GWSR General Discussion and Operations

I have been making further inquiries, as suggested by Keith the 'ghost', concerning the Broadway to Honeybourne track bed and associated road over-bridges.
David Pemberton of Railway Paths Limited (RPL) has advised me that RPL are the owners of the land and hold responsibility for the bridges.
I understand that RPL are funded by DfT and so if any major maintenance of one of the bridges were required that RPL could not fund then I imagine that DfT (via National Highways) would have to undertake the work, which in an extreme case, could lead to in-filling below the bridge.
Richard Johnson, GWSR Chairman, has further advised me that Worcs CC have refused to purchase the land and associated liabilities following DfT's unwillingness to do so and their refusal to allow the GWSR to do so.

RJ has further stated that GWSR are in a period of consolidation and that 'we cannot currently foresee the day when we would take on a further extension'.

None of this is startling news but at least it clarifies the current situation which I suppose might be summarised by stating that the status of the Broadway to Honeybourne track bed and associated road over-bridges is one of continuing ownership by RPL and perhaps future uncertainty.

 

Thank you for clarifying this. It is much as I expected.
One question though : You say "and their refusal to allow the GWSR to do so." Do you mean that DfT turned down a proposal from the Railway, and if so when, or did DfT just indicate that they would not approve such a move ? ( I seem to remember something along the latter lines some three or four years ago ? )

 

The latter. DfT will not allow the transfer of any trackbed which has road liabilities, claiming that heritage railways do not have the resources to maintain them; this despite the fact that GWSR have, I think, 42 bridges and culverts as stated by RJ of GWSR. These are well maintained and regularly inspected.

 

I'm now confused, So the DfT has no problem funding upkeep of bridges owned by a private company, RPL yet, has a problem with funding the same if the land becomes owned by a private railway, Perhaps someone should look into the deals RPL has with Dft, that seems to turn their own argument on its head, I would argue that the GWSR, has proven without doubt, as has other railways that they do have to civil engineering expertise to look after their permanent structures, and to keep them in good order, it makes no sence .

 

I think you did not read carefully what I wrote. I said DfT funds RPL. I then surmised that if RPL gets into difficulty funding the bridge maintenance that then DfT through National Highways will have to intervene. What else could happen? I agree that GWSR has demonstrated expertise with its careful management of its assets and I think this is what RJ was keen to state.

 

Surely the issue is not the proven competence of the GWSR (and others) to undertake maintenance, repair, and even complete replacement of bridges, but that the DfT does not believe that heritage railways are sufficiently robust financially to be entrusted with additional responsibility for them. The implication seems to be that no further extension or proposed restoration of a heritage line will be possible if it involves a typically structured heritage railway entity taking on responsibility for bridges providing public access. That's not just a brake on GWSR extension!

 

A position taken by DfT at a time when infilling was allegedly being driven by one senior individual. It would therefore be interesting to see whether the policy remains as it was.

My recollection is also that the issue for DfT was not about any railway, but specifically about transfers where the trackbed was not in operational use. If I’m right, then that’s a more proportionate concern.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Agreed!...which is why I referred to additional responsibility. If a heritage railway already owns or leases the infrastructure then operational extension or restoration of it should still be possible. However, any such proposal involving transfer of responsibility for over or under bridges providing public access looks like it's dead in the water. I believe it was suggested that Local Authorities would be acceptable custodians of financial responsibility for bridges but it's hard to see why they would want to take on a financial risk that DfT has concluded is unacceptable. If they were minded to trust the heritage entity, or to take direct responsibility for the bridges themselves, they would have to navigate the recent incredibly complex public subsidy law which replaces the EU regulations prohibiting unfair State Aid.
I don't believe it's just about infilling ( or the other option of demolition) but a policy decision that heritage railways as a class are judged to be insufficiently robust financially to take on any more responsibility for public bridges.

 

As an aside, congratulations (and good luck!) to @flying scotsman123 !

Tom

 

Thank you Tom!

 

Whats happened then Alex ?

 

Seems the ELR have announced another Costswold Festival of Steam guest before the GWSR have on their latest facebook post - LYR Pug 19 (or 11243 as she is now) - https://www.facebook.com/eastlancsrly/posts/9187791294571924

For those who cannot access facebook, the post reads as follows:

"Our resident L&Y ‘Pug’ has had a makeover!
Now resplendent in LMS livery which hasn't been seen on this class since the 1940s, 11243 will feature on a couple of shunting demonstration days in March at Bury (dates tbc) before touring the country and flying the Lancashire & Yorkshire flag at the Bluebell Railway and Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway in late Spring!"

 

It is nevertheless odd (if true) that DfT would if necesary pay up to repair (or infill) a bridge that belongs to RPL, but refuses to take on the ownwership. Not that this makes much difference to the prospect of the Railway extending to Honeybourne.

 

I seem to have found myself shortlisted for an HRA award

 

Very smart:

 

Nice one my friend!

 

That's really great news, congratulations, and fingers crossed for you,

 

Especially when Railway Paths Ltd, obtains much, if not all of its funding from the DfT to start with,
Have i got it wrong, but I was always of the impression that If an railway wanted to extend over a former track bed owned by Railway paths that they had to offer it to the railway company, there was a bit of adverse publicity for Sustrains, when they were asking a very high price for a bit of track bed they were given for a nominal sum of £1

 

Well done and good luck for the final!

 

Good luck and well done Alex, what's the category?