Great Western Coffee Shop

There have been recent discussions on restoring rail to various former lines, e.g. Radstock to Frome, Ringwood to Brockenhurst and Didcot to Southampton.

In all three cases part, or all, of the line is an existing cycling path. How do you fairly balance the possibly conflicting arguments for cycle and rail? Who might be considered impartial by both camps? What evidence base is available?

Looking at a couple of existing cases. The Two Tunnels path in Bath. This is an existing part of the National Cycle Network. There is also, I believe, a desire to restore some sort of rail to the route. Of the routes that come to mind, I would imagine the Two Tunnels is most likely to have a significant cycle commuting element. How would you balance that with a possible seasonable tourist benefit for rail, although there is a considerable seasonable tourist benefit for cycling?

The Bristol to Bath cycle route is also part of the National Cycle Network. In parts this quite successfully runs cycle and rail next to each other. Either end might have cycle commuting element, although the bulk of the route is less likely. Can proposed rail projects satisfactorily combine cycle and rail?

In both examples, I am not local and forum members might have more detailed knowledge.

In some cases Border Rail is cited as an example. It would appear that the Scottish Government has been proactive with rail and cycle. It appears to understand the tourist potential of both, as well as day to day use. British government, national and local, does not seem to have the same belief in tourist potential for cycle to the economy, or the environment.

We have had to correct this misunderstanding a couple of times before. The proposals for the restoration of a rail link from Bath to Radstock/Midsomer Norton and possibly onto Shepton Mallet (and some believe very long-term the whole former S&D route) do not include the reuse of the Two Tunnels route in Bath, because both providing a viable connection to the national rail network that way and adapting the cycle route are not considered practical.

An alternative route, deviating after Midford, and running via the old Camerton branch via Monkton Combe to join the Cardiff-Portsmouth route between Bathampton and Limpley Stoke has long been mapped out to enable some form of S&D reopening should it ever become truly feasible. A detailed discussion on the proposals can be found here. (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20967.0)

Lee's answer on the specific is spot on - but it does not address CyclingSid's more general question.

Both trains and cycling are (on balance) "good" for the future of transport and climate, and we have the somewhat unfortunate issue of two good ways forward being at times somewhat in conflict with each other.

Taking the extreme example already mentioned - Bath to Midford via the tunnels.  Single track bores, no room for both cycles and trains and something else needs to be done if both are to be accommodated.   And, yes, Midford to Limpley Stoke (last used by the Titfield Thunderbolt??) makes sense. Easier that tunnels to operate, and brings the trains into the same station in Bath as all the other train services there.

At the opposite extreme, look at Bitton towards Saltford where a former double line is now a single line and a parallel cycle track, and I think (a long time since I walked it) similar may be the case out of Radstock at least as far as Kilmersdon.

But there are many problem places.  I would dearly like to see trains running from Mangotsfield to Bristol.     Looking wider, you see trams weaving their way through in places like Miles Platting to stand clear of heavy rail, and you see cycle lanes that are far from direct.  In both cases, some diversions are logical and acceptable, go too far and people simply won't use the facilities.   I am minded of the "Cycle facility of the month" website showing some extreme cases of diversions going beyond the sensible.

Following on from myself ... two examples of how not to do it.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/February2009.htm
Canal banks can provide excellent, attractive, hill-free cycle routes. This example from Volendam, The Netherlands, shows that a safe traffic free path can be created, even when space is at a premium.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/February2011.htm
Highways authorities often find it difficult to construct cycle facilities in towns due to the constraints of space. However, when space becomes available, there may be an opportunity to improve conditions for cyclists. In this example near Ingleby Barwick, Stockton Council identified some unused land and used it to increase the length of their cycle network by several hundred metres.

Sorry Lee, I did say I didn't have the local knowledge. But as Grahame says it was only an example towards a more  general discussion.

Yes Grahame there are no shortage of bad examples, but possible less examples of the good (in this country).

