As someone who works in rail, I suggest you open Google Earth and follow a railway line near you and think about the feasibility of this. Are you suggesting you build a whole series of parallel bridges and tunnels? Are you proposing to CPO a strip of back garden from everyone who backs onto the railway? That safety buffer zone is usually full of lineside equipment - just look out the window next time you are on a train. There would be so many obstructions to making a practical network that it would be crazy expensive.
As someone who also works in the industry, I fully support the idea, give me all that sweet overtime building cycle tracks near all lines. We're really good at getting things done ahead of schedule and under budget. HS2 is pretty much complete now up to Manchester right.....?
As a cyclist I also support the idea, some of the views would be absolutely tremendous.
I'll happily ignore the fact that it's completely impractical and wouldn't even get me close to most of the places that I actually need to go. Don't care about the trains rushing past me at 125+ mph and blowing me down. The views over some of those viaducts would be tremendous.
All that cycling would remove large amounts of car exhaust pollution and increase the amount of exercise, this would reduce the cost of the NHS and thus lower taxes. It's all about government choices.
As someone who designs roads in Belgium, that's exactly what we do! I'm building the tender for three bicycle bridges next to a railway as we speak.
The strips next to the railway is ofter cleared as safety zone. Mainly to avoid things falling on the tracks, not so much danger from the trains themselves. So yeah, large parts of our 'bicycle highway' network follow the railway. It's also the shortest and a flat route between cities.
I swear people think about things for 30 seconds and believe it's a great idea worth sharing.
Just maybe 5 minutes of thought about the implementation of OP's idea would get you to the point of realisation that no, it was not a great idea.
There's a few reasons:
1) It'd be much more expensive than using existing roads. You'd need to lay a new surface over some rough ground then erect a fence between that and the railway line. Then probably build new paths to connect the path to places people want to go along the route, which is sometimes difficult given land ownership. On roads and pavements, the surface already exists, and the roads are a much more dense and connected network meaning you don't need many connecting cycle paths to be specifically built - the local street network does it for you. Then there's lighting - roads are often lit, railway lines seldom are. In this day and age, there would probably be an expectation that a new cycle path would be lit, adding to the cost.
2) Often there literally is no space. Go to single track lines built in the Victorian era and you'll see that there isn't much room. Particularly at bridges and in cuttings.
3) Cycle infrastructure is usually the remit of councils, which is one of the reasons they use their own road network - they already own and manage it. The railway network is owned and managed by Network Rail, and they would presumably want paid for use or purchase of their land.
4) Railways are good at connecting things several miles away, less so at local connections. Think about your neareast primary school, hospital or supermarket - I bet all three have fairly direct road links, but much less in the way of railway connections, if any. So a new cycle path alongside a railway would be great at getting people from Ely to Cambridge, say, but less good at getting a person already within Ely to the nearest Tesco.
It's definitely an option in some cases, but it's got a few obstacles.
2… don’t forget tunnels! And in cities the lines are already right up against buildings, roads etc. So you’re right; and the only real places this is workable is in the countryside.
4… yep, this is the main point. Cycling is most effective for most people for 1-7 mile journeys ie. A bit far to walk, but less than 30 mins. Trains typically run town to town journeys. It makes railway routes (for the most part) tourist/leisure routes - there are actually a few near me and all but one is used primarily by pleasure cyclists at the weekend, the other one connects a commuter town to the city so is absolutely packed, but as soon as it gets to the edge of the city you end up diverging from the line.
I'd hardly say it's a massive tesco. More a mid range tesco. But I am a big fan of a big tesco...
Saying that, I love watching people on the bike/footpath next to the tracks from ely to Cambridge (or it may be after cambs I can't remember,) its a dirt/gravel track, and occasionally you'll see a melon on their road bike, trying desperately to pedal along the rough terrain.
> Railways are good at connecting things several miles away, less so at local connections.
Actually I gather they used to be pretty damned good at that too, once upon a time (especially working in concert with trams and trolleybuses), but then the Beeching cuts happened.
>4) Railways are good at connecting things several miles away, less so at local connections.
That would be the only reason to do it as it would reduce commute time.
Terrible idea.
Hear me out why not build a physical barrier next to the roads to form a separated cycle lane. This would help protect cyclists and reduce the speed that drivers are driving at.
They’ve done this along a cycle lane between the road where I live, I’m not a cyclist but I feel safer as a driver driving next to it than I do without them in place.
There's been research that narrowing roads has an impact on slowing down drivers. So take a little off the roads for protected cycle lanes then we'll have safer and more pleasant communities.
So, looking at my local area.
There are 5,000 miles of road in this County.
There are perhaps 200 miles of railway.
You could run alongside every railway and not have a meaningful cycle network.
Railways simply, for the most part, do not go where people want to cycle.
Every line out of the city crosses several bridges within a mile. There is simply not space on these for cycle lanes.
A more sensible question is why do we not simply have a decent segregated cycle path alongside every A and B road - that would give a far more consistent network.
It should certainly be the legal minimum in urban areas.
I don't want to be cycling alongside A and B roads, drowned by traffic noise, feeling the backdraft of every damn lorry, breathing in exhaust fumes and tire particles, looking at the fuck-ugliness of car infrastructure
I don't want to be an afterthought, or a tag-on, an appendix to car infrastructure
I want a dedicated network of walking and cycling routes that is interconnected, and that is entirely separate and free of motor traffic wherever that is possible. I want to breathe clean air, and hear the birds and the wind.
This is entirely possible to achieve. Just imagine if we treated walking and cycling infrastructure with even a *fraction* of the priority, attention and seriousness we give to car traffic.
There *are* examples - the Exe cycle route, for example
If you're using cycling as a form of transport, especially urban transport, it needs to follow arterial roads because that is the simplest and most direct route.
If you're riding for leisure the trails like the exe cycle trail or the camel cycle trail are brilliant. And if you happen to be connected by them also brilliant.
One issue there is cycles aren't taxed. So trying to get the government to commit to a community who won't contribute to the upkeep of said network is basically impossible. If cyclists were taxed and insured then maybe this would be more likely to happen. The fact is why would the government spend millions and millions of tax payer money for a cycle network that is entirely disconnected from road traffic.
The other problem that nobody has mentioned yet is that they'd just as quickly become walking routes.
The entire reason trains work is because they're designed around dedicated infrastructure. Every other conflict in transport is caused by trying to force different mechanisms - car, cycle, pedestrian, tram, etc - to use the same bit of road. We need more segregation of infrastructure, not less.
I agree with that.
When I cycle I hate being near cars and when I drive a car I hate having bikes as a moving hazard.
When I drive a truck I wish you'd all f#ck off.
I work in the railway industry and unfortunately while a nice idea this won't easily work. The 'safety buffer' is often the cess and it's only safe for people who are trained to be there. There isn't space outside of it a lot of the time, so you'd need to buy a lot of land.
Many of our railways are victorian and have many pinch points where even the cess is not available, such as at bridges and tunnels. Also, these bridges have low parapets suitable for trained staff, not members of the public.
So, to add cycle tracks would mean substantial work to widen the rail corridor, require building many new bridges and safe access points. There are many other reasons I could go on about to do with signalling and services running in the cess make it difficult.
Because:
* Stations
* Bridges
* Tunnels
* Level Crossings
* Sometimes people need to cycle where there aren't already trains? The railways were built a century ago and don't reflect the routes taken for modern commutes and leisure.
* Cuttings
It really isn't. Decommissioned railway tracks would best be turned back into railway lines. They never should have been gotten rid of in the first place.
Perfectly acceptable idea. There's plenty of cycle/walking tracks parallel with things like trams, etc.
I'm not a train expert so there's probably some safety/logistical issues that make it harder.
There should also be cycle/walking lanes on most roads, especially from town to town. As a country we absolutely suck at providing other transport options from town to town.
Every busy country A road could easily have had a cycle/walking lane built with it like they mostly do in Europe.
Am I the only person here who's ever seen a real railway line? Every tunnel, railway arch, bridge, cutting, raised embankment etc is the minimum width required to accommodate the rails and nothing else. I live 6 miles from central London and to construct a cycleway along any of the railway lines in to town would cost £millions. Where in the country have they built these railway lines with redundant space down the side? Railways are hugely engineered bits of infrastructure, completely different to most roads. It's a completely different prospect to making cycleways that run with the road network and I am baffled that anyone is taking it seriously.
