Anyone fancy joining a putative line revival project?

I presume the relevance of Reading-Redhill would be connection with the big railway near Shalford/Peasmarsh, and/or the precedent set by that service for using diseasels. I can't imagine even a project of this level of naivety is suggesting trying to cart people from Cranleigh to Redhill to make a connection… but who knows!

Maybe SWT could cascade some ancient 159s onto the route (in 2050 or so…) to keep up with the rest of the traffic into Waterloo, if there was a direct service through Guildford?

More seriously, unless there's a significant external factor (largescale fracking on the Surrey/West Sussex border anyone?) sadly I agree with you - it needs gov intervention to progress and that ain't going to happen…

Simon

 

I fear it might - I'd missed the significance of the reference to a detour via Guildford until I looked again at the map and what reads like the idea of building a Guildford avoiding line. I hope I've misread.

 

I think Tom got the wrong end of the stick there (for once!). The relevance of Reading-Redhill is in showing that a route in third-rail territory but not electrified can be viable, even though it is an anomaly.

So I agree that the scheme most likely to be viable (though even that is rather dubious) is Cranleigh-Guildford promoted by ATOC, with money from somewhere, as part of NR with through services to Waterloo by DMU, and possible electrification later.

A heritage railway would have no chance of fitting onto NR for the last bit into Guildford. And Cranleigh to a new platform just short of Peasmarsh would be useless.

If and when Cranleigh-Guildford on NR comes about, a heritage extension further south might begin to make a bit of sense.

 

Ah, fair point, I read Al's post as suggesting a connection via the never-used spur between the Portsmouth Direct and the Redhill line, but I see what you mean - you could run DMUs in electric territory via Guildford. (As indeed the Salisbury trains are diesels right into Waterloo).

Though that opens up another problem, which is pathing and platform occupancy. If the line was electrified, you could presumably extend current Waterloo - Guildford trains to Cranleigh without needing any more paths into Waterloo. Whereas if a Cranleigh - Waterloo DMU service is to be an addition, then you have to find paths and platforms for them - not easy I'd have thought.

Tom

 

Anyone who has seen the peak hour traffic around Guildford Station will want this line back but being realistic its a non starter as a heritage project the finance of overcoming the NIMBYS at the inevitable public enquiry would kill before it started. This is just the sort of thing for public finance rather than wasting zillions on HS2

 

It's popular to whinge about nimbys, but is there really any evidence that they exist in significant numbers here? As has been implied, it's more likely that local home owners will see a substantial increase in property value as a consequence of improved travel links. It's more likely to be concerted and organised protest from existing users (the Sustrans of this world) that would scupper it, combined with a political climate that predicates against long-term investment in infrastructure.

Simon

 

Unfortunately you don't need many, it only takes a few with loud voices and connections in high places. As part of the National Network it could be a starter, to further dilute the money going into preservation it's not a good idea.

 

The only way Cranleigh will ever get its train service back will be if SWT and NR decide its going to be worth rebuilding it, i knew the area well, and the traffic levels on the A281, were bad 10 years ago, so must have got worse in the time between then and now, any idea of a tourist line will be a non starter, going from where to where? only to peasmarch junction, because they could not run into guildford, and it would need to be electrified to really be of use, as a Cranleigh to waterloo service would be the only financially viable option, as services terminating at Guildford would be best placed to run any extended service should a case be found that makes re opening some of the line worth the investment.

 

Indeed - pathing is one of the problems that have postponed the idea of re-opening to Bordon where the alternative of a diesel shuttle to Bentley is not seen as attractive enough
http://www.whitehillbordon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/WB-PT-Strategy-Consultation-Version.pdf

David R

 

This scheme unfortunately doesn't appear to be very well thought out, and without Guaranteed Finance in place and "Real"
Money in place, it's a complete non starter. No research or any form of feasibility study done or planned, who is ever going to invest in a scheme as suggested? The backer, sounds like others we have heard of before, and generally fraudulent or a scam. If anyone had £100 million to spend, this would be the last place it would be put, no guarantees, no land purchased, no official backing etc, there are many things and even other lines to invest in which would give returns, this scheme doesn't.
As a Heritage line, where is the attraction of going from where to where that is needed or has an attraction. Talking about running a DMU fits in with neither properly. No engines, stock, buildings etc there isn't a Barry Island anymore, so where is everything going to come from? I actively volunteer and work on a Preserved line that also runs on network metals, and it has taken many years to get there with backing from Councils, supporters well most, something that hasn't been shown for this Railway. Without real money backing, Councils and Volunteers, to say nothing of clearance of rubbish I fills tunnels, this won't ever happen.

 

I don think FGW have any units going spare and even if they did, I doubt there any spare paths for them to run into Waterloo.

Anyway, fifty three posts on a scheme that isn't going anywhere, time to bring the shutters down?

 

All promised to the north, I am lead to believe. And no spare platforms at Guildford and no servicing facilities for diesel units I IRC.

And a level crossing over the A281 is also required, I believe, sorry but it's not going to happen

 

The existing pockets of diesels running on the third rail shows that it is POSSIBLE, whether they are VIABLE in any economic sense (or just 'common sense') is debatable! And that would be a debate worth exploring before we build any more!

 

The reason NR did not pursue it was because the £63 million cost estimated in ATOC's report would have had to come from Surrey County Council, which does not have that amount of money to throw around.