Boris has apparently told "UK mayors that far more commuters will need to cycle when nation begins to emerge from lockdown" https://road.cc/content/news/johnson-tells-uk-mayors-encourage-cycling-273163 (https://road.cc/content/news/johnson-tells-uk-mayors-encourage-cycling-273163). Although commenting on the PMs physique is a bit below the belt.

But going forward how should fair evidence-based decisions be arrived at.

It is, in theory, easy to provide a good-quality alternative cycle route if the trackbed (or part of it) is reclaimed for passenger use. Bikes can go round corners more easily than trains, cycleway overbridges can be simpler and more ramped, etc.

I say "in theory" because British highway authorities are notoriously bad at the practice. The Cycle Facility of the Month website needs to be taken with a pinch of salt because the author is opposed to cycle-specific infrastructure of any kind, and uses it to further his agenda. But it's undeniable there's some really terrible cycle provision out there.

The Waverley reopening was quite an instructive example. Part of the route was previously used for a cycleway. Sustrans "objected" to the planning application for reopening, but made it clear in the opening paragraph that they weren't objecting to reopening the railway - quite the opposite. Their concern was that any replacement cycleway should continue to be of high quality, and in the initial plans, it wasn't.

Heritage rail use is more nuanced. I don't think anyone would dispute that the Welsh Highland Railway returning to the trackbed south of Caernarfon has been a massive net gain for the area. I've also heard some sensible plans as to how Sustrans and the GWSR could work together in a couple of places. Conversely, there are several locations where a popular cycleway is always going to be of more benefit than a fairly marginal heritage operation (I won't name names, but it doesn't take much imagination to think of them).

From a rail perspective, re-using the Midland alignment from Bristol through Mangotsfield to Yate makes a great deal of sense. It's worth reminding ourselves that Filton Bank was built as part of the Bristol and South Wales Union Railway, whilst the Midland Line was originally the Bristol and Gloucester Railway. If the Midland line was still open we would avoid the current situation whereby north-south trains have to share the route from Bristol Parkway to Westerleigh with east-west services, a major capacity constraint.

However recent conflicts between pedestrians, dog walkers, bicycle users and local people who value this as a linear park show that there is not enough space to accommodate existing uses, let alone run a railway up it.

So: It's a useful alignment, connects well to Temple Meads at one end and Yate at the other. How hard would it be to build a tunnel under it, perhaps emerging at Mangotsfield? It strikes me that tunnelling could solve a lot of issues where old alignments have been partially lost or re-used. If we are serious about remaking lost connections, isn't this the way to go? Permissions and wayleaves would presumably be much easier to obtain than if you were tunnelling under buildings.

A point which I feel is frequently lost on many railway-minded folk is that if a line is considered for reopening, it is not set in tablets of stone that it must unwaveringly follow the course of the original line. Bath to Midford is a good example of why sometimes to do so would be absolutely ridiculous. There is no way, without knocking half of Oldfield Park down, that it would be possible to link it to the GWR main line. And even leaving to one side that you would have to knock down a trading estate, a retail park and a number of brand new blocks of flats to get it back to Green Park, it would be of precious little use to the UK rail network to have such a line terminating half a mile away from Bath's major station.

Matters can sometimes get even more complicated when people are railway minded and cyclists! I have had a conversation with someone who thought that the Chippenham to Calne footpath/ cycle track "was job half done by the Council" because there is a nearly half a mile long gap in it east of Stanley Bridge and one needs to go "on road" to bypass it. This line of reasoning fails to recognise that the Council wanted to provide an off-road route from Chippenham to Calne, not reuse the entire branch for purist purposes.

As regards the Midland line from Bristol to Yate, there are two important points to consider. Firstly, as one of the first long distance cycle routes in the UK, Sustrans get very protective about it whenever someone suggests that it is used again for the purpose it was originally built. On the other hand (and this is where the "two views of a discussion" comes into the equation) the line was originally built as a double track broad gauge railway. There is in theory plenty of room over the majority of its length to be widened back to those dimensions by simply removing half a century's worth of vegetation, accumulated spoil and the landslip that originally closed it a week before it's time, and have enough room for both a railway and the Bristol to Bath Railway Path.

