I can't find a plan of the line anywhere on your site ! If we are to talk to people & raise awareness/support it's the first thing people need to see.
MRC - Oops looks like that got deleted in an earlier edit. It should now be restored to the front page.
Have you thought about a Facebook webpage? The Hornsea, Withernsea and the Yorkshire Wolds Rail group all have one.
MRC - we have one Dave - just type in Minsters Rail Campaign should get you there. There is also one called Reversing Beeching - York to Beverley.
Why not buy the track bed of the Minsters railway line as the next step? You will need find out how much they would sell the track bed to you and you should set up a fund and a trust then apply for charity status .I would like to wish you the best of luck.
MRC - Thanks Peter but given significant parts of the route have been built over and the council are about to give planning permission on other parts we have little hope of being successful with such a fund.
".....The flats were right on the route of the planned railway as it passes behind Galashiels town centre....."
I hope that Minster Rail does not disband, as there will always be a need for this line that should never have closed at all. I still stand firmly by my view that the original route, in Market Weighton, Pocklington and Stamford Bridge is in fact the only and best possible one. What is so regrettable, is that such expensive obstacles were placed in the way. Look at the Borders railway as an example, now being rebuilt by the Scottish (not Westminster) Government. Please can I ask if Minster Rail has ever considered becoming a community interest company?
MRC - Yes. We suggested to the ERYC we take over operation of the alignement. We had been talking to a telecoms company who were interested in running an information super highway along the route (and paying well for that). with that money we had hoped to fund a full study and take forward the opening of the line (whilst managing the footpaths etc in the meantime). So as well as closing off the route ot the railway ERYC have also slammed the door on improved internet connectivity in the area.
I would like to suggest that you buy up the railway track bed of the Minster Railway line then show the council you want to open the railway line . You are the boxing them in a corner and they will then have to protect the line. from Peter Jarai
MRC; Thanks Peter - we suggested taking over the alignment and running it on behalf of the ERYC as a Community Interest Company. We had a telecoms company that were interested in laying an internet cable down (and prepared to pay well for it thus meaning we could fund further studies) the route but sadly this was not of interest to them. The MRC has a bank balance of around £2,000 so not enough to buy the line.
That's OK. I've applied to become a member of the Minsters Rail Campaign and put in a word with ERYC to persuade them to reverse their decision. The railways are going to have to make a comeback sooner rather than later for we can't keep relying on roads for all transport needs.
MRC - Thanks Catherine - we are not accepting life memberships at the moment as it is possible that the MRC might close if the decision goes against us.
I would like to add my voice to your campaign to reopen the Minsters line. I very much hope you are successful and I think that it was wrong of ERYC to deliver this devastating blow to your campaign
MRC - Thank you Catherine - all is not lost yet. Hope you can find time in this busy season to write to your councillors and MP with your concerns. Happy Xmas!
To Minsters Rail Campaign:
I do hope you succeed in convincing local authorities to safeguard the route from York to Beverley. However, if not, then I suggest you continue to campaign for a restored rail link, as it isn't necessary to follow the course of the original line to the letter! Just remember all the work the Ffestiniong had to undertake in North Wales to get around a reservoir that breached their original trackbed!
MRC - Thanks Adrian, we are making progresss in the right direction and are moderately confident that there will be some more positive news in the next month or two.
I am delighted that the building restrictions have been lifted on the proposed rail route, that means the building can now start in the pigeon coat area of York that will definitely be the last nail in the coffin.
MRC - Thanks for your mail John. Naturally we are disappointed with the decision from EYRC and feel this could be a decision (should development go-ahead) that will be deeply regretted in East Yorkshire. We feel our arguments are strong ones and a re-opened railway would deliver benefits throughout the area. The 2005 study suggested a positive business case and with changes since then we think this can only be stronger. Some of the key arguments are on our website.
You do not state why you support EYRC policy. Would your property affected by the re-opening of the line? Are you concerned that opening the line will see further development of York to the east?
We have since met with ERYC and are confident they will reverse the decision.
This scheme should be given top priority. There should be no more dragging of heels by any agency. This railway should never have closed and it is high time it was re-opened.
MRC - Thanks John. Unfortunately at the present time (May 2013) we are getting little useful support from the councils in East Yorkshire and without that we are going to struggle.
Please join the campaign (if you are not yet a member) and get involved.
The sample letter leaves out the idea of a spur for direct links from Bridlington. I feel that this should be included in the plans, as a change at Beverley make the journey to Bridlington less attractive.
MRC: Thanks - that certainly is a valid point. Please feel free to add to your letter although the original I thought we had included that point in the original draft.
Although it is hard to tell from the map would the Possible southern route near York take the line close enough to the University of York for a halt there to be considered?
Also the south route looks to come very close to the short Derwent valley Light Railway preserved line. Has re-connecting that to the national network been considered?
