Anyone fancy joining a putative line revival project?

Yes but the potential for re-opening is as part of the national network and funded by the taxpayer. As a steam project this is beyond a dead duck! The only way I can see this happening is as part of an overall package if the plans for an eco town at Dunsfold Park (near Cranleigh) ever see the light of day. This is very hotly contested and objected to - one of the main objections being transport links - hence those (which means most people anywhere near it) opposed to that scheme will also be opposed to the Cranleigh - Guildford re-opening as that removes a part of the objection to Dunsfold Park. Also it is said that residents of Bramley don't want the station re-opened in case it attracts many commuters parking in the village streets (which given it's location just off the A281 south of Guildford is highly likely

David R

 

Has there yet been a privately funded project to reopen a line purely intended to become part of the national network Perhaps in a heightened era of ppi initiatives there will be a place for it - but it will not be a heritage railway if it happens, any more than say the Robin Hood line is.

 

re opening as far as Cranleigh as part of the national network may possibly work, but it would need to be 3rd rail with the added expense of the necessary extra transformers, and double tracked, Beyond Cranleigh would be not possible, Some very wealthy influential people who live around Dunsfold would stop any reopening scheme dead in its tracks, unless they in some way stood to gain in some way, a direct Christ hospital to Guldford line, had it not closed would probally by now had been electrified and doubled , as it serves some communities that hhave grown up in the years since closure.

 

Agree it would need to be electrified (3rd rail or overhead with dual voltage stock). Not necessarily double track - Borders Railway, Farnham to Alton etc, possibly with a dynamic loop should be acceptable. Also agree about influential people around Dunsfold - development at Dunsfold Park is the one thing that might generate some funds to get this off the ground - hence it will be vigourously opposed. But as I said before, as a Steam Railway this is an absolute dead duck

David R

 

A Cranleigh line reopening as part of the national network would not involve electrification, and you can forget double track - there simply isn't the room. There were passing loops (with their own platforms) at Bramley & Wonersh, Cranleigh and Baynards (but not at Rudgwick or Slinfold - although there could be room at the latter). Dunsfold is about three miles from the railway, it would not have much effect. I am also very much opposed to the "eco town" there - I want to see that unusually well-preserved WW2 airfield retained, restored and promoted as such, not covered in little identikit boxes (the occupants of which would all drive - and the A281 is at capacity already, frequently jamming up badly - I've known solid static tailbacks from Guildford right through Bramley). However, a NR reopening will not happen because the funding simply is not available. However, I have, as said before, got a potential investor interested - and (if he continues to win his current legal battles) he would be able, if so minded, be able to finance the whole lot himself. Having walked the entire route myself, I can say safely that the southern section of the line beyond Cranleigh is no worse than the northern section in terms of difficulty, aside from two small infilled cuttings (which, put together, would amount to less than half an Imberhorne). There are fewer missing bridges south of Cranleigh, for a start, and only one building (consisting of three small houses) to demolish, whereas Cranleigh station site (and there's no suitable alternative!) would have to be subjected to a significant mixed-use redevelopment - the existing building at least provides precedent for scale, and one could look to Cranleigh School for stylistic influence in terms of making it look suitably Victorian.

Now, is there any reason why, if the funding is in place to reopen the line, making it work as a heritage railway with a weekday DMU service would be utterly impossible? So far, I have seen no evidence to support that view - and I've heard the word "impossible" used to describe many schemes which have succeeded. I wasn't around at the time but I do recall reading that Michael Draper of the Severn Valley Railway was utterly dismissive of the nascent GlosWarks scheme... it seems that there was a view then that half a dozen heritage railways was as many as the country could sustain... which has been comprehensively disproven.

 

Over 12,000 residents. Surrey also has the highest car ownership per capita of any county in the UK (forget the numbers now).

I never blocked you. You can find me on Facebook. There were some public statements from you and your colleagues about me which were libellous. The person to whom you spoke was Neil Jackson - whose credibility has been called into question by two individuals who messaged me privately. The advice I received from Companies House was that we needed a minimum four directors to register a company.