There are quite a lot of people who cycle-commute between Bristol and Bath, in both directions. Right now probably more doing that than by train...  :-\ In any case, while another rail line between these places would no doubt be useful, it would be indirect compared to the existing route and the only new places it would serve would be parts of east Bristol. I feel there are other lines which could be reopened to greater benefit; Portishead for one, which will also have to share parts of its route with a cyclepath (or divert that path – I don't know what the detailed proposals are there).

Surely if that was the problem it could be resolved more cheaply by grade separation at Westerleigh using the old Midland route under the GW and looping round to join the GW on the south side.  Though I think that would need the down Midland line to cross over the up.

If such a reopening were to be seriously contemplated, it would not serve as an alternative and longer route than the GWR main line. Its purpose would be as a suburban railway linking both Bristol and Bath to their dormitory towns and suburbs.

Whilst Bath has not grown much on its western side, the spread of residential development in north east and east Bristol has been phenomenal. When the line was open, a couple of hundred yards out of Staple Hill tunnel you saw little more than green fields all the way to the outskirts of Bath. Now there is a substantial development around the railway route at Mangotshield and the course of the line runs through almost a whole new town between Warmley and Oldland Common/ Bitton station.

Within reasonable walking distance of the former stations, let alone new ones that might be provided, you have substantial residential areas at the east end of Staple Hill, at Emerson's Green and at Longwell Green. Furthermore, a station provided on much the same site as the old Kelston station (with improved access arrangements) would actually better serve most of Saltford than the former GWR station site.

The biggest drawbacks would be building a new line near Newton St Loe to connect to the GWR line, and deciding what to do about the three level crossings between Warmley and Oldland Common

Whilst I traditionally take a somewhat jaundiced initial view when I read of new reopening proposals (mailnly due to the number of crackpot schemes around that even the Railway Mania fanatics of the 1840s would be embarrassed by), this one could actually "have legs" if approached in the righ way. Whether or not it would ever happen would of course be another matter entirely.

The biggest problem to overcome between Mangotsfield and Yate is not thinking about a new connection to the GWR line. The problem is over half a mile of the formation has been obliterated at Emersons Green by the A4174 Bristol East Ring Road

Maybe in theory, but absolutely not in practice! Cycle traffic is sufficiently heavy south of Fishponds that 4m of the formation really needs to be set aside as a segregated cycle lane. If you allow another 3m for pedestrians and 3m for landscaping (it is, after all, a park), then that's your 10m right-of-way gone.

For a reasoned explanation of the issues, see here: https://bristolcycling.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BCyC-Response-to-Sustrans-BBRP-Proposals-06012020.pdf



Remember that the line from Mangotsfield to Bath was essentially a branch; the main line was the Bristol and Gloucester which is a more direct route to the north than the current circuitous route via the South Wales Union and the Badminton Line



Grade separation at Westerleigh would certainly help, but you still end up with east-west and north-south trains sharing a very busy stretch of two-track main line between there and Bristol Parkway. Of course if north-south trains were following the old route via Mangotsfield, they wouldn't be stopping at Parkway... you'd almost want to move Parkway station to Westerleigh...

There are so many points to comment on here ... rather than zebra stripes of quotes, some comments

- A flyunder at Westerleigh Junction would, indeed, put trains on the "wrong side" headed north towards / South from Gloucester unless they crossed over. But could they run on the opposite side to normal - right hand running - for some considerable distance? I am minded of the flyover at Wimbledon where the up slow crosses over the up and down mains. Even at the junction just north of Stonehouse; perhaps just one ramp not two needed there??

- Local stations a good idea on the way in via Mangotsfield, but if they can't add local stations every mile or two up Filton Bank, what makes you think they'll do so on the new line?

- "CUBA Parkway" or "Chipping Sodbury" at Westerleigh ... too many big stations in too short a distance?  But then Bristol Parkway is a victim of its own success.

Well I've read it all and whilst I agree that it is reasoned, it is reasoned from solely a cycling perspective. That of course would be expected, but wider issues also need to be addressed.

They speak much, for example, of separating the different types of path users. However in recent years there has been a move towards removal of separation between types of road user (look at the area on the site of the former Bristol Goods as an example) which has the effect of slowing traffic down. This concept was originally tried out about 30 years ago in the Netherlands, and they do know a thing or two about cycling!

They say that "speeding cyclists" is a subjective matter (as indeed it is) and also that only a very small minority of cyclists are guilty (with which I also agree). However, implementing user separation is more likely to excerbate this problem than solve it, because it could give the lycra-clad a false sense of security.

The thrust of the argument summarised as: "it is busy in the peak so it needs to be widened" is not one that Highway Engineers have recognised for a generation or two! Whilst the railway path is not a highway in the legal sense, its usage by a number of different groups with different means of transport (ie feet, cycles, mobility scooters, maintenance vehicles etc) means in my view that any moves to solve any problem should appreciate this, and not favour one group over another.

So in summary I am not convinced by their overall position. Widening the path would only lead to a potential increase in differential speeds between the slowest and fastest users. Introding the odd obstruction or chicane, carefully designed of  course, would not inconvenience any but the small minority of "speeders." After reading it all I still remain convinced that there is plentiful room to widen the route to its original dimesions and provide both a good quality railway path and a railway line.

And the lycra-clad would either have to accept it or find a race track more suitable for their needs.

The fact that this was once a main line, and should never have been closed, is not relevant here. It is now an important linear park and active travel corridor, and will without doubt remain so.

The 'shared space' concept you refer to is not without its critics! In particular people with visual and hearing disabilities don't like them at all. 'Shared space' only works in places with low levels of vehicular traffic, and for our purposes here we should probably consider bicycles to be vehicles. This is the busiest cycling route into Bristol.

I can't see how putting up a fence between bicycle users and others would give 'the lycra-clad' a false sense of security. From whom? It would certainly give parents walking their young children to school a real sense of security. I'm not sure that BCycC are after favours; they recognise that the path holds dangers for all classes of users and think Sustrans' plans could make things worse.

I'd be interested to know which alternative 'race track' you would recommend for the bicycle commuters who use this route?

As someone who is visually impaired himself I think I should respond to this! (Blind in one eye through glaucoma and a severe cataract in the other that the NHS won't be dealing with any time soon).

Life is never exactly the same for people with visual or audible disabilities as it is for everybody else. Luckily my hearing is very good and I rely more on sound to warn me of danger. That doesn't stop me walking into silent things like benches but at least I can hear a cyclist coming, and from some distance away. I have used this path very frequently since it opened, for walking and cycling, and I have never been over-concerned about my personal safety down there. Personally my current biggest issue is with electric cars, which one can't always hear coming.

I can't comment for the hearing impaired and you must ask then for their take on the issue.


I feel you are not looking at the whole picture here. Separation in itself, when cyclists know that this bit of the path is for them and them alone, would give to some of them the encoragement to go a bit faster. And that would be fine, and nothing would happen, right up until somebody unexpectedly joins the path and crosses the cycle lane to the pedestrian lane. Or right up until the time that a toddler who doesn't understand these things suddenly decides to cross the cycle lane to look at something.

I found it rather telling that they sought at every opportunity to emphasise the "fakeness" of the zebra ccrossing, whilst at the same time berating the Council and the Police for not enforcing their byelaw about dogs on leads(not that the police haven't got better things to do, of course)

Incidentally, exactly this happened to me a few years ago when my eyesight was still good enough to cycle. I was riding the coastal/ prom route from Sandbanks to Southbourne. Up at the Southbourne end there are some beach huts and a boy of about two years of age came flying out of one of them aiming for the beach. I was a few yards away at the time so that didn't cause me a problem. What did cause a problem was he suddenly changed his mind and ran back into my path. I went flying whilst missing him but I was only doing about 10mph (I rarely cycled any faster). It might be interesting to see what happened if a boy racer had been tanking it down from Fishponds and that happened on the "fake" zebra crossing. Perhaps we should have kids on leads as well as dogs?


Horses for courses. If you are commuting on a bike you should be riding in a way that doesn't inconvenience other users,not treat it as a time trial.

My no.3 son was a member of Chippenham cycling club in his teens and 20s, and often went time trialling with them. They used quiet country lanes in North Wiltshire. I accept that there are more quiet country lanes around here than there are around Greenbank and Easton, but they'll find quite a few to amuse themselves on beyond Pucklechurch. And, being time triallers, it shouldn't take 'em long to get there ;)

Other examples where the railway/cyclepath controversy rages:

Buxton to Bakewell to Rowsley - the Monsal trail on the ex-Midland main line from St Pancras to Manchester.  Which Peak Rail would love to extend their track over, but the presence of the cyclepath makes that tricky.

Boscarne Jn to Wadebridge (to Padstow?) - the Camel trail. Where the Bodmin & Wenford Railway would love to extend, but as the track was single originally, the likelihood of there being enough width for train and bike is slim.

I have to declare conflicting interests.  As a volunteer signalman at Bodmin General, I have, on occasion, cycled from Padstow in order to start my shift.  The roads that the Camel Trail bypasses are not cycle-friendly in the least.

If it weren't for today's risk-aversion, I'd favour a "share the road" solution with tram-style concrete track that one could cycle on, cyclists advised that trains could appear in either direction at any time, and a TOWS(Train Operated Warning System)-style set of lights and sirens to advise the cyclists to find a refuge when a train approaches.

Discuss...

True, obviously, as it is for any mode.

I think, if anything, the movement has been more in the opposite direction. Look at London, and the new(ish) Cycle Superhighways which are entirely segregated from car (and pedestrian) traffic. Look at the same type of segregated infrastructure being installed in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leicester, Cambridge. Look at new highway design guidance such as Oxfordshire's. The Netherlands has more kilometres of segregated cycle route than anywhere else in the world - and as you say, they do know a thing or two about cycling. :)

In order to give a reasoned reply to this, Richard, can you provide some evidential links to the schemes at the locations you quote please?

My personal feeling on shared walking/cycling routes is that nobody should be going much faster than jogging speed. Especially the case with re-purposed pavements and narrow paths. If you want to train for the Tour de France be considerate and grown-up and use the road.

• London: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_Superhighway_3
• Birmingham: https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/50122/cycling_in_birmingham/1322/where_can_i_cycle/2
• Manchester: https://tfgm.com/cycling/routes/wilmslow-road-cycleway
• Liverpool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKkWawwVAXg
• Leicester: https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/plans-cycle-lanes-along-3-2997264
• Cambridge: https://road.cc/content/news/215646-cycling-doubles-cambridge-road-thanks-protected-bike-lane
• Leeds/Bradford: https://www.cyclecityconnect.co.uk/our-routes/bradford-leeds-cycle-superhighway/

and plenty more (but I'd be here all day if I were to list them all...).

Thanks Richard. It appears we might be talking at crossed purposes.

Virtually all of the examples you linked to are predominantly on road cycle routes, and there is of course nothing unusual about that. The road - cycle lane - pavement layout is seen all over the country, and indeed there is an example a couple of hundred yards from where I'm sitting now. I also know of plenty of examples (virtually all on-road examples) where white paint indicates a pedestrian lane and a cycle lane. I'm not sure they are ever enforced though, if indeed they are enforceable - we don't have "jaywalking" laws in the UK and the number of public places where pedestrians are specifically forbidden to go are few and far between - only really on motorways and some dual carriageways and signs will be seen specifically saying "No pedestrians."

There are no such signs on any cycle route I have ever encountered, and I have encountered quite a few in years gone by. That's not to say that they don't exist of course, just that I have never encountered any, and my cycling has taken me from Padstow to the far east of the Kent coast, and from beyond the south coast (Isle of Wight ex-railway routes) to Manchester and Warrington.