MRC - Thanks for your questions David. Although the southern route was considered in 2005 it has now been discounted. It would have picked up the old Derwent Valley route in the Dunnington area and it is this route which is occupied by the Derwent Valley preservation society. Further towards the centre of York the route is now a very popular walk/cycle way and it would be very difficult to return this to railway use. In the unlikely event that this route was re-opened the line is probably a bit too far away from the university campus to attract custom.
This is a pipedream.
The money or political will is not there!
What about the peoples property you intend to have to go through on the route? How arrogant.
The original route was scrapped because it was not financially viable and nor is this!
MRC Thans for your comments Kevin. Our next goal is to get a feasibility study done which will show whether or not building the line is reality. We had a study done in 2005 which showed it was and we think that the changes in the economy and especially the price of oil will further strengthen that case. However if it proves that the line is not viable then I suspect we’ll call it a day.
The method that was used to assess the viability of many lines closed in the 1960s is widely regarded as flawed and if the line had remained open it would probably be doing good business just as the Harrogate and Bridlington - Hull lines are today.
Our initial route plans will see no properties demolished, although of course there will be some land take. If the parallel A1079 was dualled throughout I suspect that a number of properties would need to be demolished. One of the main reasons for re-opening the line is the shocking accident rates on the A1079 and A166 and a railway is, we hope, a viable sustainable alternative to building bigger roads.
How about including a membership form on your website? It wouldn't have to be full on-line processing; a form to print and post would be adequate.
MRC - We have now added this feature to our website - thanks for the idea Mark.
I notice that the proposed reinstatement has route diversions around the 3 major settlements on route (Stamford Bridge, Market Weighton and Pocklington). Whilst this is understandable owing to development onto the track bed, what impact is this likely to have on projected usage? The original station locations were fairly central and within walking distance for passengers.
If the express bus services are more accessible is there a danger of little local patronage?
MRC – Thanks David for this excellent question. The local bus service from Pocklington and Market Weighton is not well used at present because the journey times on the A1079 are so poor. We believe that a rail link will offer better journey times, better comfort and hopefully a more regular service. Stamford Bridge is a slightly different case as it is served by the number 10 bus (operated by First York) which we hope would link the new station to various parts of the village as well as Dunnington. This route might lose some central York traffic to the railway but equally if it was diverted via York University it might become more attractive to a slightly different market.
One advantage for the station at Pocklington is that it will attract traffic off the A1079, and at Stamford Bridge off the A166 relieving the bottleneck in the centre of the village.
If a light rail or tram solution is built, then we would look to access the centre of the settlements with possibly an additional A1079 parkway stop.
Would it be an operation like Chiltern Railways. They save on construction costs by not using Network Rail to build their stations or new lines.
Where would the line go after York and what route will it take. Will it be passenger only or will freight trains operate as well? Will steam specials operate over the line - they will bring additional revenue.
MRC - thanks for your answer Matt - some of these subjects are dealt with in more detail on our FAQs and facts page. At the moment (May 2012)we do not know who will build the line - our aim is to get a feasibility study done to see whether that is worth doing. We would like at least one through train per hour to operate to leeds and beyond but it is likely they will only operate as far as York.
The line could possibly be an independent tramway so owuld not be able to host freight and passenger trains. If it is built as a traditional railway it will be able to carry some freight and the occasional special train.
I really love your website. Pleasant colours & theme. Did you develop this site
yourself? Please reply back as I'm wanting to create my own website and would love to find out where you got this from or just what the theme is named. Cheers!
MRC - thanks Fern. If you scroll to the bottom of this page and click on CREATE that will take you to the sign on page for designing your own website. Good luck!
As an ex resident of Stamford Bridge it would be great to see the line re-opened. I am surprised the idea for a 'heritage' line hasn't been mooted so far. That alone would be easily achieved by a spur from the existing station site. It is almost begging for some kind of museum to be built on the site. The completeness of the site etc would lend itself to this.
In the next few years we are expecting the re-opening of the the northern end of the Waverley route, which is of similar length of your scheme. Having moved up to Scotland, it is clear the executive are light years ahead in thinking and executing the rebuilding of lines that should never have been closed.
Perhaps they would be a good source if information to help your cause
This link may help (it also has the Waverley route scheme)
This site is a good read and covers Stamford Bridge as well http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/sites.shtml
While I am not a train spotter nor especially interested in them, I support your scheme and very much would like to see it re-open!
MRC - thanks for your interest Jonathan. At the public meeting in Stamford Bridge someone mentioned the re-opening of the old site as a preservation site with a spur onto our line, that has to avoid Stamford Bridge as the original alignment has been built over. We are not pursuing this as there are other preservation activities in the area (Yorkshire Wolds Railway, Derwent Valley Railway) and our aim is to open a railway to link into the national network.
