rodent279

Yes, the section between Warmley & south of Siston where it rejoins the old trackbed is not the best bit, I agree.

Which might not be a bad idea, given the events of a few years ago!

It's another line that probably shouldn't have shut. Like Woodhead, I think had it survived in it's entirety, it would have had a role in todays railway, but probably too far gone now to be worth the effort.

Quite a lot of people use it actually, for commuting between Warmley & Filton/Abbeywood/Parkway. The cycle path was re-routed onto a new formation when the A4174 was built. I wasn't living here then, so I'm not sure that section of line was even in use as a cycle path befopre the ring road was built. As for Sustrans/Cyclebag etc-I can't see them having any resonable objection, as long as a sensible segregated cycle route is proposed. I can't see why a shared use route would not be possible, like further along where the AVR & cycle path happily co-exist. People don't like change, so they need to be brought round to see the benefits, not bullied or cajoled into it.

What is the extent of devolved government in the two countries quoted as being allegedly the most successful in reviving railways in the UK, ie Scotland and Wales, compared to England? I wonder if there is a clue there?

Not in any way being an expert in the processes involved, the only explanation I can give is political will, or lack thereof. Whatever the reasons, they are worth investigationg & understanding.

Yep, agree entirely. Distraction politics, tugging at the heartstrings. Appealing to those who hanker after a long lost "golden era", that probably didn't really exist. Edit:and I don't mean that to be disrespectful to those who were conscious in the 1950's. I'm sure there were many good things, and many happy memories. I grew up in the 70's & 80's. I've got many happy memories, but I don't want to go back & live there. Feck no, the world was not a better place then. It maybe felt better, because as a child & teenager I had the comforts & security of home.

I have to say, as a cyclist & car driver, some of the best drivers on the roads are lorry drivers, followed closely by bus drivers. Of course there are total idiots aomngst them, but there are idiots in every level, section & strata of society. I had more problems as a cyclist with other cyclists than I did with drivers. Don't get me started about the idiots who insist on cycling at night with no lights & no high vis, then try to blame you for nearly running into them. Are people total idiots? Some of them, yes.

Yes. There are some amazingly stupid people out there.

If you do the IAM test, you get taught that anything on the roads is potentially a hazard, & should be regarded as such. Anything could happen. The driver could lose control & swerve at you. His brakes could fail. Especially if it's a slow lorry, another vehicle could try to overtake it from behind, and steer into your path. If you treat it as a hazard waiting to happen, you are likely to be that much more able to react.

Driving without due care & attention, surely?

So is the height of lorries marked when it is empty or full? Is there a system for measuring the maximum height on the spot after loading/unloading?

Getting back to the topic title-Reversing Beeching-we couldn't reverse Beeching if we tried, and anyway, why would we want to? As I said earlier, some lines & stations probably shoudn't have closed, and some that have may well be worth reopening, but you have to consider the modern railway in the context of serving the needs of the modern day Britain. Britain today is a totally different country to Britain in 1948, so why should a railway network that arguably wasn't really that well suited to the Britain of 1948 be suited to the modern day?

Well, you do have a point there, and it comes back to integration. Maybe the line, at least the commuter operations south of Aylesbury, would be better served through extension of electrification & proper integration into what is now LO. I think that applies to a lot of London area operations-Euston-Watford, for example, should probably have gone over to LU in the 1950's when the LMS/LNWR stock became obsolete. It seems to be how it's done in Paris, SNCF operates the monger distance outer suburban operations, the inner suburban & underground operations are RATP & Metro.

I think in a lot of cases, light rail is a much more natural partner to the national heavy rail network than buses. Imagine if the Avonmouth line were exteded to Filton & Parkway-with on-street running you could reach right into the heart of Bradley Stoke. Knowing the layout of the roads there, you could actually segregate most of it, there's room.

Let's not look down our noses at light rail. It's what a lot of rail lines either should,would or could have morphed into. Ok there's not much in the way of new heavy rail, discounting Chunnel, HS1 & the embryonic HS2, but light rail does seem to be a success story, which will hopefully grow. If schemes like Bristol-Portishead, & Avonmouth-Filton/Parkway eventually materialise as light rail or mixed light/heavy rail, I'm all for it. Edit-but I agree, England has not been as good at promoting and following through on heavy rail schemes as Scotland & Wales.

That is very true, all the more remarkable for a line on the brink of extinction in the early 80's.

Is it not perhaps the methodology that's flawed, so much as the political will that's lacking? Regarding new routes-there are probably scores of localised extensions & additions to the network that would be useful & worthwhile, if not viable in the hard cash sense. One that springs to mind is Bere Alston-Tavistock. Another is the total lack of any rail route to largish towns such as Brackely & Buckingham. Bristol-Portishead is another, along with joining the Avonmouth line to the existing loop to Filton/Parkway, but I have a feeling that these last two, like East-West Rail, will run & run.

I think the Scotland/Wales v England point is an important one. I can't help thinking that if, for example, East-West Rail had been in Scotland, it would have happened by now.

First off, I have to say that this is one of the most interesting and informative topics I've yet seen on RMWEB. Regarding feasibility, I'm an engineer by profession, though I'll admit I'm not really well versed in project management. I do know, however, and it's common sense really, that if you just rush into a job without thinking it through, you tend to end up re-doing it, because it's not really suitable/up to scratch/what you really wanted. This applies to most things, from putting up shelves, to fitting a kitchen, building a house, planning telecom networks (wot I do), rebuilding the engine on my Morris Minor, all the way through to electrfying a railway or building a new railway. Feasibility studies are just that-thinking it through. Looking at the whole picture, the broader scheme. Yes you can overdo it, and spend more time pushing pens, or a mouse, around, than the actual work would take, but before you start putting spades into the ground you need to know what you are up against, & why you are doing it. 7P's on a grand scale, that's all it is. Prior Planning & Preparation Prevents Piss-Poor Performance. I stand by one of my first posts on this thread-that a lot of those closed railways, whether closed under Beeching or not, should never have been built. If we were planning railways now, from scratch, I'll bet we would not have the network we have now, let alone the one we had pre-Beeching. Edit:-A lot of the procrastination around feasibilty studies is rooted in politics/politicians.

I said earlier in the thread (at least I think it was this one...) that it's not so much nationalisation/de-nationalisation that is the problem/solution/answer to the question, as integration, or the lack thereof. Not just in the operational sense, from a network perspective, but in a wider context, with other modes of transport. We've never had that in this country, not nearly so much as in other European countries anyway.

Regarding the last point, FoI request surely would throw some light on it?

Yes, I agree. You have to be able to justify it, That means you have to take into account all the influencing factors, and all the possible knock-on effects. Longer journey times are one element, not necessarily a show stopper, but something that needs to be considered. If it's just for the purposes of getting pax from Malton to a hypothetical new southern NYMR terminus, you'd probably be better off running a connecting bus. Maybe there'd still be benefit in having a minimalist mainline connection at Rillington, or wherever, but something like the connection to the SDR at Totnes, or Mdland Railway at Ironville. Something only used once in a while, under special arrangements.

All of which goes to prove the point that it's not so much the physical state of the infrastructure, but that once you've given up the right of way, reopening is an order of magnitude more difficult.

Interesting, I didn't know that reopening as far as south of the A170 was proposed. I suppose you've got Flamingoland as an attraction nearby as well. You could even re-instate the crossing for occasional use, non-passenger, stock movements etc.