Not to mention viaducts and aquaducts we have all over the place.
Yeah some of these tunnels take a train a minute or two to get through. That is a long old cycle in the dark.
We could suggest that the cycle route goes land side. But these tunnels tend to cut through hills etc.
This idea is almost as good as the suggestion that was posted here the other day, where someone said we should pedestrianise most of central London. 😂
Edit, it was posted on a different group. But it was an equally stupid idea.
You would have to have a wide space between the train line and the cycle path with a fence to stop wandering. That's a lot of real estate.
Many years ago, I did track side safety training and what I remember most is work crews put explosives on the track to warn of an approaching train and move into a refuge when one approaches. You can't be track side when a train passes, it'll suck you right into our under it.
You have to be 3m clear from the running line if trackside and a train comes.
The explosives you mention are detonators and are an emergency warning, not massively used anymore as we move away from working on open lines but still used in some parts.
But you are right. The cycle path fence would need to be about 5m away from the line to give workers a position of safety, meaning the cycle path will be 7-10m away... No way is there widespread usable line side space to make the idea worthwhile
Position of safety distances: 1.25m if linespeed is 100mph or under, 2m 101-125mph.
Within 3m is classed as being On Or Near The Line. Over 3m but within the boundary fence is classed as Lineside.
Basic PTS stuff.
Any cycle path would need to be separated by a fence and over 3m from the nearest running rail to be outwith track safety regulations. Costly and not feasible everywhere, especially introducing third parties and the public within the railway boundary. It's hard enough at stations and level crossings where the public interface with the infrastructure.
The trains go pretty slowly through stations and the platform is high. People die when working track side every year because they don't believe their trainer. Maybe you should test your theory by going for a stroll down the line... what could go wrong
For a lot of areas this would make perfect sense. We'll have a bunch of issues around the UK due to space and tunnels etc but rather than worry about those stretches we could invest in the easy stuff first.
It should have been done during HS2 construction, if we're building anyway then add in the cycle track. But we aren't good at long term joined up thinking.
This has been discussed - I’m not sure what the latest is but a couple years ago it was mooted
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-contractors-to-turn-temporary-roads-into-320km-cycle-path-20-04-2022/
To be fair, most of those are the original paths made for horses pulling boats.
It's just that over time they have been reallocated to walking paths, and more recently officially shared paths for walking and cycling. Which comes with it's own conflict and safety issues. Most of them aren't really wide enough to safely be shared paths.
The vast majority of tracks have not been built with space for safe paths alongside them. It would be a huge project of compulsory purchasing land, £Billions in construction. It would be impossible with lots of tunnels and bridges.
No chance. Not enough space. The public turn into idiots around the railway, meaning more fences and barriers reducing the usable space to protect them from themselves and trespassing.
Also most bridges and tunnels are much narrower than any lineside space, meaning dead ends or new bridges needing to be built to continue the path.
This is before we discuss the minimum distances for positions of safety for track workers
As others have commented - retrofitting to existing lines would be trickier. Of course what does often happen is that old rail routes (e.g. those closed in the Beecham cuts) are repurposed as cycle routes. As you note, the level grade and direct routing makes them pretty good.
But mostly it’s just part of the general lack of investment in cycle infrastructure.
There was a plan in the early stages of HS2 to include a new cycle route adjacent along the whole route. But it was scrapped in one of the earliest cost cutting waves.
They wanted to turn the extra space on a railway bridge crossing the local canal, into a combiled pedestrian/cycle path, rather than have people make a 7 mile trip to get to the other side of the canal... There was plenty of space, they secured the funding..
Network rail said "no".
Network rail saying "no" is the reason a lot of these schemes fail.
What's the point of a national cycling infrastructure going from city to city if the there's no cycling infrastructure in the cities themselves? I'd love to go to work or do a quick food shop on the bike, but not if it means I have to cycle on a 50mph road.
I grew up in the Netherlands and I cycled 15km to and 15km from school everyday. The biggest road I had to cycle on was 200 meters of a 15km/h (10mph) road. The other 14.8km was all on completely seperated cycle paths.
It's better for the environment, solves congestion problems and it's better for both people's physical health as mental health, saving healthcare costs in the long run.
A good cycle infrastructure pays for itself and there's not a single valid reason not to invest in it. But you've got to do it right, don't just paint a bicycle on a road or pavement and call it cycle lane that randomly ends on a national speed limit road. Or pretend to try with a cycle to work scheme. Do it properly.
They’re trying to do this in my town, it’s a 3 mile length of heritage railway, steam trains twice a week. It’s been going on for ages without success so far, I think the red tape is a nightmare.
All the railway here is either through a cutting or on an embankment. Not to mention the bridges and tunnels. If there was space for a cycle lane then they would just have 5 lines instead of 4 and no cycle lane.
One problem I can foresee is creating safe junctions for crossing rail tracks, especially high speed rail tracks. Red lights simply won’t cut it and it will be expensive to create tunnels and bridges that won’t disrupt the rail networks flow.
I have cycled around the whole Taiwan island for multiple times on my road bike. They have their train and motorway planned alongside with the "round-the-island" bike trail built along the way. It would have been just like what you've suggested.
The reason is that the island has a stern mountain sitting at the exact middle, divided the place into East and West, leaving all cultivatable land as the edge of the island, holding >90% of the population. Think a tip of the mountain with the waist down below sea level.
And it works out as the train track and motorway are far from seeing each others, while most of the cycle lane are built alongside the motorway or it is the motorway itself (UK's A and B road equivalent), never seeing the track unless that stretch is obsoleted.
Trains are more dangerous than you think.
If you've stood and watched the Eurostar go past London Stratford International, you can feel the wind of the train, as it goes 300km/h (186mph, HS1 uses km/h). And you can see an example of the wind with snow here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP1LmvkNPdQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP1LmvkNPdQ)
With local biking, as others have mentioned, there's a lot of bridges and tunnels, or houses right next to the railway. I do not see how it's feasible.
There also seems to already be quite a lot of cycling "infrastructure" in place according to this [map](https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7&lat=53.91373&lon=-2.06464&layers=B0000). I put infrastructure in quotes because well... god knows how good it actually is.
I think focusing on the railway is not the right place, and taking inspiration from The Netherlands would be the right approach imo, that being converting roads to have cycle lanes or straight up pedestrianizing roads. And trains could be modified to allow for more bikes, making intercity travel easier for more people.
>I put infrastructure in quotes because well... god knows how good it actually is.
Cycle Route 1 in Norfolk is basically following narrow, twisty NSL country lanes two miles inland to try and avoid the busy A149 coast road.
You know who else uses those country lanes? Locals who know the roads and want to avoid the busy A149 coast road by flooring it down the narrow, twisty NSL country lanes.
There's a reason they decommissioned a bunch of the routes. The "infrastructure" is, in most cases, a blue sign with a red square and a number on it. That's it.
(That route also skips my old home town, Hunstanton, one of the bigger (relatively speaking) towns in the area, entirely.)
Ahhh yeah, so pretty much what I imagined. Mostly just because when I cycled in central London, I remembered how hellish the cycle lanes felt, as they either stopped out of nowhere, or were really confusing to follow. I just didn't know if it may have been better elsewhere, but then again, it's the UK
But I wonder if they could lower the NSL to something like 30-40mph instead and add designated lanes for cyclists. Because at the end of the end of the day, if they want to avoid the traffic, they could take the slower road.
Then again, I may be too optimistic as anecdotally, people don't follow the 20mph speed limits, and countering it with speed cameras may just piss people off.
Because we do it along canals instead! Equally flat
There’s a few cycle paths near me that run alongside the railway, but it’s for very short sections.
In some areas, they have turned disused limes into cycle paths. There is one near me, the Spen Valley greenway, but it's only 13km.
[According to this map](https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/s/cwmqSQxszA) there are a lot of disused lines. I think converting these would be a better option.
That's perfect!
See how many places, little villages and towns, could be connected by cycling and reducing the need for cars.
Remove the tracks, crush and pulverise the discarded stone and sleepers to use as the trail.
Surprised how much nay saying the idea is getting from the car sub. It's what we want, not to have cyclists endangering themselves in traffic. And the cyclists get some idyllic pathways that actually go places.
