Rother Valley Railway

Ah, that's excellent news, Harold. So that just leaves the behemoth of Whitehall, then...
Yes, the updates are coming thick and fast, right now. (Good to see the progress on Charwelton, too- it really is a very pretty engine, and fits in perfectly with the Col. Stephens image).
Whilst not quite on the scale of Imberhorne cutting, the groundworks are a hefty undertaking, and the Civils are going about it with their typically determined methodology.
I know that availability of funding plays a massive part in this, but there seems to be so much clarity of execution in the RVR's expansion. Coupled with regular updates, it's an enviable image which certain other ventures could do well to emulate, even to a lesser degree.

 

Interesting use of "just" there Mark, but potentially the best news in many moons.

 

O/T

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secre...cretary_of_State_for_Transport_(2002–present)

McLoughlin has a reasonable reputation. I'd add Adonis, and Greening had a reasonable grasp of her brief. More generally 12 SoSs in 20 years doesn't give scope for anyone to make much of a mark (see also Education - five in six months for crying out loud).

Shapps can at least be said to have been an upgrade on his predecessor, but as that was Grayling it comes under 'damning with faint praise'.

Back on thread

Fingers crossed. It would be heartbreaking if the TWAO foundered now for other reasons, such as the compulsory purchase elements.

 

Why would it fail for the compulsory purchase elements? I thought those powers were granted as a result of the decision that the project complied with planning law and was deemed in the public interest?

 

I had your 'deemed in the public interest' in mind. In my extremely limited understanding from the 106 pages upthread I thought there was a hurdle to be crossed in terms of justification for compulsory purchase. So the TWAO confers powers for compulsory purchase but granting the TWAO has to consider whether the public interest threshold for granting compulsory purchase has been reached, if you see what I mean. Another way is saying it is that even though the highways objection is reportedly withdrawn, until the decision is announced we don't know whether planning law and the public interest tests have been met. Happy to be corrected/educated

Fingers still crossed

 

I just wonder whether we would have got this far if the Inspector had concluded that the project was not in the Public Interest. There was a lot of discussion about the A21 crossing during the Inquiry with a lot of progress being made with National Highways. There were a couple of things left to be resolved on this issue. It seems to me that the TWAO could not be made whilst there was a standing objection from this Statuatory Authority. So with the withdrawal of their objection this no longer stands in the way.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic.

 

Possibly though I hope not. Since his report is not yet in the public domain no-one outside the DfT process yet knows the Inspector’s conclusions on the public interest or any other aspect of the RVR’s application. During the inquiry hearings he did not (and must not) rule on any of the objections or evidence.

I hope the Facebook post (by a volunteer, who said he's not an official RVR spokesperson) about withdrawal of the National Highways objection is correct. From their closing statement at the inquiry that’s certainly the way NH looked to be heading but no-one seems to have announced this officially. In any case the NH objection would not amount to a veto - the Secretary of State may overrule this or any other objection if he decides it’s in the public interest.

Only the Secretary of State can decide, after considering the inquiry inspector’s report, whether it is sufficiently in the public interest to justify a TWA Order with compulsory-purchase powers.

 

There are apparently many in the rail industry who regard Shapps as a downgrade on Grayling.

 

He struck me as being at his best when acting on expert advise.

On the "name a good SoS Trans" front, I'd agree with McLoughlin and Adonis, in that order as Adonis missed a couple of open goals. Looking back at holders of that office during my own lifetime, I was struck by the fact most of the names either didn't ring any bells at all, or weren't someone I remembered as ever having held the post!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_Transport

 

Ironically, the one most of us old enough to remember, is Barbara Castle!

 

I remember [but would prefer to forget] Ernest Marples.

 

Though not necessarily fondly!

 

Quite. A bit too close to home!

 

I believe it was she who stopped us at Bodiam. The negotiations for the permitted length of the line make a great story to tell.

 

…. who was Minister for Transport (with no SoS title at that time) when the K&ESR Association's original (Robertsbridge to Tenterden) application for a Light Railway Transfer Order was refused. Construction powers, of course, wouldn't have been needed at that time since none of it had yet been demolished.

 

It was announced yesterday that an an appointment has been made of a 'Minister for Rail and HS2' a new position. Perhaps more significantly is the appointment of Huw Merriman to this role. Huw is MP for Bexhill and Battle and a supporter of RVR.

 

… and the Minister for Roads (including NH & their A21) is Richard Holden MP, who has been known to say nice things about the Weardale Railway.

 

Just noticed a message on the RVR website from the Chairman. He is optimistic that a decision on the TWAO will be made early next year [2023].

Here is the link

 

Lets hope then that the outcome is indeed favourable

 

I hope there is an early favourable decision, but I don't think the chairman is doing more than expressing the same sentiment.