Whether any cycle/pedestrian segregation is actually enforced anywhere in the country I personally would doubt (Only opinion of course and not fact). They generally rely on self-policing. One segregated route that I have come across that probably does have a high level of self policing is the Middleton Way between Rose Hill Marple and Macclesfield - you will see why from the photograph below!


But there  are very big differences in my view between the normal provision of shared footpath/ cycle tracks and those needed in the case of the Bristol and Bath one, and they are the gradient and the lack of the usual impediments such as give way signs, roundabouts etc. This can result in unusually high disparity between average speeds of the users. The only other shared ex-railway path I can think of with anywhere near that sort of gradient is between Boscarne Junction and Wadebridge, but that doesn’t go through a built up area where people are regularly joining and leaving the path at many intermediate points. Similarly the banks on the Cromford & High Peak, but in my view you’d be an absolute nutcase to try to cycle down those in the first place (that Catch Pit at Cromford was put there for a reason!!).

On Fishponds bank we have two miles of uninterrupted downhill except at Clay Bottom and the “fake” zebra crossing. To do anything that would even remotely lead to the possibility of an increase in differential speeds down there would be potentially lethal, and that is why I hold the (quite strong now I’ve thought even more about it) view that the path should not be widened, cyclists and pedestrians should not both be given a false sense of security by introducing segregation that would not be enforced and indeed would be unworkable given the number of access points on the bank, and that anything that is done down there should be aimed at reducing differential speeds rather than potentially increasing them.

Just my take on the subject of course, and other takes may differ. But the heading on this thread is “Two views of a discussion.”

They have similar segregation signs on the Hayling Billy Trail. Interestingly most of the "manure" is on the non-horse side. They must have anatomically odd horses!

Perhaps!

The movement in recent years has strongly been towards urban, commuter routes being segregated tracks for cyclists. Just putting some paint on a road, to mark out a cycle lane, is now generally accepted as substandard design. (Though of course that doesn't stop councils doing it...)

Rural, recreational routes away from roads remain predominantly shared-use.

Where conflict seems to occur most is when you have a route which serves both purposes (recreational and commuter) and has high levels of cycle usage. In particular, the Bristol & Bath railway path, the western section of the Kennet & Avon towpath, and the Regent's Canal towpath in London.

Ultimately the only answer here, I think, is to alleviate the pressure by providing more commuter capacity elsewhere - i.e. more safe, direct segregated cycle tracks by roads. As I've written in the pages of Waterways World, London commuter cyclists don't choose the Regent's Canal because they like looking at ducks, they choose it because they don't want to get squashed by a tipper truck.

I found it hard to envisage any gradient a railway could get up that might be too steep to cycle down, so I had to look this up. So it isn't or wasn't a conventional railway: hauled by static steam engines using cables. But the steepest gradient was 1 in 7, according to Wikipedia. That's about 14% – steep for a train but not excessively steep for a road. There are residential streets in Bristol which reach 40%! So you'd hardly be a nutcase to cycle down Bunsall Lower Incline (the steepest section according to Wikipedia).

My other half seems to be able to detect, and complain about, anything much steeper than about 1 in 100 when cycling

Apologies for making you work! I didn't think an explanation of the Comford & High Peak would be necessary, but perhaps I didn't appreciate that it closed in 1967, it is 150 miles away from GWR territory, and not everybody reading this would be as fascinated by the line as I have been all my life!

In brief, it was one of the UK's earliest railways with construction starting in 1825, and ran from Cromford, between Derby and Matlock, to Whaley Bridge, linking the quarries in the Debrbyshire Peak District to the Cromford Canal in the south and the Peak Forest Canal in the north. The intention had been to build a canal, but when this new fangled idea of railways came along they built one of those instead. The problem was they used canal principles, and most of the line is almost flat. Where changes of gradient were required it was done in one go, substituting a lock flight if you like with a stationary engine winding vehicles up and down. Needless to say, the line never became part of the normal UK rail network as it developed, and was stuck with this odd method of operation until the final section closed in 1967. When the LNWR built their Asbourne to Buxton line in the 1890s the northern section beyond Parsley Hay was abandoned.

