Bodmin & Wenford Railway, Wadebridge here we come ?

Come across that the B&W line are having another go to see if they can get into Wadebridge. http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Steam-scheme-track/story-26295769-detail/story.html http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Co...bridge-Camel/story-26325102-detail/story.html

Some of the objectors forget their cars also produce pollution as well as the steam and diesels. Also the date is incorrect for Wadebridge to be linked to London in 1895 as they forgot about the GWR link which come first.

 

Indeed, and I suspect it will remain that way until some of the objectors suddenly realise that they can make more money out of a working railway than a cycle trail. There are bound to be objectors but most people's support can be "bought" if they think that they can benefit from it financially. That's not a criticism of humanity, but an observation.

 

Never underestimate the Nimby a.k.a. "the Greater British aged flatulence"!

However there are a number of things tourist railways can do to minimise problems, principally by avoiding:-

1. The linear scrapyard.

2. Smoke nuisance.

3.. Bangings and thumpings late at night.

4. Bad language when there might be others in earshot.

P.H.

 

actually as I understand it, a cycle trail would bring more dosh to the local economy

 

But even if the B&W extended to Wadebridge, there's still the cycle trail to Padstow to attract the dedicated biker.

I'd love to see the B&W expand, so long as they never try to go beyond four- or five-coach trains - Bodmin General would have to change too much for that!

 

Considering the land owner's recent track record in relation to heritage railways, I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

Indeed, but hope springs eternal. I hope the B&W are given the green light to extend to Grogley - even only to Nanstallon - so that they can demonstrate that a win-win solution, where rail & trail co-exist, is possible. In my opinion, it really shouldn't be an either/or question at all but a question of accommodating both.

 

I despair once again of the lack of calibre of our local Government bureaucracy when I read stories like this. The deputy mayor says that "there are concerns" (displacement speak for "I am opposed to this but want to fool people that I am even handed") and then to cite that the concern - which must have existed for the last 30 years - is the coexistence of the path and the proposed line. Well get out there and bloody well measure it then!! How difficult can it be to resolve these "issues" and "questions". Why are all the local politicians allowed to sit on their backsides and stall progress by asking for third party "studies", and "research" (aka yet more dispacement technique) yet doing absolutely nothing to instigate any of it. This is not a difficult problem guys - I can calculate the mininum required width and the actual average width of the trail between Wadebridge and Padstow as can everyone else with a measure, a tablet, a camera and some common sense. As for the railway width - that can be calculated by reference to the actual line history and to safety statute. You can even throw in a margin of error of 50% just to be safe and some examples from the thousands of locations in the UK where paths and railways coincide. There, your deputy worship or hatver you call yourself. Now when are you and your activists actually going to get out there and do it rather than just talk about it so we can move on from this ridiculous smearing impasse?

 

As a matter of interest, are there any locations where a railway coexists with a cycle path within the railway's footprint, where the railway has always been single track of the same gauge? The only examples I can think of are either double line trackbeds (e.g. the Avon Valley) or lines where the gauge has narrowed (the Welsh Highland).

Not very much of Boscarne-Wadebridge was double-track width as far as I recall, only the half-mile or so north of the junction (or site of the original junction) with the North Cornwall.

 

I think its Cornwall council in general just look at the problems the Launceston Steam Railway encountered when they tried to extend to Egloskerry sharing a cycling path.

 

Criticism is often made of 'locals' who have objections where heritage railway projects are mooted.
However, it seems to be that in the more rural counties and more expensive scenic areas of Britain, the locals are in fact not truly local: they just happen to have moved into the area for retirement or a more peaceful life. I know when, some years ago, the Paignton line wanted to re-instate a short siding at Churston the main protagonist was someone from the London area who likened it, in his comments to the local newspapers, as 'Clapham Junction'!

 

I don't know the area or the railway, but remember a picture in Rail a few years ago which showed the line passing very close to a house - is this the route of any possible extension?

 

I think the location you're thinking of is on the Wenfordbridge branch, so no it doesn't lie on the Boscarne to Wadebridge section

 

Greenway makes a very valid point about 'NIMBYs' - the Helston Railway have also come up against them. From what I have seen, some of the rhetoric being used sounds very similar to that used against the plans to preserve the Longmoor Military Railway, back in the 1970s. Sadly we won't have the satisfaction of these particular objectors ending up with a major road disturbing their peace instead...

Then there's Sustrans. They are very reluctant to yield anything; good luck to anyone doing battle with them...

 

Sustrans and the local nimbys make my blood boil. This one is very local to me and i will save everyone my 5 page rant about their lack of foresight and ability to see the worth of this project.

I'll then save you all my 1400 page novel on cyclists in general...

 

The Camel Trail has proved very popular and being as the largest business in the area is tourism one has to ask ones self, if both cannot coexist, which one has the potential greater attraction? At the moment my pennies are on the Camel trail due to it being well established, covers a greater area, very popular and open for more days of the year than railway. It also has the advantage that it has a greater attraction to bring more tourists in than the railway will, therefore more money into the local economy......

This is by way no a critism of the B+W.

 

And the lack of money to buy the land and the track, when the last part of the line to the clay works shut.