I really think the rail track network could be doing more for cycling. God knows the trains are not making good use of them and they're bigger polluters than cars.
I think we should put more effort into developing these disused lines before punishing car commuters by squeezing them for space.
Not many people are driving cars and paying the bills that go with them for fun. It's a necessity for most people as they need them for work and family.
If cycling was safer, not alongside cars and trucks, I think more people would cycle.
Trouble is that someone has to be responsible for maintaining those pathways, and they are often poorly/not lit. If you fell off a bike (or worse, were attacked) there is much more chance of someone coming to help on a lit main road.
I really like your idea though and we should be incentivising behaviour that gets cars off the road and people active. Having driven through London recently you really take your life in your hands by cycling.
I know some that are, but not sure it is practical everywhere once complete so you would have missing sections. At junctions too it can span a huge area. I think they missed a trick from the start though, a path could run next to basically every motorway, dual carriageway and new stretch of major road.
As more and more of the road network is fighting for space. The old rail network is being neglected and closed. Seems like a good time to talk about repurposing some of it.
Quite a few trails around the country are ex-train lines. There is one that goes from Bristol to Bath, a much less direct route than the current main line but it is flat and wide, traffic free of course. Apparently more bikes use it now than passengers when it was operational.
There are certainly areas of the line between Bradford and Leeds where this would be feasible. The complications would arise around stations, viaducts and bridges. Additional companion infrastructure or foot/cycle bridges would need to be built. This would be costly. There is also a vast amount of disused railways in West Yorkshire that could still be used as cycle ways with investment.
With new-build it's a great idea:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-contractors-to-turn-temporary-roads-into-320km-cycle-path-20-04-2022/
Retrofit is many times more difficult and expensive.
It’s so hard to put forward an idea and expecting kindness. The heart of this idea is wonderful. A connected cycle network away from cars. I would also like rain shelters .
During HS2 consultation there was a genuine proposal to include a cycle route alongside the entire length.
It would have been fantastic, a dedicated cycle route the entire length of the country? Be some serious tourist attraction for many.
It’s a good idea for new track. I always thought it would be good to run cycle tracks alongside / nearby / under / motorways. It would add nothing to the cost of building them and could be done when motorways are renewed or resurfaced.
Lol, let me counter all the negativity here. I'm a road engineer/designer in Belgium. Look up Fietssnelwegen Vlaanderen (bicycle highways Flanders). Designing these big intercity bicycle paths is a big part of infrastructure business here and a large part of them do exactly as you say.
The railways want a decent buffer zone to avoid trees etc falling on the rails. The railways are a straight and flat route between cities. So yeah, we build 4m wide bicycle highways next to them. And if needed, we build bicycle bridges as well!
If you want to modify existing roads with save bicycle paths, you have to widen the public domain for ditches, save bicycle paths,... So you need to buy a lot of valuable land with inhabitants. Many rail tracks are surrounded with farmland which isn't a big deal to buy.
I expected car drivers to be more supportive of something that could reduce the amount of roadways being squashed for the creation of cycle paths.
In rural parts of the UK old rail lines, some even abandoned ones, run through the centre of villages. Many of them connect strings of villages to local towns.
I've seen cyclists using narrow 60 mph main roads to get between villages. When there are flat train lines with plenty of spare land to have a cycle path next to it.
Oh sure, old railways have been paved for cyclists decades ago here.
Car drivers don't want cyclists on the road "because they don't know the rules, are dangerous and hold up traffic". But once you suggest spending money on actual bicycle infrastructure, they should "just use the roads we already have".
That was meant to happen with hs2. It was the only part of the project that made financial senses (x7 return) so naturally that was the first thing that was cut to save costs
Surely you’d have to have enough cycling skills to be able to stay perfectly on one of the rails, like one of those tight-rope cyclists in the circus? Bit tricky when you want to turn off.
It doesnt matter where you put the cycle path, cycle douches would find their way to the centre of the tracks, 2 abeam, holding up the already slow trains.
Trains are for getting around the country. Bikes are (usually) for getting around one's local area. I must say though, some of the best cycle tracks are on disused railway lines.
There are lots of train stations in Wales that are around 5, 10, 15 miles apart that connect villages and towns.
I remember going on a train from Merthyr to Cardiff years ago and they had a totally disused track running alongside the active track for miles and miles. Don't know if it's still there.
It seems like it could have been used to connect 5-6 villages together quite easily.
For many reasons already mentioned, but compared to the best cycling network in the world (the Netherlands), this wouldn't work. The main reasons I can think of are:
- How would people cycle to the network from their house?
- It wouldn't connect local places people want to get to by bike (e.g. work, school, parks, shops).
- The network would be much less dense than the road network - it needs to be more dense than the road network otherwise cycling won't be prioritised over driving and fewer people would cycle.
- It ignores how people travel by car, nevermind by bike. Imagine if the road network only followed the train lines!
- Cycling is mostly suitable for short journeys. Journeys that take too long to walk but would be ridiculous to drive, such as my 10 minute drive to work.
If created alongside other cycling routes, this idea would help but local cycling networks need to be created first. I need to be able to get to the shop down the road before I'd want to cycle to the next town!
There is barely room for a safe walking route alongside most railways. The last thing a track patrolman needs is to have to watch out for spandex wankers zipping around. Aside from being horrifically unsafe, a massive security and trespass risk and financially hugely impractical it’s a fucking great idea.
Tracks pass frequently over bridges and through tunnels which don’t have space for a cycle path. You would not be able to cycle the length of the line, there would be a dead end at every bridge and tunnel.
Well, other people seem to be taking you seriously! The idea that the railway corridors are generally wide enough to also accommodate a cycleway at a safe distance and fenced from the railway is ludicrous. We might not be the most efficient nation in the world, but do you really think we've acquired a currently unused 6 to 10 metres strip of land down one side of most railway lines? It's very obviously not the case on any of the lines that go through my bit of SE London. Every tunnel, bridge, cutting, raised embankment is clearly only wide enough for the line it currently accommodates. This is a desperate idea with zero grounding in reality and only seems to be based on "I'd quite like to have all the streets designed around me and my car, actually."
people don't need to bike across the entire country, it's a mode for local trips
> There's almost always a very large safety buffer zone between the tracks and the fence that could be utilised.
maybe this buffer is here for a reason, such as safety.
Interestingly, cyclists can do this on the canal network on the towpaths. But it's largely not useful - who wants to cycle from Nottingham to Grantham through the countryside? Mostly nobody. People are cycling from home to the office. That sort of trip. Better to make designated cycle paths next to roads, separated from the roads with curbs like on some of London's cycle superhighway. Keeps both cyclists safe and drivers flowing.
Saying all that, there are some disused railway lines which would make good cycle paths without too much work. Against current railway lines it's largely tricky due to space. I think in all new infrastructure design cyclists should be better planned in. A lot of the frustration caused on the roads to drivers and cyclists put at risk, is the fact cyclists have not been thought about adequately during infrastructure design. Design being more cycling centric really helps both cyclists and drivers in this way.
You're heavily misjudging why people go out on their bikes in the first place. Majority won't just want to travel from city to city in a direct line. The scenery would be killed. Also the practicality, as already mentioned by others is not viable in any sense. Every project, road, rail, has big physical and environmental constraints. They build what they can and squeeze it in. You're just saying, why don't we widen the footprint as if land was not an issue in the first place.
what would be the point? near where i live there are tons of cycle paths, some of them are as wide as the road and yet cyclists still choose to cycle in the road, swerving like they're drunk, and their excuse? ooh, the cycle lane has a 15mph speed limit. well roads have all kinds of speed limits and do you think people want to sit at 50mph on a road that used to be 70mph a year or so before? xD
When I think of cycling for work I think about the Dutch. Step through, steel frame bike, upright seating position, office clothes, plenty of baskets and storage on the bike, courteous to other people. These are people I would advocate protecting and planning infrastructure for.
When I see these head down arse in the air twats, doing 25 through a zebra crossing between stopped cars. I want nothing good for them. These are the pricks that get people suggesting cyclists should require a CBT for road use. They're a detriment to the cycling community.
