Sustrans and railways

I might be wrong here, but didn't the Labour Government hand over hundreds of miles of disused railways to Sustrans during their first year or two in office? I remember Glenda Jackson being involved as a junior minister in the Department of Transport (or whatever it was called in those days). It was handed over with the condition that it could be reclaimed for use by rail as part of the national network, a condition that I don't think has actually been tested yet. There was no condition attached that it should be handed over for use by a heritage railway.

Sustrans view heritage railways as non-green visitor attractions, something that people travel (usually by car) to visit, and therefore are something that should be fought against as much as possible. I live on the outskirts of the Forest of Dean, and I would argue that cycle tracks are also something that people travel to by car (or 4x4). There are lots of vehicles entering and leaving the Forest every weekend with cycles attached.

 

i still say a railway with a foot path/ cycle way by the side of it enhances both the desire to both use the foot path and ride the train jointly...cycling along a line with a steam train passing you buy only makes you want to visit the station more and take a ride (up hill) back to the start. This is very popular in Germany and other european countries.

 

I live on the edge of Cannock Chase and theres so many people visit in their cars with bikes on the back that they have actually become a massive nusance in surrounding towns causeing congestion. I'm affraid anybody who thinks making cycle tracks will cut down on car traffic are living in cloud cookoo land.

 

Sustrans - from what I have heard I suggest that when you "sup with the Devil you use a blooming long spoon!"

 

i think the best way to cut congestion is to get everyone to get there keys stuck in there car

 

Sustrains are it would seem a very secretive organisation, members cant attend board meetings or decide anything that the organisation want to do, they get given the land, then charge councils vast sums to tarmac then over, , or so iv'e heard.

once Sustrains get their hands on a former railway formation, forget about getting it back, unless you want to pay them a lot of money as has been the case with one scheme.
so yes they, or the person making money out of this is anti railways we can but hope that this organisation does very soon have its wings clipped and that the government look very closely at just exactly what they have been doing

 

Here's our chance to suggest Sustrans has its income reduced:

http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/

The site is open for a few more weeks.

Cheers
Dave

 

I understand that is the case - but wouldn't a heritage railway also be a 'lodger' and thus be at risk if one of these routes was ever wanted for reopening as a modern commercial / social rail line?

Sustrans' National Cycle Network, has over 10,000 miles of cycle route. About half of that is on-road along quiet roads, while the traffic-free routes include canal towpaths and other tracks as well as disused railways. I don't know the actual cycle path mileage along disused railways but only a small fraction of that total is ever likely to be seriously considered for heritage railway use.

 

OK - cards on table

I was a thirty year railway surveyor and am proud of the way that BRPB regenerated thousands of acres of railway land, and created many worthwhile developments and refurbishments over the years, after the post 1960s closures. Like it or not, many, many, miles of railway had no continuing strategic role in transport, and post closure ownership did not come without costs. All those bridges, fences, culverts, statutory obligations etc, still had to be maintained and that cost came from the same pot that funds the running of trains. We also ensured that the continuing operational railway returned good property revenues too. It was much easier then with only one owner, and not the web of NR/TOC/PTE etc, etc all in the mix together. Equally - not one inch of Closed Branch Line was disposed of without consultation.

If anyone thinks there was a fairy godmother keeping those areas of land ready for immediate re-use as railway - Get Real! We were running a business and made business decisions.

There was no logical or financial argument to continue to own the vast majority of these disused, and often derelict properties within the industry, and over the years it is property disposals that funded much of the electrification and modernisation programme.

Then came the post 1997 Labour government and the Deputy Prime Minister, John - errr wait a minute - I'll make a decision shortly, Prescott, who put a moratorium on disposals post 1998. The government eventually decided to outsource the management of the residual BR estate in 2001, but to ease the way created a vesting scheme to transfer many miles of the tiny remaining percentage of CBLs to Sustrans.

Sustrans previously had bought much land. usually with local authority or Charity Commission guarantees, or the £42m - yes £42m, Millenium cycleway grant from the HLF. That is the point where I feel that Sustrans lost its way and became more a property company than a cycling charity. That vesting scheme did contain a clause requiring Sustrans to co-operate with any re-use of the lines for rail purposes, but the Bodmin or Warcop examples bear testimony to how they have dealt with that obligation.

BR's requirement was to dispose of CBLs once and for all. A disposal to a Local Authority with statutory powers had always been seen as the way to do this and ensure that the cost of upkeep of bridges, tunnels, viaducts, fences other statutory obligations dating from the Railway Act, etc was passed over reliably and for ever. Sustrans was not such a body, but the view was taken that as Sustrans was a charity and in insolvency its assets and obligations would pass to the Charity Commission, so the vesting scheme proceeded.