The scheme Neil and I were working on did not propose to run into Guildford. The idea was to establish a joint station at Peasmarsh, where a NR interchange could be done simply. Capacity at Guildford is not a big problem - Platform 3 is unused through most of the day, for a start, 1/2 (1 being the bay platform) and 4/5 are the main busy ones.

As regards demolition required, I thought it too obvious to require stating that this will bring challenges of its own. However, if the finance is there, it seems people can be persuaded from their homes with surprising ease - I've seen it happen far too much lately with unwelcome development projects round here...

I started this thread purely to see if anyone was interested in getting involved - having, for several years, resisted doing so for fear of the reception it has now received.

I'm afraid tact has never been my strong point, and I fear I will go to my grave with that fault uncorrected. The reason I first floated the idea was because, talking to local residents, shop-keepers and publicans, I got the firm impression that they were overwhelmingly supportive of the idea of reopening in any shape or form, and anything which generated tourist traffic would be very welcome.

As regards your pipe dream, surely Melton Mowbray would be a worthy destination for a steam railway?

Agreed absolutely. I did not start this thread as a "here's what we're going to do", just to see if anyone was interested. I've been talking to quite a few relatively recent heritage railway startups over the last few years and getting an impression of what was involved, so I'm not under the slightest illusion about the challenges faced. I don't think there's anything to be gained by talking to Mr Waghorn, however...

I've been aware of several Facebook-based schemes, both in terms of lines and locomotives, which have died a death. However, the only talk I've heard of extensions to the current NYMR has been a long-off what-if to be pursued by the NYMR itself, and I would have thought an existing heritage railway would have every right to feel rather narked about a separate group pursuing an extension to same...

Not necessarily. The park & ride is already in place. In the 90s, local clamour for a reopening fell on deaf ears. Now, the political climate has changed somewhat (although government funding remains unavailable). Local politicians are more favourable to the idea. New schemes abound, and some of them are proving successful. Twenty years ago, there was no Epping-Ongar Railway, nothing on the S&D, no Helston, no Aln Valley, and I could go on. A lot of these lines should never have been closed - I will not only cite the Cranleigh Line but also the Christ's Hospital to Shoreham line. The latter is probably now as close to impossible to reopen throughout as any railway can be, although there is some potential for certain sections to be reopened.

Equally, there are a fair few 'somewhere to somewhere' lines. Alton to Alresford. The NYMR. West Somerset. The Severn Valley started off with Bridgnorth to Bewdley, then gained a third somewhere (Kidderminster) later on. I could go on, but shan't. The Downs Link is not a major tourist attraction by any means. It's a little-used local amenity - West Sussex County Council gave me a figure of an estimated 12,000 users a year. The area is, admittedly, short of other tourist attractions - Loseley and events at Dunsfold are about as far as it goes. I disagree that there were any lines no longer providing public value - even the quietest of branch-lines (e.g. the Bridport and Lyme Regis branches) were still useful and capable of development. However, BR did everything in its power to run them down.

Suffice to say that I am intimately familiar with the details of the legal cases concerned, the victories are already starting to stack up and, when it goes public, it will probably hit the front pages of the national newspapers. I am not at liberty to discuss it any further, as the matter remains sub judice. Could you cite examples where shopper services have failed? The RHDR's school train is certainly something of an inspiration. There are also examples where heritage railway services are preferred by local travellers to unreliable bus services. Personally, I have no interest in the railway modelling hobby, and would rather put that money to good use in 1:1 scale railways...

See the above. This is a truly enormous case. I started this thread to invite people to join a group, not necessarily for one individual to run the whole project...

There were calls then for a wholesale redevelopment, but for whatever reason it didn't happen. Since Sainsbury's arrival, various independent shops have closed, and there presence is no longer as welcome as it once was, and the current incarnation of the parish council seems especially keen to see it go. It will have to go within the next decade, railway or none, such is its parlous state of repair. It may be of little importance, but the construction of this small Sainsbury's is not of the usual permanent type, but significantly that of a flat-pack warehouse, which could be dismantled pretty rapidly...

 

The "dilution" argument has been proved false many times. People will spend their time and money on what they want to spend it on. Neither my time nor my would-be investor's money will be going to an existing heritage railway in the foreseeable future.

 

That feels wrong, I would have thought other sources might also be possible if the scheme were genuinely viable.

My understanding was that the issue is less platform capacity, and more the availability of paths on the section between Guildford and Peasmarsh Junction. An interchange station may not help given the extra stops that it would require for some trains.

The idea of an interchange station also feels implausible if there is a public transport objective - you instantly build an obstacle to users, many of whom would presumably be likely to drive to catch the train already. I know the roads struggle in the area, but that badly?

Sometimes, but you should not underestimate the politics involved, especially if for a tourist operation. Knowing the hassles faced by the Borders Railway in Galashiels, I fear you are too glib in dismissing these issues, whether dealing with houses or supermarkets.

A revealing comment. I,and I think most others, have tried to be constructive. As matters stand, this feels extremely unlikely, and I am concerned that you do not grasp the radical difference between the majority of schemes you mention and a 10 mile railway.

You sound dangerously like you are boasting about tact. You do not have the luxury of being able to upset people, yet you have unnecessarily slated someone in what you've written here. Even if you are factually correct, that was just unnecessary, and I'd be very wary of putting myself in a position where it could happen to me.

It might, though it isn't as idyllic as its reputation may appear - you should listen to Mark Thomas' programme on the town if it's still on iPlayer. I also suggest you look at a map to assess the feasibility of my pipe dream as described, then consider the history of the line and the proximity of the GCR.