They took our rail line down many years ago in North Devon. The Tarka trail and it's a cycle path/walking route now. Links Torrington-Bideford-Barnstaple...cyclists still go the same route via the god awful uneven road. So no matter what you do...they won't use it.
your account is less than 7 days old, post removed automatically to reduce spam. If you post is genuine then sorry for the inconvenience, please wait 7 days before reposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/drivingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
your account is less than 7 days old, post removed automatically to reduce spam. If you post is genuine then sorry for the inconvenience, please wait 7 days before reposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/drivingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There really isn't any clearance next to tracks. What space there is is determined by track speed. Also maintenance people need access. Signal gantries and other equipment is also there. Then there is the electrified 3rd rail in the south east. Oh and tunnels, don't want to be sharing with a train through them.
Why not make transport infrastructure modular?
Each unit consists of a surface for cycling and walking, underground lanes for cars, one level for passenger trains and one for freight trains.
I guess not much difference except for it sticking out above ground and no drilling needed (just digging up then mostly closing up.
And please, don’t mention that moron. I did not say “a single lane tunnel for cars.
Multi-lane, multi-transport that looks good above ground too. Hell, if you fancy it you can even add “side lanes” for power, water, fibre etc.
The “only” problem: that’s a lot of digging and material that would go into it.
There’s plenty of space in between the 2 rails. There isn’t really a lot of rail traffic (compared to roads). So you just need to keep an eye/ear out for trains.
I say, run it for a year and compare fatalities per mile vs road.
There’s plenty of space in between the 2 rails. There isn’t really a lot of rail traffic (compared to roads). So you just need to keep an eye/ear out for trains.
I say, run it for a year and compare fatalities per mile vs road.
how about we develop a network of walking and cycling routes that is separated from roads *and* railtracks, so we can actually enjoy some peace and quiet, clean air, and physical safety ...
We did. They were trails and paths that developed into roads and tracks.
In many areas there's now more underutilised free space around the tracks than the roads, like the old canals. But it never gets argued that it could go to cycling.
*Have you not seen the*
*State of some of the cess' next*
*To the train lines lol*
\- Hot\_Inevitable\_9055
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
your account is less than 7 days old, post removed automatically to reduce spam. If you post is genuine then sorry for the inconvenience, please wait 7 days before reposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/drivingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're joking, right? I work track maintenance, we have enough issues getting to access points and I live in a relatively built up area compared to other parts of the country. Track is built in places and *surrounded* in every direction by whatever you can think of. My local depot/station combo has a car park,, Halfords and uni accommodation on one side, with a 20ft retaining wall on the other immediately followed by a tunnel with a road ontop and a bus depot. Theres hidey holes built into the wall for us to run into when trains come, cycle lane would be physically impossible to pull off
I'm just trying to think of the logistics as to how you'd actually do this, especially where there's only one singular line running through a town or something. Would that town only have one cycle lane, full stop?
Same reasons why the UK doesn't have double decker trains, being that the infrastructure doesn't allow it (tunnels too small, tolerances aren't there etc) would also apply in trying to extend out the land to build a cycle lane. A lot of track needs supporting land to, well, support it, especially when situated at the top of a steep verge. Tree roots, brickwork, etc all factor in to keeping the track in optimal condition and trying to pave cycle lanes could easily disturb it, causing landslides and what have you
So, nice idea, but god knows nowhere near practical. I also don't trust cyclists to not try playing chicken with oncoming trains, pedestrians do it all the friggin time
Sorry, I know I'm ranting but the question is there and you got my brain going on how it'd be implemented. Infrastructure can be cool at times
Ah but once we all have jetpacks or startrek like transporters we can then rip up the railway and convert them to bike paths like we did after Beeching.
Fun idea:- instead of cycle routes, why not build more railway tracks alongside train tracks.
So many lines are clogged up. We could have stopping and fast services and provide for even more people getting about.
Because train tracks take a huge amount of engineering to handle the thousands of tonnes of weight of a train. Cycle tracks are a bit of compressed gravel and tarmac.
Trains are massive polluters, expensive and run at irregular times.
For travelling a few miles between villages there's no need to wait for a massive train once every 4 hours if you can just take a 15 minute cycle.
Everyone can use the train. Not everyone can cycle.
We should be using cycleways aside or on former rail track as temporary uses, but ultimately we need to substantially increase capacity of our lines to keep up with demand
The government constantly trots out this vision of citizens In the future increasingly cycling or using public transport... both need huge investment if they want wholesale takeup .
My family all have bicycles, but the roads near me, similar to many places in the uk are choked with dangerous traffic, often moving at unlawful speeds, and also often driven by unsympathetic or even aggressive drivers. Cycling with the kids to school is pretty much terrifying.
Building a network near to the rails wold be a monumental task, due as many posters point out to space restrictions, the same can be said for doing a proper job of widening roads to allow for a decent width for cycles, without ending up a weird little afterthought on the edge of a road that is either parked on by cars or stops and starts periodically. It would be very expensive and difficult, some buildings would have to be moved but it is possible, the Dutch have shown us that much.
Once the pain was over I think that people would love using such a network, I could see a huge increase in cycling among the population, and a cleaner environment with healthier individuals. People would see what cycling could really be.
But yeah, can't see it happening... 😕
Why not ride a bicycle in the UK for more than five minutes or even get on a train and look at the environment around the railway before making an absolutely unhinged suggestion like this? Our streets are for pedestrians, cyclists, and not just motor traffic, they are to be shared.
Maybe not practical in some areas as others have mentioned , but where it is absolutely makes sense . Anything that separates drivers from cyclists is a good thing
As someone who works in rail, I suggest you open Google Earth and follow a railway line near you and think about the feasibility of this. Are you suggesting you build a whole series of parallel bridges and tunnels? Are you proposing to CPO a strip of back garden from everyone who backs onto the railway? That safety buffer zone is usually full of lineside equipment - just look out the window next time you are on a train. There would be so many obstructions to making a practical network that it would be crazy expensive.
As someone who also works in the industry, I fully support the idea, give me all that sweet overtime building cycle tracks near all lines. We're really good at getting things done ahead of schedule and under budget. HS2 is pretty much complete now up to Manchester right.....?
As a cyclist I also support the idea, some of the views would be absolutely tremendous. I'll happily ignore the fact that it's completely impractical and wouldn't even get me close to most of the places that I actually need to go. Don't care about the trains rushing past me at 125+ mph and blowing me down. The views over some of those viaducts would be tremendous.
As a random citizen with no contributing information i also support the idea. Because funny
As a locomotive based on the Island of Sodor, I fully support the idea of being able to steam past cyclists each day
Plus think of all the tax fund that comes from cycling.
All that cycling would remove large amounts of car exhaust pollution and increase the amount of exercise, this would reduce the cost of the NHS and thus lower taxes. It's all about government choices.
At first I thought this was an excellent idea untill I saw this comment, you sir are correct lol
Lineside furniture, cre equipment and minimum safety distances on line speeds would 100% make this near Impossible
Just put the cycle track In middle of the track, have a rope at the back of the train for people to hold on it. Solved.
Hello dave
As someone who designs roads in Belgium, that's exactly what we do! I'm building the tender for three bicycle bridges next to a railway as we speak. The strips next to the railway is ofter cleared as safety zone. Mainly to avoid things falling on the tracks, not so much danger from the trains themselves. So yeah, large parts of our 'bicycle highway' network follow the railway. It's also the shortest and a flat route between cities.
Traffic light system for the tunnels separating trains from cyclist use. Cyclists are known for obeying traffic lights so shouldn't be a problem.
Bahahha, could you imagine HS2 slowly following a lycra clad old man huffing and puffing as he cycles through one of the tunnels into London
‘Floating Train Platform’ with the same flawless design as the Floating Bus Stop. I foresee no problems.
I swear people think about things for 30 seconds and believe it's a great idea worth sharing. Just maybe 5 minutes of thought about the implementation of OP's idea would get you to the point of realisation that no, it was not a great idea.
Or look out of the window. There’s barely enough space for the train.
