In article ,
NY wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
The real shame is that the rights-of-way were not permanently held.
That would have allowed for them to be later re-used for rail, or
bus-ways or bike/walking routes f'rinstance. Such as parts of the Worth
Way in Sussex.

Well said. There should have been a clause which said that any former
transport route should remain a transport route (even if only for
walkers and cyclists) and BR should not have been allowed to sell off
the assets which at the time belonged to the nation (since BR was a
nationalised industry).

But it's OK for the NHS etc to sell off 'spare' land to build houses few
can afford on?

By all means save money by not running trains and not employing staff to
do so or to maintain the route to railway standard, but that's as far
as it should have gone. At least where lines have been closed since the
days of Beeching, it was been on the basis of mothballing, with routes
protected against development.

Big problem is maintaining things like bridges and tunnels. If that isn't
done, cheaper to simply demolish. And extremely expensive to reinstate.

And so many couldn't be improved to twin or more tracks economically
anyway. So only really of use for leisure.

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.