Long shut hasn't stopped certain more recently-established schemes getting somewhere. There are some NIMBY types, granted, but opinion polls suggest they're a minority of 10-15%. The idea had been to establish it as a heritage railway (principally because that's the only way of 'crowdfunding' a reopening, but also because the locality could use a tourist attraction, and it's just as scenically appealing as the Bluebell, MHR etc - the canal also offers an interesting potential tie-up which no other ex-Southern line does). As for how it would develop - it's a matter of what land we could acquire... and until we've achieved that it's very difficult to say. A full reopening could be doable with sufficient finance... granted, such political support as has been expressed amounts, at present, to the square root of bugger all - and, as we know, politicians aren't elected for life! In terms of the timescales, I'm prepared for it to take years to start. Helston told me it took them seven years from start-up to the first brakevan ride there. I'm young yet, I've hopefully got another 60+ years left in me... likewise my canal chum is in his mid 20s... S&D, I was referring to the Midsomer Norton and Shillingstone schemes. The whole-line thing... well, don't get me going on the individual promoting that. Granted, at the moment we do not have a sizeable band of volunteers promoting this putative scheme.

As for the disastrous public meeting we had - Neil was somewhat at fault, but equally my own naivety and lack of planning was just as much to blame.

It's not an office block. It's a handful of shop units (including a small Sainsbury's and a bank) with some flats above it. The parish council want it gone, local residents want it gone, it's astonishingly badly-built and is crumbling. It's going to have to go within the next decade, railway or none.

 

Two questions. How many preserved railways were set up with public transport objectives? And of those, how many have delivered on those objectives?

If the line has a good BCR, the question must be asked why Network Rail have not tried to progress a scheme. I've heard suggestions that capacity at Guildford is an issue. If so, why do you believe your scheme could overcome that?

You also make quite glib comments about the scale of demolition required in Cranleigh. How realistic is it to hope or expect that you could obtain the land or permissions to get through, given the emotions that demolishing peoples houses will cause?

I'm afraid that, if there is the kernel of a viable scheme in what you outline, I cannot see it in anything like its current form. If you had money (real and in the bank) and expertise, but needed numbers, I could believe this credible. Likewise, if you had numbers but needed funding and experience. Sadly, you appear to have neither.

 

Edit. Amended having seen Richard's further post. Your honesty does you credit, though more tact might also be an asset. If reopening a line that has been closed for approximately twice as long as you've been alive matters so much, you need to articulate why anyone else should care. At the moment, all I get is a combination between your having a bee in the bonnet and a vague wouldn't it be nice ((c) PHitch!) sentiment.

That means identifying your constituency. If it's public transport, you need to make that case. If preservation, that's a different case. I drove over the remains of the LNW/GN joint line this morning. I'd love to see it reopen, especially from Scalford through Melton Mowbray to John O'Gaunt. As I lack the network, money or time to drive any of that, it will stay a pipe dream.

Sadly, that means your reward may be nearer that of some other schemes that haven't got off the ground.

 

Hi Richard,

Having just read the entire thread a part of me admires your 'vision' but the bigger part of me finds me leaning towards what everyone else has said. My advice would be for you to speak to Mr Waghorn via PM and try to resolve your differences (if not already done so). Then you should try establishing contact with any of the newer heritage railways i.e. established in the last 10-15 years to research and factfind the ordeals they have gone through/going through. Keep establishing contacts and researching until such time that your secret benefactor has the resources available to buy that all important first piece of land which would become the HQ for any railway. When that happens then you might just convince a few people that you are serious. Without that opinion, both public and within the heritage sector, people will be heavily sceptical against you. To change the 'odds' you have to prove something because talk is too easy,

Best regards,

Mark

 

For those of us that followed the "Rillington to Pickering Reinstatement" saga there are interesting overtones. There too there was a shadowy "investor" willing to put up the money subject to a feasibility study that was allegedly commissioned but the results of which were never revealed. That was another entirely-Facebook scheme which has happily died a death after generating a lot of acrimony. I'd suggest 0this one isn't worth the inevitable stress it will generate!

 

Iam of the belief that if it was viable , along with a park and ride at Peasmarsh then by now it would have been done, as regards capacity, terminating services at Guildford could always have been extended to run to Cranliegh but the line would have had to have been electrified, the time for this would have been in the NSE era when the will would have been there to re open lines, but now its just another dream, that will not see the light of day IMHO, closure of many of the southern lines in the 1960's was sheer folly, when you look at catchment areas now i am sure they would have been profitable today.