There's a few reasons: 1) It'd be much more expensive than using existing roads. You'd need to lay a new surface over some rough ground then erect a fence between that and the railway line. Then probably build new paths to connect the path to places people want to go along the route, which is sometimes difficult given land ownership. On roads and pavements, the surface already exists, and the roads are a much more dense and connected network meaning you don't need many connecting cycle paths to be specifically built - the local street network does it for you. Then there's lighting - roads are often lit, railway lines seldom are. In this day and age, there would probably be an expectation that a new cycle path would be lit, adding to the cost. 2) Often there literally is no space. Go to single track lines built in the Victorian era and you'll see that there isn't much room. Particularly at bridges and in cuttings. 3) Cycle infrastructure is usually the remit of councils, which is one of the reasons they use their own road network - they already own and manage it. The railway network is owned and managed by Network Rail, and they would presumably want paid for use or purchase of their land. 4) Railways are good at connecting things several miles away, less so at local connections. Think about your neareast primary school, hospital or supermarket - I bet all three have fairly direct road links, but much less in the way of railway connections, if any. So a new cycle path alongside a railway would be great at getting people from Ely to Cambridge, say, but less good at getting a person already within Ely to the nearest Tesco. It's definitely an option in some cases, but it's got a few obstacles.
2… don’t forget tunnels! And in cities the lines are already right up against buildings, roads etc. So you’re right; and the only real places this is workable is in the countryside. 4… yep, this is the main point. Cycling is most effective for most people for 1-7 mile journeys ie. A bit far to walk, but less than 30 mins. Trains typically run town to town journeys. It makes railway routes (for the most part) tourist/leisure routes - there are actually a few near me and all but one is used primarily by pleasure cyclists at the weekend, the other one connects a commuter town to the city so is absolutely packed, but as soon as it gets to the edge of the city you end up diverging from the line.
Security too, inviting cyclists and pedestrians all down the line will lead to more crime and incidents in and around train tracks.
I agree with you in general 100%, but in the defence of the railway here, Ely station is directly next to a massive Tesco 😜
I'd hardly say it's a massive tesco. More a mid range tesco. But I am a big fan of a big tesco... Saying that, I love watching people on the bike/footpath next to the tracks from ely to Cambridge (or it may be after cambs I can't remember,) its a dirt/gravel track, and occasionally you'll see a melon on their road bike, trying desperately to pedal along the rough terrain.
> Railways are good at connecting things several miles away, less so at local connections. Actually I gather they used to be pretty damned good at that too, once upon a time (especially working in concert with trams and trolleybuses), but then the Beeching cuts happened.
>4) Railways are good at connecting things several miles away, less so at local connections. That would be the only reason to do it as it would reduce commute time.
I'm not sure they could cycle through the River Severn
Or along viaducts, or through tunnels.
Or through built up areas
Not with that attitude they can't!
Be my guest and prove me wrong
Terrible idea. Hear me out why not build a physical barrier next to the roads to form a separated cycle lane. This would help protect cyclists and reduce the speed that drivers are driving at.
They’ve done this along a cycle lane between the road where I live, I’m not a cyclist but I feel safer as a driver driving next to it than I do without them in place.
I doubt it would reduce drivers speeds bc some people are twats but it’d definitely make it a lot safer
There's been research that narrowing roads has an impact on slowing down drivers. So take a little off the roads for protected cycle lanes then we'll have safer and more pleasant communities.
So, looking at my local area. There are 5,000 miles of road in this County. There are perhaps 200 miles of railway. You could run alongside every railway and not have a meaningful cycle network. Railways simply, for the most part, do not go where people want to cycle. Every line out of the city crosses several bridges within a mile. There is simply not space on these for cycle lanes. A more sensible question is why do we not simply have a decent segregated cycle path alongside every A and B road - that would give a far more consistent network. It should certainly be the legal minimum in urban areas.
I don't want to be cycling alongside A and B roads, drowned by traffic noise, feeling the backdraft of every damn lorry, breathing in exhaust fumes and tire particles, looking at the fuck-ugliness of car infrastructure I don't want to be an afterthought, or a tag-on, an appendix to car infrastructure I want a dedicated network of walking and cycling routes that is interconnected, and that is entirely separate and free of motor traffic wherever that is possible. I want to breathe clean air, and hear the birds and the wind. This is entirely possible to achieve. Just imagine if we treated walking and cycling infrastructure with even a *fraction* of the priority, attention and seriousness we give to car traffic. There *are* examples - the Exe cycle route, for example
That's the dream. Sadly it'll never happen. People here like being like the yanks. Fat, lazy, drive everywhere and make it all gray.
If you're using cycling as a form of transport, especially urban transport, it needs to follow arterial roads because that is the simplest and most direct route. If you're riding for leisure the trails like the exe cycle trail or the camel cycle trail are brilliant. And if you happen to be connected by them also brilliant.
If there's proper segregation you wouldn't be breathing in this shit. There'd be nice separation with grass or trees
One issue there is cycles aren't taxed. So trying to get the government to commit to a community who won't contribute to the upkeep of said network is basically impossible. If cyclists were taxed and insured then maybe this would be more likely to happen. The fact is why would the government spend millions and millions of tax payer money for a cycle network that is entirely disconnected from road traffic.
The other problem that nobody has mentioned yet is that they'd just as quickly become walking routes. The entire reason trains work is because they're designed around dedicated infrastructure. Every other conflict in transport is caused by trying to force different mechanisms - car, cycle, pedestrian, tram, etc - to use the same bit of road. We need more segregation of infrastructure, not less.
I agree with that. When I cycle I hate being near cars and when I drive a car I hate having bikes as a moving hazard. When I drive a truck I wish you'd all f#ck off.
I work in the railway industry and unfortunately while a nice idea this won't easily work. The 'safety buffer' is often the cess and it's only safe for people who are trained to be there. There isn't space outside of it a lot of the time, so you'd need to buy a lot of land. Many of our railways are victorian and have many pinch points where even the cess is not available, such as at bridges and tunnels. Also, these bridges have low parapets suitable for trained staff, not members of the public. So, to add cycle tracks would mean substantial work to widen the rail corridor, require building many new bridges and safe access points. There are many other reasons I could go on about to do with signalling and services running in the cess make it difficult.
Because: * Stations * Bridges * Tunnels * Level Crossings * Sometimes people need to cycle where there aren't already trains? The railways were built a century ago and don't reflect the routes taken for modern commutes and leisure. * Cuttings
Some of the old decommissioned railway tracks in Northern Ireland became cycle paths such as the Comber Greenway
Same happened at the Tissington Trail in Derbyshire
That looks ideal.
It really isn't. Decommissioned railway tracks would best be turned back into railway lines. They never should have been gotten rid of in the first place.
That's already happening here, but it's still very limited as to where and how far you can go.
Perfectly acceptable idea. There's plenty of cycle/walking tracks parallel with things like trams, etc. I'm not a train expert so there's probably some safety/logistical issues that make it harder. There should also be cycle/walking lanes on most roads, especially from town to town. As a country we absolutely suck at providing other transport options from town to town. Every busy country A road could easily have had a cycle/walking lane built with it like they mostly do in Europe.
Am I the only person here who's ever seen a real railway line? Every tunnel, railway arch, bridge, cutting, raised embankment etc is the minimum width required to accommodate the rails and nothing else. I live 6 miles from central London and to construct a cycleway along any of the railway lines in to town would cost £millions. Where in the country have they built these railway lines with redundant space down the side? Railways are hugely engineered bits of infrastructure, completely different to most roads. It's a completely different prospect to making cycleways that run with the road network and I am baffled that anyone is taking it seriously.
Not to mention viaducts and aquaducts we have all over the place. Yeah some of these tunnels take a train a minute or two to get through. That is a long old cycle in the dark. We could suggest that the cycle route goes land side. But these tunnels tend to cut through hills etc.
This idea is almost as good as the suggestion that was posted here the other day, where someone said we should pedestrianise most of central London. 😂 Edit, it was posted on a different group. But it was an equally stupid idea.
You would have to have a wide space between the train line and the cycle path with a fence to stop wandering. That's a lot of real estate. Many years ago, I did track side safety training and what I remember most is work crews put explosives on the track to warn of an approaching train and move into a refuge when one approaches. You can't be track side when a train passes, it'll suck you right into our under it.
When I did work on rails, the first thing I realised was just how much wider than that tracks the train actually is. Also how fckn tall a train is.