There are three major inclines on the section of line between Cromford and Parsley Hay and that is the section I have ridden - Sheep Pasture (1 in 8 and 1 in 9), Middleton (1 in 8 ) and Hopton (1 in 12) The latter was actually worked by adhesion and here id a [hot of a sign at the top of it:

(https://thumbsnap.com/s/2pK3EnKf.jpg)


All three inclines have signs at the top of them saying "cyclists advised to walk" Perhaps to that end, all three are not as well surfaced as the rest of the High Peak Trail, and it was that fact more than anything else that engendered my "nutcase" remark, I've ridden down 1 in 4 hills on roads, such as Summer Hill in Totterdown, but riding down a poorly surfaced 1 in 8 that goes on for a mile or so is another matter!

It's hard to convey a 3D matter on a 2D photograph but here is my attempt at doing that on Hopton incline. The railway is to the right on the picture.

](https://thumbsnap.com/s/jgBv2yTX.jpg)


Finally, what it looks like at the top and bottom of Sheep Pasture. The bottom shot shows the remains of the catch pit:

(https://thumbsnap.com/s/ra7J3J7a.jpg)

(https://thumbsnap.com/s/RRq48b2b.jpg)

It was a welcome distraction from the work I'm supposed to be doing! As are the photos, even more so.

...and your input is valued and thought-provoking!

The last few km of the Bristol and Bath Railway Path is, among other things, a very important commuter route. It is likely to become more important. Active travel will almost certainly be prioritised as we learn to adapt to the threat of Coronavirus.

Users, as we have discussed, range from toddlers on their way to school to fit and fast long-distance cycle commuters. There are bound to be tensions. I don't think we're going to agree on how best to resolve these!

But whatever else may happen, I think we can all agree that there is no possibility of accommodating a double track railway along this route unless it's in a tunnel underneath it. Which leads me to ask: What use would a single line be? Where would it go?

You've got me thinking again now  ;D

Even in steam days, nine minutes was par for the course between Temple Meads and Fishponds. I sm now thinking one way of utilising the route for public transport as well as its current use might be a light rail tram system running from the central area, joining the existing formation at either Barton Hill or Russell Town Avenue, with a single line up the bank with a passing loop at Fishponds and another at Mangotsfield. With a bit of careul timetabling a 15-minute interval service could be operated. Put in another passing loop on he Greenbank side of Kingswood junction atb that woould give a more frequent service possible, with the advantage of putting a chicane in on the path to slow down errant boy racers!

As regards where it would go, Emersons Green would be the obvious choice. Extending it beyond to Yate and/or Warmley and Bath would get a lot more expensive needing to bridge the A4174 Ring Road.

 I shall now stop pipe dreaming and come back to  reality  ;D

Of course, neither the Regents Canal nor the K&A have any pedestrian/ cycle segregation. The Regents Canal has plenty of impediments to sustained speed - two on road diversions to avoid tunnels under Edgware Road and Islington, restless natives with their cycle prohibition on the towpath at Maida Vale, plenty of locks, a right hand turn at Regents Park, permanently congested areas such as at Camden Lock and the general disincentive to speed that if you get it wrong you can get wet very quickly and very easily...

I admit I didn't even realise there was much commuter traffic on the K&A into Bath. Presumably it mainly comes from eastern Bath and perhaps Bradford on Avon? It is possible to get up to a fair rate of knots on the towpath at Widcombe flight, but there is a sharp turn there too and a very main road at the bottom, once again I would imagine de-incentivising high speed.

i can fully appreciate why both routes would be a far better alternative than the roads in the area though.

In case anyone is interested in the Cromford & High Peak Railway, latterly the High Peak Trail, I posted some photographs on Flickr some years ago. They are not in an album, but the first in the series, showing the northern end of the Trail at Dowlow, is here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/93122458@N08/19830273414/

Just keep clicking on the right arrow mid-screen and you can see them all. Once an image of the Handyside  Bridge at Derby appears you've got to the end!

Not to mention the paving with engineering bricks which are pretty lethal when wet, and a tendency to an adverse camber towards the canal.