Two views of a discussion

[whole diary]

[CyclingSid]

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.

[Lee]

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?

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^▸ (Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway) 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.

[grahame]

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.

[grahame]

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.

[CyclingSid]

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^▸ (United Kingdom) 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. Although commenting on the PMs physique is a bit below the belt.

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

[Richard Fairhurst]

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).

[Red Squirrel]

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.

[...]

...I would dearly like to see trains running from Mangotsfield to Bristol.

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.

[Robin Summerhill]

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^▸ (Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway) 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 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^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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^▸ (United Kingdom) 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.

[Bmblbzzz]

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?

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).

[ellendune]

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.

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^▸ (Great Western) 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.

[Robin Summerhill]

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?

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).

If such a reopening were to be seriously contemplated, it would not serve as an alternative and longer route than the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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.

[Robin Summerhill]

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.

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^▸ (Great Western) 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.

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

[Red Squirrel]

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^▸ (United Kingdom), 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.

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

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?

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).

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

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.

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^▸ (Great Western) 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.

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...

[grahame]

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^▸ (Counties that Used to Be Avon) 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.

[Robin Summerhill]

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^▸ (United Kingdom), 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.

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

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.