Instead of HSE
- Thread starter lozcs
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
[QUOTE 3059445, member: 45"]They could do but seeing as your suggested route includes the Lickey Incline, which is the steepest sustained main-line railway incline in the UK, I can't see it being popular.[/QUOTE]
Tough for a train but be OK on a bike, I reckon I'll be OK so mustn't let that stop them..
Tough for a train but be OK on a bike, I reckon I'll be OK so mustn't let that stop them..
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
Why would someone want to replace the Health and Safety Executive with a cycle path? 
Why would someone want to replace the Health and Safety Executive with a cycle path?
Even better!
jagman.2003
Über Member
- Location
- Gloucestershire
I have often wondered if there was some use in having cycle paths along the railway line.
- It would get away from vehicular traffic.
- Not many steep climbs. Just steady inclines
- There are some great views from the railway line not often seen.
- Fairly straight route.
shouldbeinbed
Rollin' along
- Location
- Manchester way
The question was asked of Transport for Greater Manchester and my local council officials why this was not done for the recent extension of the Metrolink service at our recent cycling forum.
Whilst I think the totally honest answer from them would have been 'because it never even crossed our minds for a single second', they did come up with land ownership and restrictions very close to the track by other people, access/blockages for maintenance and provision through gullies, cuttings etc with the large extra expense and time involved in cutting cycle provision out too and other areas/tunnels where the heavy or light rail lines cannot accommodate alongside provisionand they may not be particularly well situated to an immediate and direct cycle diversion back onto regular roads or bespoke alternate provision.
All in all as well as it being a total shock of an idea to them (my gut feeling from the wide eyes and initial bluster when the question was asked) it all sounded like it falls into the category of too expensive and hard to do for a niche group like us.
I'd love it for both local and longer routes and have a lovely mental image of cycling right into a mainline interchange station such as Leeds to change cycle tracks & continue my journey from home in Manchester to visit my folks in Newcastle.
Whilst I think the totally honest answer from them would have been 'because it never even crossed our minds for a single second', they did come up with land ownership and restrictions very close to the track by other people, access/blockages for maintenance and provision through gullies, cuttings etc with the large extra expense and time involved in cutting cycle provision out too and other areas/tunnels where the heavy or light rail lines cannot accommodate alongside provisionand they may not be particularly well situated to an immediate and direct cycle diversion back onto regular roads or bespoke alternate provision.
All in all as well as it being a total shock of an idea to them (my gut feeling from the wide eyes and initial bluster when the question was asked) it all sounded like it falls into the category of too expensive and hard to do for a niche group like us.
I'd love it for both local and longer routes and have a lovely mental image of cycling right into a mainline interchange station such as Leeds to change cycle tracks & continue my journey from home in Manchester to visit my folks in Newcastle.
Archie_tect
De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
- Location
- Northumberland
Planning ahead requires joined up thinking...
Archie_tect
De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
- Location
- Northumberland
That just needs shorter people...
Archie_tect
De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
- Location
- Northumberland
To be fair the underpasses and over bridges and tunnels were put in in the early 1900s so joined up thinking could only go so far.... getting everyone to use one width of track and a standard width and height for carriages was hard enough then!
But new track and new infrastructure must be easier to plan now- they can't even organise level access from train platforms onto carriages so what chance have we? Why is there a step?
But new track and new infrastructure must be easier to plan now- they can't even organise level access from train platforms onto carriages so what chance have we? Why is there a step?