The Waverley project is an interesting one and indeed we hope that with increasing motoring costs that government attitudes to schemes like ours will change.
Even though you no longer live in Stamford Bridge please join the Campaign - its only a fiver per year or £50 for life!
I'm a long time supporter of this campaign but please PLEASE also campaign to have the Beverley end connected with both a South AND a Northbound connection so that trains can run direct from York to Bridlington. This would allow a freight depot to be built in the future at Carnaby, easing traffic on the A614 as well as allowing better public transport connections to the Yorkshire Coast.
MRC - Thanks for your comments Ric. We believe that a north curve at Beverley allowing a direct service to Bridlington will be an important part of the Minsters Line timetable. This would give a Bridlington to York journey of around 63 minutes and possibly a journey time of around 3½ hours to London. Keep an eye out for our next newsletter which will add some detail. At the present time we see freight usage of the line being secondary, as the layout at the north of York station is restrictive. The fact that EYRC has identified the Carnaby site for freight is good news for the long term sustainable future of the area.
Can't remember whether it was mentioned at the meeting, but is the proposed route "protected" at all? I am thinking in relation to all the new houses that government is telling local councils to build.
MRC - Thanks you for your question. The remaining part of the Minsters Line through East Yorkshire is protected although in the villages and towns new developments have necessitated diversionary routes. The original route is not protected within the City of York area although a new route will be required for most of that area anyway. The diversionary routes have not been fully developed yet so we cannot really protect them although we do need to keep a watch on any proposed developments.
I'm very interested in the old railways of east and north Yorkshire and would love to see these plans come in to being. Beeching certainly made the wrong decision on said route, it doesn't make alot of sense going from Beverly to change at Hull and sometimes Selby to get to York.
I am currently a member of the Malton to Driffield resurection group as well, lthough I have not been to a meeting in a while!
It looks as though your plans miss out the old viaduct at Stamford Bridge, it seems a great waste, however the houses at the other side of the road from the station will have put stop to using it I suppose.
Anyway I hope all goes well and I shall be following news on developments.
MRC - Thanks for your support. Your comments about the viaduct at Stamford Bridge are spot on - our plans should see no properties demolished at all. There is also some doubt as to whether the existing viaduct could support a restored railway as it was nearly demolished a few years back.
Are you planning to reopen Kiplingcotes and Cherry Burton stations on the Minsters line?
The Driffield - Selby line also ran through Market Weighton - is that included in your plans?
MRC - Thank you for these questions. Neither, Kiplingcotes nor Cherry Burton stations will re-open under our proposals as we do not believe either location will generate sufficient demand to justify the cost of providing new stations. We have deliberately kept the number of stations to a minimum to minimise journey times on the line, as this makes it more attractive to rail users. We would hope that the smaller villages will one day be served by connecting bus services giving an integrated public transport network to offer an alternative to car travel.
The line between Market Weighton and Driffield will not re-open as we believe it will be more cost effective to have a north facing spur in the Beverley area that will allow through running between Bridlington and York. The cost of re-opening the line between Market Weighton and Driffield would be considerably more. The line to Selby travels through a thinly populated area and at present we do not see it as being viable and it is not within our plans. However that does not mean that things won’t change, but at the moment our efforts are concentrating on Beverley to York.
What is likely to happen to the Beverley to Market Weighton section of the track, the very popular Hudson Way ?
This part of the National Cycle Network provides a pleasant crossing of the beautiful Yorkshire Wolds,and, without it, walkers and horse riders, as well as family cyclists, and the many visitors from abroad, would be banished,to travel on the roads.
How can we maintain sustainable, integrated transport if the path is covered by rails ?
MRC - Hi Brian, In 2003, Dr.Paul Salveson produced,for the Countryside Agency, an Audit of Railway Reopenings for Yorkshire and the Humber.
On page 56, York-Market Weighton- Beverley is stated to have 'potential for a combined railway and cycleway'..... 'care should be taken to ensure that as far as possible, the cycleway / footpath is protected. 'This may involve using alternative alignments at certain points - ensuring the cycleway and railway are treated as an integrated whole throughout, with the cycleway easily accessible from stations on the route. In this way, cyclists will be encouraged to use rail access to the cycleway, and genuinely sustainable recreational travel is promoted.'
'It is far easier to put in combined rail / cycle facilities as part of a major restoration, than to add a cycleway to an existing operational railway.'
The Hudson Way is currently undergoing 'upgrading', by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, from footpath (with permissive use by cyclists and equestrians), to full bridleway status, so that any necessary diversions will maintain availability for those types of user.
Do you think through ticketing will be available for your proposed connecting bus services?
MRC: Thank you for your question Cynthia. We believe an integrated transport solution is the way forward to make the line successful. No doubt many passengers will access the stations by car, but having an easy to use option of connecting bus services with through ticketing is a key part of the overall solution.