CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

'Hope' for new route to Dalkeith dashed

(11 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    A couple of photos have appeared on-line suggesting that there was to be a walkway on the side of the Glenesk Viaduct.

    "

    The brackets will support a new walkway prior to the reintroduction of rail traffic

    "

    http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=46409

    "

    "

    A 'bolt-on' cantilevered pedestrian footpath / cycleway will be attached to the viaduct prior to the reintroduction of rail traffic - note the brackets.

    "

    http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=46403

    HOWEVER -

    "

    The original intention was to erect a cantilever walkway for railway track maintenance work only. However, the final design for the railway included single track at this location thus leaving sufficient space for maintenance access without the need for the cantilever walkway. The text for the image is therefore out of date.

    The undertaking that had to be given to Historic Scotland for the Site of an Ancient Monument (SAM) in the adjacent fields meant there was no way that the railway could incorporate a walkway / cycle path.

    "

    So originally the idea was double track and permission was granted for a walkway for access by rail staff.

    Brackets installed at some point.

    Now single track with room for a path - but not allowed??

    The loss of this direct route avoiding unpleasant roads and steep hills was unfortunate - the re-opening of the railway will benefit more people.

    Now it seems as though a public walk/cycleway could have been maintained.

    Is it too late???

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. amir
    Member

    I am not sure how useful a bike route this part of the railway was. Certainly it was used but it did land people up at Sherrifhall roundabout. On the other hand even just doing a short path to link the Eskbank-Dalkeith path to the path on the north side of the bridge towards Lugton would be a positive thing for walkers. Folk in Eskbank have had their walking opportunities cut drastically (more so as the steps down to Ironmills from the water tower have been closed).

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. Morningsider
    Member

    Hmmm - Schedule 9 of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006 specifically allows for a cantilevered walkway to be attached to the Glenesk Viaduct. I can't see how Historic Scotland could stop its construction, given that it is authorised by an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. EddieD
    Member

    I think that the weasel words are "The undertaking that had to be given to Historic Scotland for the Site of an Ancient Monument (SAM) in the adjacent fields meant there was no way that the railway could incorporate a walkway / cycle path" - nothing wrong with the walkway along the bridge, as long as it went from nowhere to nowhere...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    "I can't see how Historic Scotland could stop its construction"

    Don't think that's the issue.

    Single-tracking means add-on isn't required - though seems odd that that decision was made after they'd put brackets up.

    I'm not clear what

    "

    The undertaking that had to be given to Historic Scotland for the Site of an Ancient Monument (SAM) in the adjacent fields meant there was no way that the railway could incorporate a walkway / cycle path.

    "

    means in the revised context.

    Perhaps that (a proposed??) path at either side of the bridge would no longer be in the trackbed and somehow change the 'setting'(?)

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. kaputnik
    Moderator

    The Scheduled Ancient Monument in question is "Elginhaugh,Roman camp,native fort and palisaded enclosure 600m NE of";

    http://data.historic-scotland.gov.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=2300:35:415812724737132::::P35_SELECTED_MONUMENT:06202

    It takes in all the land between the railway and A6106/Old Dalkeith Road.

    The land on the west of the railway is privately held and I can tell you now the owner won't let a cyclepath go across it.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. Morningsider
    Member

    chdot - right, now I get it. The bridge is not the problem, but the paths either end. I've checked the engineering drawings on the Borders Railway website and there doesn't seem to be any plans for a path alongside the railway here.

    http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/maps-plans.aspx

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. rabt
    Member

    Hi everyone

    I just joined this site today. I used to commute from Gorebridge partly along that cycle path to Sheriffhall park and ride which Is near where I work. I haven't cycled since because I haven't felt the alternative routes were safe enough for me as a relatively inexperienced cyclist. I was really hoping that something would be done to provide like for like. I just wondered if anyone here had heard any update. I've written to Sustrans to see if they have had any information but that was only today so I've not heard back yet.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  9. kaputnik
    Moderator

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-34913650

    A charity is taking Network Rail to a tribunal over the money offered after the compulsory purchase of a bridge to carry the new Borders railway.
    The Edinburgh & Lothians Greenspace Trust has been offered £10,000 for the Glenesk Viaduct in Midlothian.
    It says that "woefully undervalues" the £300,000 it spent on preserving and maintaining the structure.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  10. chdot
    Admin

    I presume this has been running for some years??

    Irrespective of what it was bought for (and what has been spent on it) £10k seems a bit of an insult.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  11. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I presume this has been running for some years?

    I believe there has been much historic rumblings.

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin