Sustrans and railways

I've read in other posts (e.g G&WR extension) about Sustrans and its attitude to the trackbeds it now 'owns' and occupies...

This weekend we visited the Avon Valley Railway. The adjacent cyclepath was adorned with notices advising users to object to the railway being extended.

I've asked Sustrans why they are objecting, and will post their reply here.

 

Be interesting to see what they say - there has been some graffiti on the path surface for a few years moaning about the environmental impact of coal fired steam locos, but if there is anything more coherent than that its a new development. I can't see why Sustrans would be particularly bothered especially as they cite the AVR in their literature as an attraction along that path! I accept that the crossings at Bitton must be a bit of a pain for cyclists but I'd be surprised if anything else was planned that would be detrimental. On the other hand AVR trains have twice in my memory been reported locally as having aided the rescue of injured cyclists on the path from locations inaccessible by road ambulance - stretcher on the train back to Bitton - which has been appreciated by those involved.

 

We have great difficulty at the eden valley railway with sustrans, they own the trackbed we run on and want it to be a cycleway. They have been trying to starve us out for years, but we keep holding on.

 

I hate Sustrans

 

read this little eye opener about satantrans

 

i think sustrans are just very selfish people. and to tell people that you cant put a railway on , you wait for it, a railway embankment is just pure rubbish. i understand that yes there should be places for people to walk along and cycle but if there is a railway that is on the land then that should have priotiy. there are plenty of railway lines that will never see use again. they should have second option. And at the end of the day railways do give jobs back to the local areas and increase tourism lots more than cyclists. take the swanage railway for example. in another thread it says they had 2800 passengers in a day. i couldnt see that many people cycling

 

They need to learn to live together. The WHR from Caernarfon to Dinas co-exists well. Indeed it provides a cycle wagon so you can do my kind of gravity assisted cycling. The Caernarfon-Dinas proves it need not be either one or the other on double tracks. Single are problematic.

Some enthusiasts are a little too fanatical. I remember an article many many years ago in Steam World objecting to the Camel Trail (single track) on the grounds it would generate 200,000 car journeys. Mmm yes so thats 100,000 out and back journeys, say 200,000 users. Game over.

I really like the WHR but, big but, I spent more time walking it than I have riding on it. It's non availability as a path is a loss.

 

But my grandma would like to see the views but she wouldnt be able to walk all that way. at least everyone can use a railway. not just the walkers and cyclists.
Oh im only on about single track lines here. im not for or againsed double tack being split as long as the railway doesnt have to foot the bill for the fencing

 

Do you have a link please?

Thanks, Neil.

 

Youve obviously never dealt with sustrans! They hate railways, need i say more?

 

What really annoyed me is the conversion of some ancient (well 1800) tramroads to cyclepaths. Criminal is the tarmacing of bits of the Merthyr tramroad by that unenlightened council. Heritage and a long term tourist attraction is destroyed to create some short term jobs using derelict land grants.

Overall, often a cycle path is the best use for land. But not if a railway exists.

You do wonder that the Moorlands and City Railway escaped cyclepath conversion. I wish it well but a cyclepath from Leek to Cauldon Lowe (for Waterhouses and the Manifold Valley) and possibly on to Stoke and North Rode is an attractive alternative.

Some paths see little use - Blaenavon to Pontypool is a path looking for an alternative use.

Others are very useful. Hadfield to Woodhead has a steady market in shell suits. It also seems to be seen as safe environment for single women to exercise their children.

Oh and you do see motorised invalid buggies, saw 2 on the Elan Valley but they are quite common, I have also seen Sinclair C5s in Sheffield.

So I would defend Sustrans to a point.

 

I would rather see old railway lines returned to their original use but as this does not happen that often at least the paths are being kept open and not being sold off to developers or turned into roads this happenend with the Avon Valley who cant go much beyond Warmley due to the ring road and will never get to Bath Either.I believe we have enough preserved lines allready Schemes such as reopening the S&D which some group is trying to do is bound to fail unless huge amounts of goverment money is available as most of the infrastructure was lost years ago.

 

Overall, often a cycle path is the best use for land. But not if a railway exists.

You do wonder that the Moorlands and City Railway escaped cyclepath conversion. I wish it well but a cyclepath from Leek to Cauldon Lowe (for Waterhouses and the Manifold Valley) and possibly on to Stoke and North Rode is an attractive alternative.

You would have to be a fell rider to go from Leekbrook to Cauldon, not for the general public I fear. It takes a good effort to walk it let alone ride, but coming down would be interesting.

 

I really enjoy the many Sustrans routes that I walk and cycle on in my area including the old rail lines and am prepared to admit that I have a foot in both camps. I have never understood why Sustrans fail to grasp that the two movements have something of a symbiotic relationship. The interests of the two movements are not that disimilar and there should be common ground.

