Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

This forum is for news and announcements concerning the LNER, or this website.

Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard

Post Reply
alfredroberts
GER J70 0-6-0T Tram
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:30 pm

Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

Post by alfredroberts »

Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

In 2001 a pirate railway project was set up at AWD siding at Dunstable and as you all know the results were one of the worst railpres 'disasters' ever.

In the wake of that the local council (Luton Borough Council) responsible for promoting the bus way project along the old LNER railway to Dunstable indicated that "the potential heritage value of the rail line had been realised and if practicable a short length of line could be retained for heritage purposes besides the busway".

I explored the possibilities with the council in the summer of 2001 and we came to the conclusion that a base on a dell hole of waste land formerly an oil depot siding at Dunstable High Street North and a short length of line along the old line was practicable.

Since then the busway has gained approval and there is now the chance to run a branch to Dunstable Park as the busway from High Street North has been removed.

I have been liasing with the councils on this myself and I have set up an e mail group to give information on the idea.

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/D ... ay_Centre/

http://www.freewebs.com/south_bedfordshire_railway/

Anyone genuinely interested in helping the project is welcome. I am working against the clock to get the formal proposal in to the council in time for them to evaluate it.

I appeal for old photos of the Luton to Dunstable line especially Dunstable stations and the freight services after 1967 to 1989.

------------------------------

Members

I have had the following piece through my inbox - a response from Luton Borough Council to my proposal for the heritage railway alongside the Dunstable Bus way which was copied to the neighbouring councils. They are willing to help but think we may need planning permission despite existance of the old railway act - any comments???

Alfred.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Roberts

PROPOSAL FOR A HERITAGE RAILWAY ALONGSIDE THE BUSWAY CORRIDOR AT DUNSTABLE

I refer to your discussions with both Antony Aldridge and myself regarding the above matter over the last few months, which has culminated in you sending us three documents to comment upon (a formal proposal for a heritage railway, supported by two other documents that set out the aims and economic benefits of your proposals) at the beginning of September. I apologise for the delay in responding, but I wanted to take a considered and hopefully constructive view of the information that you sent us, in particular as you have obviously given a lot of thought and undertaken a lot of research in preparing your proposals.


The basis of your proposal is for a short length of the Luton to Dunstable branch line to be retained and / or re-laid for use as a heritage railway in the area between High Street North and the southern apex of the railway triangle in Dunstable. The proposals assume that the heritage railway would operate during weekends, together with some mid week operation during the school holiday periods and some evening operation possible at Halloween and Bonfire Night. The proposed heritage railway would aim to attract the patronage of local people, school parties, and also attract tourists from outside of the area.


The disused Luton-Dunstable railway is currently owned by BRB (Residuary) Ltd, but the Luton Dunstable Translink Order specifically identifies that section of land to become open space to replace that lost to the construction of the busway on part of Dog Kennel Down. At a very early stage in your discussions with the busway project team, the designation of this replacement open space of the south western chord of the old railway triangle was raised as an issue affecting the heritage railway. In this context I note from your letter that you have held initial discussions with South Bedfordshire District Council about the loss of some of the area allocated in the TWA Order, equating to a strip of land about ten feet wide, and that the District Council don't envisage that this will create a problem. My concern is whether a 10-foot wide strip of land would be sufficient to accommodate a single rail track plus an appropriate safety margin.


It is clear that the proposed section of heritage railway between High Street North and the southern apex of the railway triangle in Dunstable would reduce the area of replacement open space over this length that it was designed to re-provide, and this may result in a requirement for additional replacement open space. I feel that you should also be consulting Houghton Regis Town Council about your proposals as the replacement open space will be in their ownership. In this context please note that I have copied this letter to the Clerk to the Town Council.


You point out that the Luton Dunstable Translink Order does not compromise the 1855 Luton Dunstable Welwyn Junction Railway Act. You go on to suggest that a Certificate of Lawful Development and planning permission would not be required to operate a section of heritage railway over this length. I have sought the views of the Councils legal advisers on this matter and the following three paragraphs summarise their advice.


Developing a section of heritage railway is clearly development within the meaning of section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Our legal advisers have suggested that the only basis of proceeding without express permission would be either, as you suggested, to utilise the benefit of any deemed planning permission granted under the Luton Dunstable Translink Order or to rely on permitted development rights under Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.