So Sustrans - with ex BR surveyors now on its staff and Trust body cherry picked away and amassed - f.o.c. quite a large estate, not just of CBLs, but of independent sites too.

My view - the vesting scheme was a political device to help the government to close us down. The result is now clear to see, is getting no better, and as the articles quote, is beyond any public audit at the present time. Sustrans appears to be little more than a parasite sucking away at public grant aid schemes for the benefit of Volvo estate drivers with a rack of mountain bikes, and little more. Certainly in my own private experience, when offered a facility free of charge for all leisure users over my own property, Sustrans declined it as they only wanted to build a facility restricted to cyclists. There's public spirit for you!

 

So the sustrans are leaching off the government money then?
Thats an interesting thought i wonder how long they will continue to be funed, in this current climate with all the cuts that Mr. cameron is bringing about!
I hope he cuts them off soon ( might be the best thing hes done so far )

 

PMSL!!!!!! how were the choccy bars?

 

Actually, Sustrans cycle routes along old railways, canal towpaths etc. are generally open to walkers (with or without dogs), mobility scooter users and in some cases to horse riders as well. They are not restricted to cyclists. Assuming that an old trackbed is not being used as a railway, a cycle route seems the best use. What other alternatives are there? Leaving it to decay more, with no public access? Selling off the land in bits? Using it as the route for a new road or even a guided busway?

As I said before, I belong to Sustrans and I do enjoy cycling along our local NCN route along an old railway. But one thing that I do agree with the critics of Sustrans over is that this particular route seems almost 100% recreational and has virtually zero function as a personal transport route. This might change if and when this traffic-free route is extended.

While I can see that there might be instances where Sustrans and the heritage railway movement might have conflicting interests, most of the sections of old lines that are used as Sustrans cycle routes were never likely to return to railway use and I've never heard of Sustrans trying to get a heritage railway line removed to make way for a cycle route.

 

Sorry but where a preservation scheme needs a track bed and its in the hands of Sustrans very often barriers are placed against the organisation giving that land back, unless the preservation scheme can find the money to buy back the track bed at over the odds valuations , how about the Bodmin to wadebridge? how do you explain Sustrans stance on that? there are i believe viable local roads to replace the cycle path on the sections where a cycle path cant be provided along side the railway formation

 

Not to mention the trouble that Gloucester and Warwichshire Railway had with them a few years ago....

 

check out how sustrans have looked after this site since they aquired it....
http://www.refprint.plus.com/appleby east/

 

So as a member, what influence do you have on Sustrans policy or their activities?

 

As a member you dont have any say, the trustees get appointed by the exsisting trustees, members cant vote the trustees out, or even have any right to call an egm in a nut shell you can join the organisation, but you are not viewed by sustrans as having any right over what they do , what they spend your and mine money on

 

The Decapod - I can only relate what happened - if you don't like it - take it up with Sustrans.

 

I think it is a good idea that railway formations are turned into cycle paths (bridleways?) and that formations are thus both having a current use and preserved for future use when the oil runs out and we need them again - which might be quite a long time, but it will happen. It's a pity that all formations weren't preserved as at least a right of way, and also kept as government property since they represent a national asset.

I also think that it is a good idea that, where feasible, if a railways is reinstated, the cycle path is somehow kept open. It is a pity that more stretches of the WHR don't have at least a footpath alongside. (And I'm an enthusiastic WHR supporter, I just think an opportunity was missed)

But the issue is with sustrans as an organisation, not the basic idea. The idea that cycle paths represent 'sustainable alternative transport' is codswallop - 95% of the cyclists are leisure users who depend on cars, usually large cars. And their attitude to reinstatement schemes is simply unacceptable, they should be required to facilitate such schemes rather than blocking them.

 

I can only relate what happened with the Tetbury Branch around 2007. There was a plan by Sustrans to relay the old Branch as a cycleway to Kemble, and to be honest in this case it WOULD be the best use for the line. Admittedly most of the small bridges are gone (I would count about 7) AND the trackway is very badly overgrown in places. However, 3 years later its all gone very quiet and I presume it has died a death. I can only assume the amount of work involved has put them off, which is a great shame as at least in this case it would have had a genuine benefit to the community. In actual fact, Tetbury Rail yard did have a lot of money spent on it, presumably as a precurser to it happening. Now its being slowly vandalized.

Its a great pity they dont spend more money on reactivating lines like this as cycleways that have no hope of any other use, rather than being a PITA to railway groups which clearly have a future.