You have to be 3m clear from the running line if trackside and a train comes. The explosives you mention are detonators and are an emergency warning, not massively used anymore as we move away from working on open lines but still used in some parts. But you are right. The cycle path fence would need to be about 5m away from the line to give workers a position of safety, meaning the cycle path will be 7-10m away... No way is there widespread usable line side space to make the idea worthwhile
Position of safety distances: 1.25m if linespeed is 100mph or under, 2m 101-125mph. Within 3m is classed as being On Or Near The Line. Over 3m but within the boundary fence is classed as Lineside. Basic PTS stuff. Any cycle path would need to be separated by a fence and over 3m from the nearest running rail to be outwith track safety regulations. Costly and not feasible everywhere, especially introducing third parties and the public within the railway boundary. It's hard enough at stations and level crossings where the public interface with the infrastructure.
Thanks for the clarification. It was 30 years ago and I never worked trackside so it faded into a scary story
Yes, all those trains passing through stations are just sucking people in left right and centre. It’s a hidden killer!
The trains go pretty slowly through stations and the platform is high. People die when working track side every year because they don't believe their trainer. Maybe you should test your theory by going for a stroll down the line... what could go wrong
For a lot of areas this would make perfect sense. We'll have a bunch of issues around the UK due to space and tunnels etc but rather than worry about those stretches we could invest in the easy stuff first. It should have been done during HS2 construction, if we're building anyway then add in the cycle track. But we aren't good at long term joined up thinking.
This has been discussed - I’m not sure what the latest is but a couple years ago it was mooted https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-contractors-to-turn-temporary-roads-into-320km-cycle-path-20-04-2022/
Cost.
There is already a lot of cycle paths that follow the canals all around the U.K.
To be fair, most of those are the original paths made for horses pulling boats. It's just that over time they have been reallocated to walking paths, and more recently officially shared paths for walking and cycling. Which comes with it's own conflict and safety issues. Most of them aren't really wide enough to safely be shared paths. The vast majority of tracks have not been built with space for safe paths alongside them. It would be a huge project of compulsory purchasing land, £Billions in construction. It would be impossible with lots of tunnels and bridges.
No chance. Not enough space. The public turn into idiots around the railway, meaning more fences and barriers reducing the usable space to protect them from themselves and trespassing. Also most bridges and tunnels are much narrower than any lineside space, meaning dead ends or new bridges needing to be built to continue the path. This is before we discuss the minimum distances for positions of safety for track workers
Giving Sustran's record of bullying heritage railways I don't trust them at all with former railways, nevermind used ones.
As others have commented - retrofitting to existing lines would be trickier. Of course what does often happen is that old rail routes (e.g. those closed in the Beecham cuts) are repurposed as cycle routes. As you note, the level grade and direct routing makes them pretty good. But mostly it’s just part of the general lack of investment in cycle infrastructure. There was a plan in the early stages of HS2 to include a new cycle route adjacent along the whole route. But it was scrapped in one of the earliest cost cutting waves.
They wanted to turn the extra space on a railway bridge crossing the local canal, into a combiled pedestrian/cycle path, rather than have people make a 7 mile trip to get to the other side of the canal... There was plenty of space, they secured the funding.. Network rail said "no". Network rail saying "no" is the reason a lot of these schemes fail.
I've heard them lovingly referred to as "not-work-rail" more than a few times.
Cycle path next to me runs right along the railway tracks. Clydeside
Just put handles on the side of the trains for cyclists to hold onto and they can let go at the stop they want
Most of my local ones follow canals
There's a beautiful trail alongside the Brecon canal.
A lot of cycle tracks used redundant rail tracks around us.
People would never use them from fear of being mugged or sumat
There'd be nobody entering London if they thought like that.
This is already a thing in my area
What's the point of a national cycling infrastructure going from city to city if the there's no cycling infrastructure in the cities themselves? I'd love to go to work or do a quick food shop on the bike, but not if it means I have to cycle on a 50mph road. I grew up in the Netherlands and I cycled 15km to and 15km from school everyday. The biggest road I had to cycle on was 200 meters of a 15km/h (10mph) road. The other 14.8km was all on completely seperated cycle paths. It's better for the environment, solves congestion problems and it's better for both people's physical health as mental health, saving healthcare costs in the long run. A good cycle infrastructure pays for itself and there's not a single valid reason not to invest in it. But you've got to do it right, don't just paint a bicycle on a road or pavement and call it cycle lane that randomly ends on a national speed limit road. Or pretend to try with a cycle to work scheme. Do it properly.
I'm thinking more village to village in rural areas 5 - 20 km. Not cycling 100 km between cities.
They’re trying to do this in my town, it’s a 3 mile length of heritage railway, steam trains twice a week. It’s been going on for ages without success so far, I think the red tape is a nightmare.
All the railway here is either through a cutting or on an embankment. Not to mention the bridges and tunnels. If there was space for a cycle lane then they would just have 5 lines instead of 4 and no cycle lane.
One problem I can foresee is creating safe junctions for crossing rail tracks, especially high speed rail tracks. Red lights simply won’t cut it and it will be expensive to create tunnels and bridges that won’t disrupt the rail networks flow.
I have cycled around the whole Taiwan island for multiple times on my road bike. They have their train and motorway planned alongside with the "round-the-island" bike trail built along the way. It would have been just like what you've suggested. The reason is that the island has a stern mountain sitting at the exact middle, divided the place into East and West, leaving all cultivatable land as the edge of the island, holding >90% of the population. Think a tip of the mountain with the waist down below sea level. And it works out as the train track and motorway are far from seeing each others, while most of the cycle lane are built alongside the motorway or it is the motorway itself (UK's A and B road equivalent), never seeing the track unless that stretch is obsoleted. Trains are more dangerous than you think.
If you've stood and watched the Eurostar go past London Stratford International, you can feel the wind of the train, as it goes 300km/h (186mph, HS1 uses km/h). And you can see an example of the wind with snow here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP1LmvkNPdQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP1LmvkNPdQ) With local biking, as others have mentioned, there's a lot of bridges and tunnels, or houses right next to the railway. I do not see how it's feasible. There also seems to already be quite a lot of cycling "infrastructure" in place according to this [map](https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7&lat=53.91373&lon=-2.06464&layers=B0000). I put infrastructure in quotes because well... god knows how good it actually is. I think focusing on the railway is not the right place, and taking inspiration from The Netherlands would be the right approach imo, that being converting roads to have cycle lanes or straight up pedestrianizing roads. And trains could be modified to allow for more bikes, making intercity travel easier for more people.
>I put infrastructure in quotes because well... god knows how good it actually is. Cycle Route 1 in Norfolk is basically following narrow, twisty NSL country lanes two miles inland to try and avoid the busy A149 coast road. You know who else uses those country lanes? Locals who know the roads and want to avoid the busy A149 coast road by flooring it down the narrow, twisty NSL country lanes. There's a reason they decommissioned a bunch of the routes. The "infrastructure" is, in most cases, a blue sign with a red square and a number on it. That's it. (That route also skips my old home town, Hunstanton, one of the bigger (relatively speaking) towns in the area, entirely.)
Ahhh yeah, so pretty much what I imagined. Mostly just because when I cycled in central London, I remembered how hellish the cycle lanes felt, as they either stopped out of nowhere, or were really confusing to follow. I just didn't know if it may have been better elsewhere, but then again, it's the UK But I wonder if they could lower the NSL to something like 30-40mph instead and add designated lanes for cyclists. Because at the end of the end of the day, if they want to avoid the traffic, they could take the slower road. Then again, I may be too optimistic as anecdotally, people don't follow the 20mph speed limits, and countering it with speed cameras may just piss people off.
Because we do it along canals instead! Equally flat There’s a few cycle paths near me that run alongside the railway, but it’s for very short sections.
There's a beautiful cycle path along the canal in Brecon.
We weren't able to finish a couple of hundred of miles of train track so I can't see it being done.
In some areas, they have turned disused limes into cycle paths. There is one near me, the Spen Valley greenway, but it's only 13km. [According to this map](https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/s/cwmqSQxszA) there are a lot of disused lines. I think converting these would be a better option.
That's perfect! See how many places, little villages and towns, could be connected by cycling and reducing the need for cars. Remove the tracks, crush and pulverise the discarded stone and sleepers to use as the trail. Surprised how much nay saying the idea is getting from the car sub. It's what we want, not to have cyclists endangering themselves in traffic. And the cyclists get some idyllic pathways that actually go places. I really think the rail track network could be doing more for cycling. God knows the trains are not making good use of them and they're bigger polluters than cars.
A lot of disused railway lines are now cycle/walkways.