With regard to the use of the Luton Dunstable Translink Order, this specifically authorises the construction of a guided busway and the direction as to deemed planning permission granted by the Secretary of State is quite specific and is not capable of accommodating some other type of development. Our legal advisers have suggested that, if the heritage railway proposals were to be brought forward, they would need express planning permission almost certainly accompanied by a full Environmental Statement.


Assuming the new works could be fitted entirely within the footprint of the scheme authorised by the 1855 Act, then Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order could be used. This does away with the need to secure an express grant of planning permission. Part 11 grants permission for development authorised by private act "which designates specifically the nature of the development authorised and the land upon which it may be carried out". It may be that your heritage railway proposals do not go outside the original limits for the 1855 Act. However, the railway authorised by the 1855 Act has been abandoned for some considerable length of time, and is now vested in BRB with no operational functions along the Luton-Dunstable railway. It is the view of our legal advisers that it is not possible to read into the 1855 Act the future redevelopment of the line and would therefore be extremely difficult to establish permitted development rights to establish a heritage railway along this section of abandoned railway corridor.


Your proposal also suggests that initially this section of heritage railway could be extended southwards to run alongside Dunstable Park, and also eventually continue westwards to the Sewell Trail west of the town, and possibly onto the outskirts of Leighton Buzzard.


Regarding the section of proposed heritage railway alongside Dunstable Park, you present two options; either moving the busway 10 feet to the North to accommodate the heritage railway within the existing railway formation or laying the heritage railway line along a strip of land currently part of Dunstable Park. If the heritage railway could be extended to the south end of Dunstable Park, the Council prefer the latter option as it has no impact on the construction of the busway in this area.


In relation to the heritage railway occupying a strip of land along the north eastern side of Dunstable Park, I am not sure if you are aware but about four years ago South Bedfordshire District Council approved an outline planning application for housing development on the area of Dunstable Park behind the college. The District Council has recently received a detailed Planning Application for 123 new homes on this site (application 08-0923 refers) for approval, which aims to discharge many of the Planning Conditions associated with the development of that site. I have to say that, having looked at the proposals, in my view there is no likelihood of being able to construct a heritage railway to the rear of that development.


In terms of the potential for extending the busway westwards to Sewell or the outskirts of Leighton Buzzard, there are two major constraints. The first, relating to an extension of the track to Sewell would, as you rightly identify, require a bridge over High Street North and a level crossing over Brewers Hill Road. Such measures are unlikely to be acceptable in the short term, at least until the completion of the A5-M1 Link that bypasses Dunstable and Houghton Regis to the north. Any extension westwards beyond Sewell would need to accommodate the railway and the existing Route 6 of the National Cycle Network in a narrow corridor.


As you indicate in your report, the longer ride may give a better impression of the heritage of the old line, and therefore be more of an attraction to visitors and provide the opportunity to create more volunteering or training posts to support the operation and maintenance of the heritage railway. However, as you also point out, either the southern or westward extension of the initial section beyond the southern apex of the old railway triangle and High Street North would require a Transport and Works Act application and planning permission to implement these extensions, together with a licence and a safety certificate issued by HMRI to operate trains over the whole proposed route.


My main concern is about the section of your formal proposal that sets out the costs to the Councils. The primary aim of the busway project team at the Borough Council is to implement the busway; any action they can take to assist your proposed heritage railway organisation must not in any way compromise the implementation of the busway, and will therefore be limited to those measures covered in the following paragraph. I have not considered the opportunities for other funds from the Councils or external organisations to pay for the other cost items identified in this section of your note.


The Conditional Approval for the busway scheme recently awarded by Government does not take into account the costs of providing a heritage railway alongside the section of the busway between Dunstable Park and High Street North. The latest cost estimate for the scheme indicates that the out-turn costs are very close to the total Government grant, and this is likely to impose severe limitations as to what the Council will be able to fund from the budget for the busway project. As I indicated above, the items that could possibly be funded by the busway project will probably be limited to the following, although you should note that there may be additional costs associated with some of these:


Securing in situ retention of a section of track between High Street North and the southern apex of the old railway triangle, as long as its retention does not compromise the implementation of the busway or the ability to adequately set out the proposed replacement open space. However this would not extend to off-site storage of the track, sleepers or ancillary items.

Retention of the gate and the gateposts removed (as part of the Busway project) from the AWD Siding entrance on to the Luton to Dunstable branch line for subsequent relocation to the entrance to the oil sidings.

Installation of a fence along the boundary of the old railway embankment and the oil sidings off Tavistock Street.

Clearance of the fly-tipping on the north embankment face of the old railway formation.