Sustrans will likely have their wings clipped financially in the next few weeks, so anyone whom puts up a significant fight in future may well find that they have a greater chance of success than in the past.

I suspect that within the next few years they may well start to come across problems as some of the routes that ATOC highlighted to be reactivated for rail are already under the Sustrans umbrella. There is bound to be a clause in the agreements that allows for the reactivation of rail lines where there is a strategic need and they may have to concede shared usage.

 

Couple of points of info - I think AVR aren't going beyond Oldland Common as there is opposition from local residents and little to gain in that direction - Warmley station is the other side of a busy road (A420) on which a level crossing would be an operational nightmare so unless they build a new terminus incongrously in sight of the old Warmley station it makes sense to head in the Bath direction. That is possible at least as far as the outskirts at Newbridge, - beyond there gets into demolishing things on the trackbed which is currently the aim of the council who want to turn the Newbridge to Green Park section into a bus rapid transit route, although that is very likely to fall foul of the spending review in October as the funding is all coming from central government. As its massively unpopular locally it will be an easy one for the bin list.

 

Although I'm a Sustrans member as well as a heritage railway enthusiast (and not being familiar with the Avon Valley Railway apart from I know it shares the route with a cycle path) I would have thought that the two could exists side-by-side and the extension should be allowed.

Presumably the economy in general and the combined spare wealth and volunteer time of all the nation's rail preservationists are limiting factors in the number of route miles that can be re-opened as heritage railways.

 

ooops! soory!
http://onthelevelblog.com/2009/01/2...ned-into-a-private-unaccountable-corporation/

 

Thanks Posters. Seems there's a lot of strong feeling about this issue.

I've had no reply yet from Sustrans. Will post it when I do.

I have nothing against Sustrans or their goals and ideals per se - I'm not complaining about what they do. I just want to make it clear that they are 'lodgers' on railway land.

The trackbeds that rail used to run on was bought with real (private) money from land owners, under Acts of Parliament. Since nationalised in 1948 those trackbeds have belonged to the Government (the British People, really), and Sustrans would do well to remember that the land is primarily still a railway - even if the metals have been litfed - and could revert to being a working railway at any time.

In the meantime, using the trackbed as long-distance footpaths and cycleways is an excellent use - the level or gentle gradients makes ideal route for said activity - but not to the exclusion of one day re-laying the metals which belong there by right.

If I see a freight train these days it is a novelty. When I was a child (around 1960) freight trains ('goods trains' we called them) where everywhere. Successive corrupt governments have removed freight from rail, to satisfy their friends in road haulage, closed down railways, sold off vast swathes of trackbed to property developers and supermarkets in a bid to ensure rail never returns. Interesting move, as the land wasn't really theirs to sell... They only managed it on behalf of the British people.

We must, as a movement, ensure that the same thing does not happen with Sustrans. They must not regard the trackbeds as theirs; they are not - they are railway trackbeds, and I for one are happy to share those trackbeds and routes with Sustrans - but not hand them over.

 

Another well written commentary on Sustrans is here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ron.strutt/rrsustrans.html

I remember reading some research that suggested an increase in car traffic because cyclists carried their cycles to a cycle path, exercised on it, and then returned home again carrying their cycles on the car. Incompetently, I can't now find it.

 

Good point, Enterprise - how green is providing a cycleway that needs a nice big 4 x 4 to carry the family and its bikes to get to it.

The article from that link also makes clear that some cyclists are blinkered so that they can't see use of a railway trackbed as a modern rapid transit route (albeit, hopefully, not a "guided busway", which may have been the Bristol proposal) is far better than as a cycle way.

Here in North Yorkshire, there is a constant war between cyclists and those very unreasonable people who expect to be allowed to walk on the pavement (when all cyclists know the pavement is there for them to ride on). I do wonder just how green much cycling is, but then again many heritage railways maybe can't claim to be that green because they are "a ride for the sake of a ride". I might counter that with several hundred people riding on a train are at least not driving around the countryside in separate cars carrying maybe at best 4 or 5 people and probably less. All of the busiest railways do tend to go from somewhere (or even no-where!) to somewhere - 4 of the busiest 5 from inland to the sea, and hence a proportion of journeys are for at least in part "transport" reasons. Swanage carried 2,800 passengers last Sunday, and there have been several days this summer where on the Moors we have, along with connections to Northern at Grosmont, taken around 1,000 people into Whitby. Those sort of figures are lots of cars making shorter journeys - and I bet no cycleways can boast similar usage.

A steam (or modern) train can be used by almost anyone, not just fit people with children over a certain age. That must be better use than a cycle way.

It really annoys me how so many millions get poured into cycle schemes yet railways struggle for funding. The Peak Rail reopening of tunnels is a prime example - far more people would travel by train and the money being spent (to improve a route that already exists, I believe, not create a new one) would get Peak Rail a long way but the funding would simply not be available to rail yet to to pedal power.

Steven