Rother Valley Railway

If I recall correctly, the original application showed a crossing control cabin adjacent to the A21 crossing, also controlling the other two crossings remotely. Not dependant upon the departure from either Robertsbridge Junction station or the passing loop near Junction Rd.

Of course signalling options may have changed in the meantime.

 

How do the RVR's plans compare to the Dean Forest's crossing over the A48 at Lydney? That doesn't seem to cause significant bother.

 

This outlook reminds me of a case in my professional life. My Authority, with an adjoining one, was proposing a cycle path on a former railway to enable people to cycle in and out of the city safely. We had objections on the basis that it would cause additional traffic problems from people driving to it to unload their bikes and go for a ride.

 

I spotted a shot from Portillo's American tour where his train was going through a level crossing where the road was dual three-lane!

 

Just near my inlaws house in Costa Rica the railway crosses a three lane dual carriageway on the level with only blaring horns to warn the traffic (from the trains I mean - although plenty from road users too). Can't say what the congestion impact is, congestion was already bad before the trains restarted. There are lots of trains too, it is a commuter service.

 

But travelling to a cycle path by car is very common especially if the route provides an opportunity to escape an urban landscape.

 

Come done to Sussex on a May bank holiday and you'll soon find out! Put those barriers down within 5 minutes and you'll have about 200 Hastings-bound bikers revving their engines impatiently waiting for the road.

 

thats why i think eventually the highways agency will need to dual this section of road and as part of this a new section of road with a bridge ,or short tunnel will have to be provided in hindsight, when the byepass was built the trackbed should have been protected but then i dare say by now you would have trouble with a farmer claiming access rights .

 

But in that report it states that the crossing will be closed for 51 seconds. That to me implies an automatic crossing triggered by the approaching train. If that's the case then the impact would be negligible. Much less than, say, getting stuck behind a tractor.
I do understand the concern but I think it is being over-emphasised to the detriment of the railway. If they added "except in exceptional circumstances" or phrased it so that the crossing could be closed for a maximum of x minutes within those times or something like that, I don't think it would be unreasonable.
Still, I agree that the important thing is to get it built. The restriction can always be renegotiated later. The problem will be if the restriction gets included in the Transport & Works Act Order, because then lifting it would require a new T&WAO and the cost would be totally disproportionate to any benefit.

It's also clear from the comments in the report that some of the landowners aren't going to sell up without compulsory purchase, which is a shame as I would imagine a negotiated settlement would be better for all concerned.

 

The Rother Valley Railway have tried to negotiate with the land owners concerned. Without going into the politics, and the "who said what/did what/where/why", there is one land owner who point blank refuses to consider the railway being reinstated. In that circumstance, it is a touch difficult to come to a negotiated settlement.

 

Bluebell had a similar problem. The boundary line between two owners ran down the middle of the once double track formation. One owner sold the other didnt. There was just enough space on the land which was sold to lay a single track.

Negotiations regarding some pie in the sky proposal are one thing. Negotiating with planning permission in hand you have a much stronger case

 

The farmer who refuses to sell, i think could be a potensial long term problem, but hopefully at some point the ownership will pass onto his son and daughter who might be more open to dialog , but once the CPO is enacted there is no going back, i just hope that this person accepts the railway will be rebuilt, and that once rebuilt there is no problems , maybe the family could be given a free ticket on the wealden pulman in return for being good neighbors no one wants bad neighbors and instances of trespass ,or gates left open intentionally the sort of thing i remember happened on one line when an extension was built when someone did not agree to the railway being there

 

That'll teach them!

 

I was assiting the Bluebell with extension matters when the above came up. The half track bed had been purchased, but there was a tree close to the centre line which the non-seller claimed as theirs. Said tree would have made passage of the trains impossible. A number of solicitors letters passed to and fro and then it came to me. My Dad was a surveyor and some careful measuring established conclusively, if marginally, that the tree was on the Bluebell half. A chainsaw solved that problem over the weekend.

It's quite a while since I last walked Kingscote to East Grinstead and I last ride a train that way on northern extension opening day, although I am visiting the Bluebell 'on business' on 18 Feb. Can Tom @Jamessquared or any other Blubellite please say if the half-and-half trackbed length still applies?

Kind regards

Robin

 

Robin

Yes it does.

Paul

 

Yes, for a distance of about 200 yards or so a little to the north of Kingscote, just north of the up advanced starter.

I don't think it has any particular operational impact except that, because there is limited clearance on the eastern side of the line at that point, and the western side is on a steep embankment, any track maintenance or inspection I believe has to be carried out with a possession - it can't be done simply by workers moving to a position of safety when a train approaches. For the same reason, all of the line north of Kingscote is out of bounds to photographers holding lineside passes, as there is no safe access even to the wide straight bit in the middle without going through either the cutting or "the narrows".

Tom

 

Thanks to both.

My view is that the present owner of the narrow half is pretty foolish to hang on to it given the 'right of support' enjoyed by adjacent land. No doubt the grim reaper will sort this one in time...

Robin

 

Did I hear (or perhaps dream), that the landowner who refused to sell, is now keen to sell to the Bluebell, as they don't want the responsibility of upkeep? Some people!

The L&B also have one particular "challenging" landowner, who it will be difficult to placate.

 

Well Mr PedantCyclist, what exactly will we learn?
From a regular Sussex bound biker.


Chris Head

 

Im a hastings resident ( st leonards actually ) and bank holidays in spring and summer can be a right pain, you dare not try to drive into town, because you wont be able to park, and if you park on the street at home, someone has nicked your parking slot, add into this bikers who seem to flock on Hastings like a plague of locusts , you will learn that Eastbourne may be a better destination