Re-grading of the formation leading from old railway embankment alongside the old oil sidings.


In addition to the above, if the heritage railway is extended at the southern end to run along part of Dunstable Park, then you have indicated it may be necessary to carry out modifications to the footbridge carrying Dog Kennel Path over the proposed single-track heritage railway. In your letter you suggest that either the northern edge of the cutting would move a little to the north or the incline of the cutting wall could be steeper. You suggest that because the contractors would already be on site, the additional work on the northern cutting wall beside Dog Kennel Down and the higher northern retaining wall would not be likely to cost much more. However from the Council's perspective, we would need complete certainty before we go out to Tender about what changes to the design would be required in the vicinity of the bridge, as the last thing that we would want would be to be faced with a claim as a result of changing the busway scheme in this area.


I trust these comments are helpful. However in the meantime please contact either myself or Busway project manager should you wish to further discuss this matter.


Yours sincerely

Transportation Strategy Manager


Cc Bedfordshire County Council

Transport Strategy, South Bedfordshire District Council

Planning, South Bedfordshire District Council

Clerk to Houghton Regis Town Council
User avatar
52D
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: Reallocated now between the Lickey and GWR
Contact:

Re: Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

Post by 52D »

Can i add my haporth, following other threads on this site and having worked on the Cambridge St Ives (MIS)Guided busway i think you should open the councils eyes to the fact that they are constructing a light complexioned pachyderm.
Hi interested in the area served by 52D. also researching colliery wagonways from same area.
User avatar
R. pike
GNR C1 4-4-2
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: just off the GN mainline
Contact:

Re: Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

Post by R. pike »

Good luck with the project. I will watch with interest. Here is a litte bit of Luton for you..

http://richard2890.fotopic.net/p51179340.html
http://richard2890.fotopic.net/p51179339.html
http://richard2890.fotopic.net/p51179341.html
alfredroberts
GER J70 0-6-0T Tram
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

Post by alfredroberts »

The old line from Luton to Dunstable is owned by BRB Residuary LTD. Luton Borough Council Transport Strategy has the government go ahead for the Luton to Dunstable bus way, which will run from Luton (by Hatters Way) to Houghton Regis, which will use the old Luton to Dunstable branch line from Luton (by Hatters Way) to the site of the southern apex of the old railway triangle at Dunstable (which is East junction of the Houghton Regis Portland Cement siding), the bus way then follows a new course across the fields beside the mineral line to Houghton. Luton Borough Council Transport Strategy plans to buy the old line from BRB Residuary LTD.

The council told me in 2001 that the potential to the area of the retention of a section of the old railway line HAD been recognised and if practicable a short section of the old line could be retained as a heritage railway.

The route of the proposed heritage railway would be from High Street North past oil sidings and the Western apex of the old railway triangle at Dunstable to the southern apex of the old railway triangle where the bus way proposals for the area (route D) were abandoned. The line from High Street North to the Western apex of the old railway triangle at Dunstable (which is West junction of the Houghton Regis Portland Cement siding) was closed in July 1969 and disconnected by a section of track being removed, the remainder from Oil Sidings to Luton on 30 April 1989.

As you can see from the previous posting I made : The Luton Borough Council Transport Strategy department has largely restricted funding from the busway project for the proposed heritage railway, to the retention of the old line (and some old track left lying on top of it?) in situ as well as regrading a junction between the oil sidings waste land and fencing and a gate on the oil sidings boundary, and clearance work they would have had to do anyway. However this does not exclude other departments or other councils from becoming involved. For example a major priority is to secure the use of the waste land by High Street North and Tavistock Street (on the site of the old oil sidings) as a depot for the proposed heritage railway scheme.

I hope the proposed heritage railway will be able to offer training and volunteering opportunities in a depressed area. Also the proposed heritage railway is designed in such a way that visitors to the proposed heritage railway will be encouraged to use local businesses - there are lots of restaurants and takeaways in the locaility within yards of the entrance to the proposed heritage railway, and the proposed heritage railway will not provide much by way of catering so visitors will use the restaurants and takeaways.

I cannot put much of a timeline of the project yet, but track lifting on the Dunstable line is scheduled to begin in January 2009. I am proposing to conserve types of vehicles that did run in the area, I am investigating whether low density DMU cars similar to those used on the DMU services before closure in 1960s could be acquired to operate immediatley, and acceptable Mk1 suburban bodied vehicles (such as SR DEMU or EMU cars similar to those used on 1950s steam services) could be acquired, with a balance struck between these and vehicles needing restoration. I am investigating whether rolling stock for trainees and volunteers to restore can be acquired, to date an aly bodied DMU and a steel bodied DMU (neither needing much major welding), two wooden bodied LMS - LNWR coaches and a steel bodied LMS coach shell, both in need of major restoration, have been id'd.

I will be investigating whether a 310 EMU could come to the line (the project to preserve it is being worked on by another group), as these vehicles worked on GER and LMR lines near to the Luton to Dunstable to Leighton Buzzard railway. The terrible condition of these coaches after they have been stripped of asbestos would not be too much of a problem once the site is up and running as it is the intention of the project whilst I am here to provide training i.e. welding and carpentary and some vehicles such as these are needed to work on. As has been said elsewhere as built the 310s have the dreaded blue asbestos material within, sealed into structural areas beneath the floor and at cant rail height and would cost a bomb to remove it all if paid for privately, no doubt, and leaves the vehicle weakened after the box sections have been cut open to get at it. (Mk2 monocoque design). The 310 would not be an addition to the rolling stock for trainees and volunteers to restore which would add up to an impossible number, although I accept that although vehicles can be brought in comparatively easily the facilities for restoration will be needed.
hq1hitchin
LNER V2 2-6-2 'Green Arrow'
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Newbury, Berks

Re: Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

Post by hq1hitchin »

Good luck to you, chum. I was born and bred in Dunstable and it breaks my heart to see the way the whole area has declined mainly due, I think, to the total lack of traffic planning around the town since the M1 was opened, resulting in heavy road congestion through the centre for most of the day, coupled with the general decline in manufacturing industry. The busway scheme is a dud amongst other previously mentioned things because, like any proposed rail scheme, no provision has been made for car parking for the would be users. Just travel on the re-opened Ebbw Vale line to see what happens when they get it right.

Road learning down Memory Lane for a moment - the only DMUs we saw regularly were the Cravens sets and the first Diesels were the BC&W Type 2s, I remember one of my mates trying to convince us that they ran, not on wheels, but on skates! The rarest would have been a 350 hp shunter on a passenger train replacing a failed main line diesel.

Anway, let's hope you are able to do some good
A topper is proper if the train's a non-stopper!
J Yoder
LNER J94 0-6-0ST Austerity
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:02 am
Location: La Junta, CO, USA

Re: Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

Post by J Yoder »

What is a "pirate railway project?"
hq1hitchin
LNER V2 2-6-2 'Green Arrow'
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Newbury, Berks

Re: Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

Post by hq1hitchin »

In this instance, I believe, an individual gathered a motley collection of rolling stock in the old Vauxhall sidings near the site of Dunstable Town station and unwisely decided to play trains by running them up and down a section of the by then disused branch. Even less wisely, he allowed a report of these antics to get into the local press, whereupon the matter came to the attention of HM Railway Inspectorate. Shortly afterwards he was served with a prohibition notice and the inspector also arranged for some vital bits of pointwork coming out of the sidings to be removed. I think that finished it, really.
A topper is proper if the train's a non-stopper!
alfredroberts
GER J70 0-6-0T Tram
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

Post by alfredroberts »

Yes that is about true. I came along on the last day they ever went to the line in March 2001 and that was my first visit. I found one vehicle which had exposed blue asbestos had been vandalised and so I reported this to the local environmental health people who ordered the landowners to strip the car as they could not find the owner who abandoned it. this created another big foroure. I still have some of the old press cuttings on the shunter movements and the asbestos. Totally stupid the whole lot of them.

None are involved with the scheme now.
hq1hitchin
LNER V2 2-6-2 'Green Arrow'
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Newbury, Berks

Re: Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

Post by hq1hitchin »

Seems nothing is still for certain (will it survive the spending cuts, I wonder)

http://www.dunstabletoday.co.uk/dunstab ... 5897776.jp
A topper is proper if the train's a non-stopper!
User avatar
R. pike
GNR C1 4-4-2
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: just off the GN mainline
Contact:

Re: Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

Post by R. pike »

lets hope it works better than the Cambridge busway... Also lets hope someone can paint better road markings..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/camb ... 405434.stm
hq1hitchin
LNER V2 2-6-2 'Green Arrow'
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Newbury, Berks

Re: Dunstable - proposed short heritagerailway alongside bus way

Post by hq1hitchin »

If only we could see this again - although I cheated a bit. Hitchin Down Carriage Sidings about 1973
A topper is proper if the train's a non-stopper!
Post Reply