 

I think any poster who uses that fine word "putative" is fully deserving of our support.

 

It's not the fact that it's 'impossible' that's the issue - as you say, nothing is 'impossible' if someone is prepared to spend a ton of money on it… it's the fact that the proposal mooted here is 'insensible' and 'illogical'.

There's generally some sort of logic in creating tourist attractions, heritage museums, industrial re-enactments etc. etc. where the use of land or other resources doesn't cause a significant dis-benefit to others - give or take…. Effective re-use of 'from somewhere to nowhere' or in many cases originally 'from nowhere to nowhere' lines has been the foundation of the preservation movement - using land built for railways but no longer providing significant public value, nor in significant demand for alternative development (I'm sure there are examples out there where potentially commercially viable 'public' routes have been annexed for 'heritage' use, GCR maybe, but these are generally in the minority…).

That's not where the Cranleigh - Guildford route is… it links significantly sized towns with an obvious connection through to London, potentially meeting significant, maybe substantial, need for improved public transport connections - meeting a community need for public services. Additionally, the land around the area is in significant demand for housing development. The route in its current form is also pretty much the tourism draw for the area - I'm struggling to see anything else of note around the area which would draw in as many people as cycling/walking along the disused railway line.

None of those is a slam-dunk reason to not reinstate a public, network -integrated, rail route into Guildford - public value can trump all of those factors in the long-term. But they're all solid reasons why it is naive in the extreme to think that there will ever be a hobby/heritage/enthusiast-led project there.

Simon

 

Is it only me who thinks the OP should hear the clamour of alarm bells at this statement? Am I starting to think that he has been given hope by this individual, which can only realistically end in disappointment?

I was going to say that there have been numerous attempts to run preserved lines as a so-called 'community railway' and offer 'shopper services'. Every single one has failed, with the honourable exception of the RH&DR's school service. A very clear division has emerged from sheer experience - a railway is either (a) part of the national network or (b) runs services which are travelled on by people in their leisure time. It has been proved that a sort of 'halfway house' simply isn't viable.

I would love to see the Strathmore mainline from Kinnaber Junction-Stanley Junction reopen. I would also love to see the Cuckoo line reopen. One of these schemes - or at least part of it - WILL happen and it will happen within the next few years. I have a benefactor in place (me) and all it will take is the time, effort and purchasing the motive power and rolling stock. Which will be courtesy of Bachmann, Hornby and Heljan.
That's how my fantasy reopening schemes will become reality.

 

Why be a little fish in a big pond, when you can be a big fish in a little pond!

Sawdust.

 

I would be very happy to be proved wrong, but would be extremely cynical about one person who is prepared to pay something like £100 million pounds to reinstate a railway line. He must be expecting a truly enormous legal victory.

I admire Brightonbaltic's honesty in his posting, but would be concerned that there is not much detail about anything just yet, and he seems to be looking for someone to do a huge amount of work; may I suggest looking for a group instead?

 

I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense.

Assuming this proposal is about re-instating part of the national network, not a heritage line (I'm not clear myself, but let's assume the former).

If you connect to the Reading-Redhill line, then what? You just dump the passengers in Redhill who then presumably need a change to get to London. On the assumption that the business case for re-instatement would primarily be about London-bound commuter traffic from Cranleigh, then it surely only makes sense to send that through Guildford and thence Waterloo - which probably means electrification and extension of existing Waterloo - Guildford services. Sending passengers cross country to Redhill where they then have to change for a London service doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It is not competitive on time with driving to Guildford and getting a train from there.

Being pragmatic: this looks to me like a line that should never have closed in the first place. but once it did, the chances of re-opening seem slim indeed, even with full backing of all the relevant state agencies (local, national Government etc). Without such support it's a non-starter.

Tom

 

I suspect that if the desire to demolish the square was as significant as you describe, the time to do it was 2004 (a mere 11 years ago) when the new Sainsbury's - quite a large branch, if not exactly a superstore - was built. If a new station is ever going to be built, it would need to work around what's there now, eg maybe by eating into the public car park to the north of the square, rather than attempting to usurp a relatively modern supermarket.

Simon