We need £100,000 to keep Alresford to Alton heritage line open

I think it is pretty clear that the council have responsibility for the road surface. Obviously they would not want to accept such responsibility in a time of budget cuts so there is bound to be a "discussion".

Regarding the councillor's comments and others related to the relative value of the railway and the pub. There is no doubt at all that the railway is responsible for a much bigger financial contribution to the local area, something which the council itself recognises to many millions. The pub does not. Frankly I never found it to be very good. Chris has summed it up pretty well. I would completely agree with the councillor though that Four Marks needs A pub. In fact it NEEDS quite a lot of facilities that it hasn't got. In that context I would also agree with him that obtaining such facilities is vitally important. However, avoiding premature shortening of the only visitor attraction in Four Marks hardly seems like a lesser priority than securing any of the other missing facilities. Maybe it just wasn't top of his mind that day if he'd found out the CO-OP had their cheque book out?

In general though the railway gets a lot of support from local councillors and both the district and county councils, and we have excellent relationships with many councillors as well.

Final observation about the comment on building bridges into the community....we work hard at this particularly through the MHRPS. It is worth noting that >80% of our volunteers, members and shareholders live within 20 miles of the railway, so we have several thousand people who are supporters right on our doorstep.

 

Amazing statistic and I wonder how it works for other railways!

 

I did hear from a local resident. There was a weight restriction sign on the Boyneswood bridge years ago but for some reason this weight restriction was removed.

 

If you have any doubts about the contribution that heritage railways make to local economies, ask the local authorities in those areas that have been impacted by partial closures in recent years. The Severn Valley Railway is an excellent example. A report on the effect of the 2007 floods that closed part of the line reckoned that 500 small and medium sized businesses were likely to have been affected by the closure of SVR, with £3m lost sales. A bit more than the impact of a closed pub, I suggest.

 

Exactly that's why I mentioned the NYMRs big break with North Yorkshire County council's "donation"0f £300,000 for their bridge 30. As they bring around £30-£40 million to the overall economy in the area. No doubt the authority took into account the various "pros & cons" as to those for & against the idea/plan.

 

Councillor Seward, quoted in the article, is a member of the District Council, which is not responsible for highways. Hampshire County Council is the local highway authority but Mrs Seward is not a County Councillor. There is no suggestion in the article that the railway has asked the District Council for money or needs its permission to repair the bridge. Therefore I remain puzzled why the journalist thought it important to highlight the negative opinion of someone who, although a local representative, does not appear to be a decision maker in this matter.

 

Indicative only that the railway may need to "build a few bridges" (sorry!) in certain local circles. Because someone is unreasonable (indeed irrational) does not mean they can be just ignored, particularly if they hold some sort of office.

As for who is responsible for maintaining a bridge I cannot imagine that if the railway did not have some responsibility they would need to raise emergency funds towards its repair. It will be set down formally somewhere and it is idle to guess what these responsibilities are. As an example of how strange such responsibilities can be I am aware of a heritage railway who are technically responsible to maintain a mill dam!

PH

 

Local newspapers are on their last legs, and rely on sensational headlines about trivia and drivel to try and make a few more sales.

They do not employ journalists any more so rely on individuals with some sort of local standing for an uninformed quote whenever they need some sort of sensational story. Someone on the minimum wage will have rung him up and prompted an uninformed comment.

 

Local people of power and influence, often including Councillors, should certainly be respected and listened to. But some Councillors may be local windbags with little influence or power who may be able to get a quote in the paper but are best ignored and not pandered to. I do not know which category this councillor falls into but no doubt the management of the Mid-Hants will have some idea.

I agree. The article states the railway is carrying out immediate repairs to the bridge and raising the funds via an appeal to their own members. There is no suggestion that anyone else is liable.

 

You may be right. It is a strange little article with Mrs Seward's quote appearing completely out of context but then, kindly, quoting the full address to send donations to the bridge appeal.

 

Amazing though it may seem, responsibilities are not always documented as clearly as one would think. However, the repairs to the bridge are clearly our responsibility as they relate to the structure of the bridge. The point of discussion is about whether the state of the road (clearly someone else's responsibility to maintain) is mainly or partly responsible for the condition of the structure, and therefore the degree to which a contribution to costs is appropriate.

The railway responsible for the Mill Race, had better hope that the owner of the mill continues to be ignorant of the railway's statutory undertaking. That said, re-instatement would be unlikely to receive Environment Agency permission. That may not prevent the mill owner seeking compensation for the lack of maintenance though. It is pretty unlikely to be a problem though as the mill race ceased to be used around 70 years ago from memory.

 

Has the railway actually found evidence of damage caused by the highway or is this simply speculation on this forum?
Bridges and other Civil Engineering structures have to be inspected and maintained. Sometimes, as with locomotives, unexpected problems are found which aren't necessarily the result of negligence - these things are old.

 

Two points. Firstly, if railways are responsible for costs of repairing the structure of overbridges, it is another thing, along with boiler renewal, which will need more serious attention than it has received hitherto.

Secondly, "mill race" rather than "mill dam" refers more accurately to the structure I was referring to. The actual mill dam (not as far as I am aware any responsibility of the railway concerned) was washed away decades ago and the mill race has had some attention in the preservation era.

PH

 

Having worked in local government, I can say that many councillors are just windbags and are recognised by fellow councillors as just that. They sure tested my faith in democracy with their silly blusterings, and I often wished that they'd have a chat with an officer to get some advice before opening their mouth!

 

Well we factor it in on the MHR. We will spend around £200k on bridge maintenance this year. Fortunately the Victorians didn't scrimp, and the bridges on the line are massively over engineered. The main risk from Boyneswood was of masonry falling onto trains, not the bridge collapsing (at least not immediately). In other words as long as you keep spending something, big problems are held off. However, once water gets into the structure, you do need to act quickly as at Boyneswood.

To answer an earlier point.....yes there is evidence of damage to the highway.

Finally...my recollection about the mill race and dam, is that the undertaking specifically regarded them as one structure, and so in theory re-instatement of the latter would be the railway's responsibility. Admittedly though it is a while since I saw the documents relating to the original LRO spread out on the dinning room table at home after my Father had collected them from the previous company solicitor's office.

 

Thank you for your answer, but my question wasn't whether there was damage to the highway but whether the bridge defects were caused by the highway (e.g. by surface water ingress).

Best wishes with fixing it!

 

Yes damage seems to be surface water ingress which became apparent in the cold weather that now seems an age ago.

 

Thanks 21B for your update.
best wishes