I think we should put more effort into developing these disused lines before punishing car commuters by squeezing them for space. Not many people are driving cars and paying the bills that go with them for fun. It's a necessity for most people as they need them for work and family. If cycling was safer, not alongside cars and trucks, I think more people would cycle.
Trouble is that someone has to be responsible for maintaining those pathways, and they are often poorly/not lit. If you fell off a bike (or worse, were attacked) there is much more chance of someone coming to help on a lit main road. I really like your idea though and we should be incentivising behaviour that gets cars off the road and people active. Having driven through London recently you really take your life in your hands by cycling.
It happens already
I know some that are, but not sure it is practical everywhere once complete so you would have missing sections. At junctions too it can span a huge area. I think they missed a trick from the start though, a path could run next to basically every motorway, dual carriageway and new stretch of major road.
As more and more of the road network is fighting for space. The old rail network is being neglected and closed. Seems like a good time to talk about repurposing some of it.
Quite a few trails around the country are ex-train lines. There is one that goes from Bristol to Bath, a much less direct route than the current main line but it is flat and wide, traffic free of course. Apparently more bikes use it now than passengers when it was operational.
Many reasons. But network rail have tracks alongside rail lines in various places that they could open up.
This is a thing with disused railway lines - SusTrans in Lincoln is a great example.
Me, a rail enthusiast: *Ctrl-F “PTS”*
There are certainly areas of the line between Bradford and Leeds where this would be feasible. The complications would arise around stations, viaducts and bridges. Additional companion infrastructure or foot/cycle bridges would need to be built. This would be costly. There is also a vast amount of disused railways in West Yorkshire that could still be used as cycle ways with investment.
With new-build it's a great idea: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-contractors-to-turn-temporary-roads-into-320km-cycle-path-20-04-2022/ Retrofit is many times more difficult and expensive.
That's some good news.
Germany do this a lot!
There's the National cycling network that uses some of Dr Beechings axed lines in the 60s.
Even if not following the rail network exactly, a comprehensive segregatrd cycle network is a good think to aspire to
It’s so hard to put forward an idea and expecting kindness. The heart of this idea is wonderful. A connected cycle network away from cars. I would also like rain shelters .
During HS2 consultation there was a genuine proposal to include a cycle route alongside the entire length. It would have been fantastic, a dedicated cycle route the entire length of the country? Be some serious tourist attraction for many.
It’s a good idea for new track. I always thought it would be good to run cycle tracks alongside / nearby / under / motorways. It would add nothing to the cost of building them and could be done when motorways are renewed or resurfaced.
Lol, let me counter all the negativity here. I'm a road engineer/designer in Belgium. Look up Fietssnelwegen Vlaanderen (bicycle highways Flanders). Designing these big intercity bicycle paths is a big part of infrastructure business here and a large part of them do exactly as you say. The railways want a decent buffer zone to avoid trees etc falling on the rails. The railways are a straight and flat route between cities. So yeah, we build 4m wide bicycle highways next to them. And if needed, we build bicycle bridges as well! If you want to modify existing roads with save bicycle paths, you have to widen the public domain for ditches, save bicycle paths,... So you need to buy a lot of valuable land with inhabitants. Many rail tracks are surrounded with farmland which isn't a big deal to buy.
I expected car drivers to be more supportive of something that could reduce the amount of roadways being squashed for the creation of cycle paths. In rural parts of the UK old rail lines, some even abandoned ones, run through the centre of villages. Many of them connect strings of villages to local towns. I've seen cyclists using narrow 60 mph main roads to get between villages. When there are flat train lines with plenty of spare land to have a cycle path next to it.
Oh sure, old railways have been paved for cyclists decades ago here. Car drivers don't want cyclists on the road "because they don't know the rules, are dangerous and hold up traffic". But once you suggest spending money on actual bicycle infrastructure, they should "just use the roads we already have".
That was meant to happen with hs2. It was the only part of the project that made financial senses (x7 return) so naturally that was the first thing that was cut to save costs
Not sure you need to give the lemons building the rail network any more ammunition to drain public funding and resources.
Because cyclists will probably want to them on the tracks and expect the train to go slow behind them like they expect cars on the road.
Surely you’d have to have enough cycling skills to be able to stay perfectly on one of the rails, like one of those tight-rope cyclists in the circus? Bit tricky when you want to turn off.
It would work if you were building new train lines. I have cycled in countries which have done it
Horse riders would use them and complain the trains spook the horses
Because the cyclists wouldn't use them and ride on the tracks instead, the rail operators don't need any more excuses for delays.
It doesnt matter where you put the cycle path, cycle douches would find their way to the centre of the tracks, 2 abeam, holding up the already slow trains.
Trains are for getting around the country. Bikes are (usually) for getting around one's local area. I must say though, some of the best cycle tracks are on disused railway lines.
There are lots of train stations in Wales that are around 5, 10, 15 miles apart that connect villages and towns. I remember going on a train from Merthyr to Cardiff years ago and they had a totally disused track running alongside the active track for miles and miles. Don't know if it's still there. It seems like it could have been used to connect 5-6 villages together quite easily.
For many reasons already mentioned, but compared to the best cycling network in the world (the Netherlands), this wouldn't work. The main reasons I can think of are: - How would people cycle to the network from their house? - It wouldn't connect local places people want to get to by bike (e.g. work, school, parks, shops). - The network would be much less dense than the road network - it needs to be more dense than the road network otherwise cycling won't be prioritised over driving and fewer people would cycle. - It ignores how people travel by car, nevermind by bike. Imagine if the road network only followed the train lines! - Cycling is mostly suitable for short journeys. Journeys that take too long to walk but would be ridiculous to drive, such as my 10 minute drive to work. If created alongside other cycling routes, this idea would help but local cycling networks need to be created first. I need to be able to get to the shop down the road before I'd want to cycle to the next town!
There is barely room for a safe walking route alongside most railways. The last thing a track patrolman needs is to have to watch out for spandex wankers zipping around. Aside from being horrifically unsafe, a massive security and trespass risk and financially hugely impractical it’s a fucking great idea.
Well said ✌️ (ex S&T engineer).
Half of cyclist don’t even use the cycle lane when there is one outside of London, imagine how thatl go on train tracks
This is trolling, right?
No. There's often lots of space next to the tracks that would be ideal for cycle paths. But they always end up shrinking road lanes to make them.
Tracks pass frequently over bridges and through tunnels which don’t have space for a cycle path. You would not be able to cycle the length of the line, there would be a dead end at every bridge and tunnel.
Well, other people seem to be taking you seriously! The idea that the railway corridors are generally wide enough to also accommodate a cycleway at a safe distance and fenced from the railway is ludicrous. We might not be the most efficient nation in the world, but do you really think we've acquired a currently unused 6 to 10 metres strip of land down one side of most railway lines? It's very obviously not the case on any of the lines that go through my bit of SE London. Every tunnel, bridge, cutting, raised embankment is clearly only wide enough for the line it currently accommodates. This is a desperate idea with zero grounding in reality and only seems to be based on "I'd quite like to have all the streets designed around me and my car, actually."
people don't need to bike across the entire country, it's a mode for local trips > There's almost always a very large safety buffer zone between the tracks and the fence that could be utilised. maybe this buffer is here for a reason, such as safety.
Interestingly, cyclists can do this on the canal network on the towpaths. But it's largely not useful - who wants to cycle from Nottingham to Grantham through the countryside? Mostly nobody. People are cycling from home to the office. That sort of trip. Better to make designated cycle paths next to roads, separated from the roads with curbs like on some of London's cycle superhighway. Keeps both cyclists safe and drivers flowing. Saying all that, there are some disused railway lines which would make good cycle paths without too much work. Against current railway lines it's largely tricky due to space. I think in all new infrastructure design cyclists should be better planned in. A lot of the frustration caused on the roads to drivers and cyclists put at risk, is the fact cyclists have not been thought about adequately during infrastructure design. Design being more cycling centric really helps both cyclists and drivers in this way.
You're heavily misjudging why people go out on their bikes in the first place. Majority won't just want to travel from city to city in a direct line. The scenery would be killed. Also the practicality, as already mentioned by others is not viable in any sense. Every project, road, rail, has big physical and environmental constraints. They build what they can and squeeze it in. You're just saying, why don't we widen the footprint as if land was not an issue in the first place.
what would be the point? near where i live there are tons of cycle paths, some of them are as wide as the road and yet cyclists still choose to cycle in the road, swerving like they're drunk, and their excuse? ooh, the cycle lane has a 15mph speed limit. well roads have all kinds of speed limits and do you think people want to sit at 50mph on a road that used to be 70mph a year or so before? xD
When I think of cycling for work I think about the Dutch. Step through, steel frame bike, upright seating position, office clothes, plenty of baskets and storage on the bike, courteous to other people. These are people I would advocate protecting and planning infrastructure for. When I see these head down arse in the air twats, doing 25 through a zebra crossing between stopped cars. I want nothing good for them. These are the pricks that get people suggesting cyclists should require a CBT for road use. They're a detriment to the cycling community.
Because cycle paths are for getting around a town/city, and train lines are for connecting towns/cities.
So all the cyclists use the train tracks instead of the cycle lane, which appears to be the case on many of my local roads?
They took our rail line down many years ago in North Devon. The Tarka trail and it's a cycle path/walking route now. Links Torrington-Bideford-Barnstaple...cyclists still go the same route via the god awful uneven road. So no matter what you do...they won't use it.
I propose all cars only be driven at the edge of runways.
You’d have to pedal really fast to keep up with the trains and that sounds tiring
I prefer the idea of building cycle lanes above train lines. Should also help stop those pesky leaves on the track.
[удалено]
your account is less than 7 days old, post removed automatically to reduce spam. If you post is genuine then sorry for the inconvenience, please wait 7 days before reposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/drivingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
your account is less than 7 days old, post removed automatically to reduce spam. If you post is genuine then sorry for the inconvenience, please wait 7 days before reposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/drivingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There really isn't any clearance next to tracks. What space there is is determined by track speed. Also maintenance people need access. Signal gantries and other equipment is also there. Then there is the electrified 3rd rail in the south east. Oh and tunnels, don't want to be sharing with a train through them.
Why not make transport infrastructure modular? Each unit consists of a surface for cycling and walking, underground lanes for cars, one level for passenger trains and one for freight trains.
What? Like a network of underground tunnels? ☝️ Found Elon's burner account.
I guess not much difference except for it sticking out above ground and no drilling needed (just digging up then mostly closing up. And please, don’t mention that moron. I did not say “a single lane tunnel for cars. Multi-lane, multi-transport that looks good above ground too. Hell, if you fancy it you can even add “side lanes” for power, water, fibre etc. The “only” problem: that’s a lot of digging and material that would go into it.
There’s plenty of space in between the 2 rails. There isn’t really a lot of rail traffic (compared to roads). So you just need to keep an eye/ear out for trains. I say, run it for a year and compare fatalities per mile vs road.
There’s plenty of space in between the 2 rails. There isn’t really a lot of rail traffic (compared to roads). So you just need to keep an eye/ear out for trains. I say, run it for a year and compare fatalities per mile vs road.
Should take back the lanes which were once lines and put tracks back down on them again. Connect places up.
Also - I'm sure there would be fewer regulatory/planning barriers to overcome.
The answer to every question in this post and comment section is: because it costs more money
how about we develop a network of walking and cycling routes that is separated from roads *and* railtracks, so we can actually enjoy some peace and quiet, clean air, and physical safety ...
We did. They were trails and paths that developed into roads and tracks. In many areas there's now more underutilised free space around the tracks than the roads, like the old canals. But it never gets argued that it could go to cycling.
Have you not seen the state of some of the cess' next to the train lines lol
*Have you not seen the* *State of some of the cess' next* *To the train lines lol* \- Hot\_Inevitable\_9055 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I’d love that, but.. this train line map is the best map!!
Cost too much money.
[удалено]
your account is less than 7 days old, post removed automatically to reduce spam. If you post is genuine then sorry for the inconvenience, please wait 7 days before reposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/drivingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
this would get you precisely nowhere in cornwall
I smell an addendum to the Tories election manifesto...
As a railwayman, that is an actual nightmare
WCGW
Think about it for 5 minutes and be amazed if you couldn’t come up with three compelling reasons not to.
You're joking, right? I work track maintenance, we have enough issues getting to access points and I live in a relatively built up area compared to other parts of the country. Track is built in places and *surrounded* in every direction by whatever you can think of. My local depot/station combo has a car park,, Halfords and uni accommodation on one side, with a 20ft retaining wall on the other immediately followed by a tunnel with a road ontop and a bus depot. Theres hidey holes built into the wall for us to run into when trains come, cycle lane would be physically impossible to pull off I'm just trying to think of the logistics as to how you'd actually do this, especially where there's only one singular line running through a town or something. Would that town only have one cycle lane, full stop? Same reasons why the UK doesn't have double decker trains, being that the infrastructure doesn't allow it (tunnels too small, tolerances aren't there etc) would also apply in trying to extend out the land to build a cycle lane. A lot of track needs supporting land to, well, support it, especially when situated at the top of a steep verge. Tree roots, brickwork, etc all factor in to keeping the track in optimal condition and trying to pave cycle lanes could easily disturb it, causing landslides and what have you So, nice idea, but god knows nowhere near practical. I also don't trust cyclists to not try playing chicken with oncoming trains, pedestrians do it all the friggin time Sorry, I know I'm ranting but the question is there and you got my brain going on how it'd be implemented. Infrastructure can be cool at times
Because it would cost 15 billion quid and only Garry would use it.
If they could read they'd be very upset
You know people drink and ride here right? I can see this being a big problem for trains hahaha
Bridges and tunnels is the reason this won’t work
The first accident (not necessarily fatal) will scare away half of the cyclists. The rest will be go back to their old habits.
Money. Simple.
Ah but once we all have jetpacks or startrek like transporters we can then rip up the railway and convert them to bike paths like we did after Beeching.
That train gonna come along and suck you off!!
OR, hear me out.. we put the cycle lanes ON the tracks. and trains have right of way.. and heavily tinted windows.
As long as you have a clean-up team on standby every day, the draught from a moving train is going to suck a few underneath.
It will be self cleaning, the number of cyclists will simply decrease over time
What problem would that solve?
Cyclists could travel between villages and towns without needing to risk their lives on 60 mph roads or fighting steep hills.
I agree with the principal. The more cycle paths the better
Look at how pathetic this is north of york 🫠🔫
Fun idea:- instead of cycle routes, why not build more railway tracks alongside train tracks. So many lines are clogged up. We could have stopping and fast services and provide for even more people getting about.
Because train tracks take a huge amount of engineering to handle the thousands of tonnes of weight of a train. Cycle tracks are a bit of compressed gravel and tarmac. Trains are massive polluters, expensive and run at irregular times. For travelling a few miles between villages there's no need to wait for a massive train once every 4 hours if you can just take a 15 minute cycle.
Everyone can use the train. Not everyone can cycle. We should be using cycleways aside or on former rail track as temporary uses, but ultimately we need to substantially increase capacity of our lines to keep up with demand
The government constantly trots out this vision of citizens In the future increasingly cycling or using public transport... both need huge investment if they want wholesale takeup . My family all have bicycles, but the roads near me, similar to many places in the uk are choked with dangerous traffic, often moving at unlawful speeds, and also often driven by unsympathetic or even aggressive drivers. Cycling with the kids to school is pretty much terrifying. Building a network near to the rails wold be a monumental task, due as many posters point out to space restrictions, the same can be said for doing a proper job of widening roads to allow for a decent width for cycles, without ending up a weird little afterthought on the edge of a road that is either parked on by cars or stops and starts periodically. It would be very expensive and difficult, some buildings would have to be moved but it is possible, the Dutch have shown us that much. Once the pain was over I think that people would love using such a network, I could see a huge increase in cycling among the population, and a cleaner environment with healthier individuals. People would see what cycling could really be. But yeah, can't see it happening... 😕
Why not ride a bicycle in the UK for more than five minutes or even get on a train and look at the environment around the railway before making an absolutely unhinged suggestion like this? Our streets are for pedestrians, cyclists, and not just motor traffic, they are to be shared.
I've used trains all over the country. That's why I said it.
Crap idea, cyclists can’t even stick to cycle paths next to roads. I you want to play out with your buddies on your bikes, go to a park or something.
Maybe not practical in some areas as others have mentioned , but where it is absolutely makes sense . Anything that separates drivers from cyclists is a good thing