to leave the legal agreements as they are rather then attempting to mess with them.

 

Both the above would give rise to the situation where removing the rails is not perused

 

What is almost certain however is that if British Rail industry did have any liabilities they would not have been transferred to Railtrack and hence Network rail - instead remaining with the rump of the British Railways Board till that was dissolved and Highways England (Just renamed National Highways by Boris even though roads in Wales, Scotland and NI are a devolved matter). took on the 'burdensome estate' as it was known.

 

 

[cctransuk]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I don't dispute that mighty be the case at Dunmere, but that doesn't mean such a situation applies across the UK to every disused crossing (though I accept variations on the theme could occur from time to time, particularly lines serving docks or industrial plants).

 

At Dunmere, much like local authorities might purchase a redundant trackbed and safeguard it for future use for transport use, or oppose the demolition of a redundant railway bridge, it could be that when BR shut the Wedford Bridge line a  bespoke legal undertaking was given or written into a sale agreement that the rails would stay in the road 'just in case' rail use returned.

 

I can see that faced with an increase in HGVs on narrow roads as the line shut a local authority might well wish to do all it could to maintain the ability for a return to rail in future. I can also see that even if such a eventuality becomes almost an impossibility, it might be simpler and cheaper to leave the legal agreements as they are rather then attempting to mess with them.

 

Both the above would give rise to the situation where removing the rails is not perused

 

What is almost certain however is that if British Rail industry did have any liabilities they would not have been transferred to Railtrack and hence Network rail - instead remaining with the rump of the British Railways Board till that was dissolved and Highways England (Just renamed National Highways by Boris even though roads in Wales, Scotland and NI are a devolved matter). took on the 'burdensome estate' as it was known.

 

 

 

It would seem that we are both confident in our assertions; for what it's worth, I only posted in the first place because of the implication that rails remained in roads primarily because those responsible couldn't be ar*ed to remove them.

 

I do know, for a fact, that removal would cost very little more than a few year's ongoing maintenance. Traditional railway track is intended to 'flex', whereas roads are not. That is why roads and rails are incompatible, and why level crossing require a lot of maintenance.

 

CJI.

[phil-b259]

24 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

It would seem that we are both confident in our assertions; for what it's worth, I only posted in the first place because of the implication that rails remained in roads primarily because those responsible couldn't be ar*ed to remove them.

 

I do know, for a fact, that removal would cost very little more than a few year's ongoing maintenance.

 

 

Ahh but don't under estimate the ability of the railway to keep redundant assets in place! 

 

I know of serval cases where signals and points have been secured out of use for years but left in place (or even replaced with new) because its too much effort to remove them (and we are not taking about the physical removal - its mostly all the background stuff - redoing signalling diagrams arranging test schedules, etc which has to happen to make the railway safe / good afterwards) that is the problem.

 

34 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

 Traditional railway track is intended to 'flex', whereas roads are not. That is why roads and rails are incompatible, and why level crossing require a lot of maintenance.

 

 

True to a degree (but if it flexes too much derailments will result while road vehicle suspensions tend to have much more give in them) - plus metal rails corrode considerably faster one you encase them in tarmac etc

 

However if the railway is out of use (mothballed or closed) then its less of an issue as you can fill in gaps / voids without caring what it does (within reason). Indeed many of our big cities are riddled with abandoned tram tracks that have simply been tarmacked over - The building of modern tramways frequently finding chunks of it needing to be removed once they dig down a couple of inches. I bet some Beaching era level crossing closures are the same....

[bradfordbuffer]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Ahh but don't under estimate the ability of the railway to keep redundant assets in place! 

 

I know of serval cases where signals and points have been secured out of use for years but left in place (or even replaced with new) because its too much effort to remove them (and we are not taking about the physical removal - its mostly all the background stuff - redoing signalling diagrams arranging test schedules, etc which has to happen to make the railway safe / good afterwards) that is the problem.

 

 

True to a degree (but if it flexes too much derailments will result while road vehicle suspensions tend to have much more give in them) - plus metal rails corrode considerably faster one you encase them in tarmac etc

 

However if the railway is out of use (mothballed or closed) then its less of an issue as you can fill in gaps / voids without caring what it does (within reason). Indeed many of our big cities are riddled with abandoned tram tracks that have simply been tarmacked over - The building of modern tramways frequently finding chunks of it needing to be removed once they dig down a couple of inches. I bet some Beaching era level crossing closures are the same....

Gentlemen in my best scouser accent.....permed hair....big tash...calm down, calm down, calm down..its just a model railway forum or a abandoned rail.!

[montyburns56]

23 hours ago, Kris said:

Minor road crossing on the Bodmin to Wenfordbridge line. 

 

 

How it used to look in 1982...

 

 

[Kris]

Very different now. Whilst it is a shame that the track has gone and that trains no longer run, it is a nice cycle trail and by a long way the quietest part of the Camel trail. 

[bradfordbuffer]

2 hours ago, montyburns56 said:

 

How it used to look in 1982...

 

 

That's a brill photo...look at the clearance between 08 handrail and the building on left!.....so modelible!  

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, bradfordbuffer said:

That's a brill photo...look at the clearance between 08 handrail and the building on left!.....so modelible!  

 

It would make a lovely model, though I’m not sure I’d have the confidence to make the clearances that tight in model form!