re: https://yorkmix.com/old-dales-railway-line-route-to-be-turned-into-a-cycle-path-despite-opposition/
Ruth Annieson is a long term campaigner like me and knows a thing or two.
My experience is old routes mooted for other uses on the grounds of protection, often court beit cycle use, walkways, guided busways canals or preservation, then turn from that when reopening is advocated to become blockages and objector-campaigns orchestrated against the rail-way.
One to watch and others in such wakes across the nation... Has Railfuture got a view I wonder?
Guildford-Cranleigh-Horsham-Shoreham another example, Northampton-MH for Leicester, Bedford-ECML via Sandy, South West Launceston too? Whichever organisation seeks to be the No.1 'pro-rail AA' needs to get the vision, find means and ways grassroots and top-down (power) and turn things around as with the push nationwide for development without proper safeguards and tailoring required.
It makes old rail routes and indeed corridors for realignment, re-building, deviations and new pieces of build of local rail - that much harder or gone for good.
So, this is an 11th hour in many cases, only campaigning can turn it around, but BRTA is too small, thin on the ground and so more money and members who double up as volunteers is needed.
That is a priority for the Executive Committee, but can Area Reps keep me as Campaigns Coordinator abreast on such examples, maybe do a list and feed it back.
If you want me to highlight stuff externally, let me know. If the M&GN, MS&JR, Woodhead and Great Central had of been protected, our job would be easier now.
Diminishing windows, diminution of natural resources other than oil sending costs up all translates and Business Cases with complicated equatorial maths seems out of reach to us and a job for a dedicated person/s.
What gives x what takes = 'it' my old NR friend used to say, but greater or lesser is the challenge now and that translates to the extent or limits of modal shift back to rail.
Urban LRT and include LRT Freight too, rural (Borders Local Rail example) and on the question of preservation to community rail to full blown reopening for regular passenger, freight and innovation to optimise revenues is a catchment we need to work on.
When I say 'we', that means all who share this vision. Emissions cannot really come down without such a nationwide joined up programme. But strangely it requires grassroots upwards and top-down Government tiers lending power, resource switching to rail and PLANNING to tailor and ensure the infrastructure is commensurate to the development push now 'on'.
Join and donate to BRTA if you share that vision! Thank you.
Yorkshire National Park Strikes Back! BUt will the railway if pursued for reopening be given priority? Email your MP and demand it is:
Thank you for your email. The report you highlight was presented to the National Park Authority yesterday and approved. Members did raise the issue of the how any new multi-use route might affect the future re-instatement of the Upper Wensleydale railway.
In terms of addressing the points you raise:
- We are in regular contact with local railway campaign groups, such as Upper Wensleydale Railway, to update them on our plans. I understand that group members are broadly supportive of the proposed multi-use route, with assurance from the Authority (both in terms of Local Plan policies and an additional recommendation to the Authority report presented yesterday) that it ensures the development of the Garsdale – Hawes multi-use route will not compromise any future opportunity for railway reinstatement.
- In terms of a cycleway-walkway alongside the railway – this option was considered as part of a feasibility study carried out in 2020. This concluded that the former Hawes branch railway line infrastructure would not be able to accommodate both.
I trust these answers are helpful and offer some re-assurance that the Authority understands your and others concerns regarding the Upper Wensleydale railway. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get back in touch.
Yours sincerely
Elliott Lorimer
| Elliott Lorimer
Director of Park Services Direct line: 01969 652365
Mobile: 07818 048772 |
Here's a taste of what happens when we lose trackbed and settle for second best: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10286668 Guided Busways are not as versatile as conventional, local railways which connect to and from a nationwide network, bringing in footfall and spend in a sustainable manner. https://www.gosport.gov.uk/article/2829/Regenerating-Gosport-s-Waterfront Many called for reopening the rail link, now too late?! Sadly, the model repeats. Daft some may call it, but tragic when rail delivers both versatility, masse footfall and spend to regenerate places and the possibility alive of more freight by rail great and small - let your area be wiser!
Northern Update of a similar vein:
re: https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/stop-tinkering-pleasantries-like-peak-10527445?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1758812259
Derby-Manchester direct, North West-East Midlands direct, rail alternative access to a National Park and modal choices for modal shift - why not slew the cycle path and walk way for the railway inclusion agenda?
Please give it your support by emailing your MP:
Maybe email the media outlet carrying the story. The pro rail organisation is doing their best, but if you think you can add to the case for the railway, please feel free to support them, wade in and take a lead x plethora other similar cases x nationwide and by 'nationwide' we are dealing with England, Scotland and Wales!
If you want us to consider highlighting rail agendas nearer to where you live, then get involved, join, campaign and make the news. That is how BRTA works.
Join our free email loop via info@brtarail.com
re: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3yk284d2yo
It is my belief that it is far better to reinstate the railway and make the Wensleydale Railway as a through-route for passenger and freight potential.
A cycleway-walkway could go alongside with suitable fencing surely? It does not have to go on the trackbed itself?
The view that a walkway-cycleway will protect the route is a falsity in my experience as numerous examples like Bedford-Sandy, Northampton-MH and elsewhere like Monsal Trail, the users turn and become objectors to rail reinstatements? Please wade in as individuals and encourage others likewise if you agree with the above.
Maybe in an ideal world, Northallerton-Garsdale could inform through passenger and freight by rail, linking ECML and WCML on a North Westerly to South Easterly and vice versa axis. That may inform more capacity for more by rail, which would be gain. Could whoever does it, sell paths or auction paths for customers to buy into the scheme? GBR without capability or ambition but laying waste these rare rail examples, is a blunt instrument unless it is pushed by government of any tier?
It is interesting to note the Settle-Carlisle including Garsdale, was threatened with closure and now is being used heavily by passenger and freight because of its through potential and makes one ponder what other closed lines as 'uneconomic' were closed which today would be really useful railways? Maybe an audit should be done matching potential versus practicalities on the ground to ascertain what could reasonably be done.
Meanwhile Colne-Skipton is ready-to-go and yet, the Government seems to be promoting airport expansion (mainly in the South East) without improved and expanded rail infrastructure. That is bad, as more congestion in such wakes is the default outcome and that is dysfunctional and hinders good health and growth at one and the same time, but delays fuel inflation in all our pockets.
What you can do:
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment