Tutshill was the first stop out of Chepstow for Wye Valley trains, separated from Wye Valley Junction by the overbridge from which this picture was taken; as it closed with the WVR it does not seem to have been served by mainline trains. It is not on the Wye Valley line, so re-instating it would require disruption to mainline services. This makes the work involved rather unlikely to be carried out. However, while it would be of interest to a community-based rail link from the Wye Valley, stopping at every opportunity, it would be of no interest to mainline trains running down the side of the Severn Estuary as quickly as possible and so would not have to be set up with them in mind. The current track layout has the crossover for westbound Wye Valley trains at Chepstow so trains heading in both directions would be using the right-hand running line (normally only used by eastbound trains) at this point. Consequently only one platform would be needed, with no work required on the left-hand track. An access ramp is already in place, although it would probably need to be augmented by a lift in order to comply with modern disability legislation. A toucan crossing on the adjacent A48 (just behind the trees on the right and the reason for the construction of the tunnel, as the new road was shoved down the railway's cutting and the railway refused to vacate it) would provide access to Tutshill itself (although a subway could also be built under the road). Widening the footpath on the top of the left-hand cutting wall, as suggested by Sustrans, would provide easy access to Wyedean High School and the trains could therefore be used to convey school children in environmentally friendly comfort. A 70m-long train (3 23m-long vehicles) could be accommodated by extending the platform slightly into the tunnel and curving around the eastern end of the platform to follow the diverging branch line.
	Tidenham will be the headquarters of the line, although the company headquarters will either be very small or somewhere else altogether. Here will be a headquarter block, small car park, passing loop with two platforms and a footbridge, and the signal box for the radio signalling over the entire line. It will be possible for trains to generate electricity while descending to Chepstow which can be re-used on the ascent back up to Tidenham. Tidenham station and environs are subject to the costs associated with providing a new two-platform station, although restrictions imposed by disability legislation mean that if a two-platform station was provided it would need to be accompanied by a large footbridge, suitably over-engineered with solid supports, formidable fences and long ramps of gradients not steeper than 1 in 12. The approach road would probably also need modification to comply with this legislation. The bottom area would be surfaced as a car park for rail users only; traffic lights would be provided on the A48 to allow access. That would total up to cost at least another £1,000,000. If the station was staffed it would be possible to negotiate a "barrow crossing" at the south end of the station for those with heavy luggage, pushchairs, wheelchairs or bikes. A path would be provided alongside the east side of the line to cross the A48 alongside the railway; the path can then gradually descend the embankment side and join a local road at Snipe Hill bridge, above the mainline. This view looks down on Tidenham from the north-east. A viewing platform at this point would provide good views across the station and over the quarry. Platform 1 will be on the left with the main building (about two storeys high and intended to stay below the top of the cutting) and a small car park. Platform 2 will be on the right with a small shelter and the signal box. The signal box will be to a basic Great Western design - a wooden body (based on the upper floor of the one at Tintern) resting on a foot-high stone wall. Few of the plants here are native species to this country and so conservationists should have no qualms about us removing them. The large trees above the station (most of which seem to have been planted by the WVR) will be left; smaller ones around the railway and between here and Netherhope will be cut back to allow the safe passage of trains. As the trees along the cutting walls break up the otherwise cultivated landscape and make the presence of the railway particularly obvious we may consider taking them out, making the railway more airy and less likely to be disrupted by the leaf-fall season, though this is subject to requests from the locals (who we feel should have more say in the matter than conservationists and environmentalists, since it will affect the locals more directly). Should the conservationists wish, we will be happy to come round to their areas and re-plant the trees in suitable places.
	The next issue is the bridge at Bishton, which is still awaiting demolition. A cheap and basic modular bridge would allow a cheap and basic replacement; putting a footbridge on the current abutments wouldn't cost much; not replacing the bridge would be even cheaper. The current bridge could possibly be provided with a chicane to stop motor vehicles using it so the supports can be taken away without it falling down; alternatively it could be demolished and the road abandoned. A replica bridge could probably be built without too much difficulty; the current design did last 100 years, which is longer than most transport schemes bother to allow for. Originally there was a level crossing here, but this was only temporary and was soon abandoned. Keeping a double-track bridge would allow for a second line to be laid at a later date, although there is no reason why such an additional track would be necessary. It could also be used to provide a cycleway alongside the line between Tidenham and Netherhope. We don't have any particular idea as to where the cycleway would go from Netherhope, but providing one would allow people to leave their office in Cardiff at 12:30, catch the train to Netherhope (having lunch on the way) have a short stroll back to Tidenham station and then catch the train back to town. Our current proposed timetable (bottom) would make it easier to walk back to Chepstow since the wait at Tidenham would be atrocious (Tidenham being a passing loop).
	Tidenham tunnel has bats in it - bats which will not like the tunnel to be illuminated, or have noisy things going through it. The proposed timetable does not require a large number of trains to go through the tunnel and it will be out of use for much of the night, giving the bats free reign on it. The original track is in fairly good shape, and retaining the railway will save having to disturb the bats by lifting it. The railway will not require the tunnel to be illuminated, except for maintenance; this can be scheduled to take place when the bats are not in residence. Currently the tunnel is sealed off with palisade fencing; this will naturally have to be removed as the current format obstructs the running lines, but some form of gating overnight (at the southern portal at least) would probably be worth having. Two major reviews would be carried out on the tunnel. The first would assess the structural integrity of the bore, which would be carried out before any further work took place on the railway and could be carried in association with the current owner (as they also wish to make use of it); if it was deemed to be on the verge of falling in then all plans for its use would be a non-starter. Analysis confirming that major work would be needed (such as shotcreting unlined stretches) would need to be carried out early on; if the tunnel was essentially sound it would offer an early boost (and something to pass on to future generations should this scheme fail). A survey of the bat population would then follow and, if necessary, alternative caves would be provided in the vicinity. Carrying out the survey before going too far would allow the conservation bodies to be brought into the tunnel, shown the issue, informed as to the possible effects trains might have (or, indeed, if they would have no effect at all), brought to an understanding of the benefits of re-opening the railway on the environment as a whole (and possibly to this population of bats) and finally convinced of the benefits of the proposals for offsetting any inconveniences caused to the bats by the railway resuming services. Just to the south is Netherhope Halt, which will be rebuilt with a great deal of love, affection, care and cash to create an attractive garden halt with its name written in white stones on the opposite side of the cutting.
	Although we will pass the bottom of Tintern Quarry, severing a new track which has been located across the railway, the new line will not require the loops at the bottom of the quarry on a regular basis. We may initially need them for stock storage, but that will probably also be possible at Tidenham, and so we will aim to leave the overgrown sidings here in an over-grown state (this is apparently popular right now). The running line will be dug out and re-instated. If the loops are to remain abandoned, the pointwork will be taken away for re-use at Tidenham on the basis that points add additional maintenance cost.
	The Shorn Cliff section of the railway presents a variety of engineering and environmental tasks, although none are quite as big as Tidenham Tunnel. This out-of-sequence picture shows one of the many retaining walls which feature along this route - this one is responsible for holding up the trackbed, a large quantity of ivy and several tons of growing timber. It is located between Tidenham Tunnel and Tintern Quarry. Currently the railway has a distinctly overgrown air. First of all the trees which intrude into the railway's loading gauge (about 5 metres high by 4.5 metres wide) will be removed or pruned. Then all vegetation on essential railway structures such as this one will be removed. Surrounding retaining walls will also be cleared to allow maintenance and to reduce the risks of landslips. This should maintain the feel of passing through a deep, quiet forest but give some views of the surroundings and not make the vegetation too thick. The Forestry Commission would have to be consulted on any further developments, but it would be nice to carry out an extensive thinning programme involving the removal of about two out of every three trees in the woodland around this stretch of track. Currently the canopy is essentially solid over a forest floor with little undergrowth (mostly nettles and ivy); trees are forced to be very tall and thin, which makes them susceptible to toppling over in storms. Thinning the forest would provide additional light to the forest floor and thus a greater variety of undergrowth (there are wild boar already in the area so this would be naturally kept under control). Meanwhile the trees could grow to a healthier, fatter form, which would benefit the ecosystem as each tree would offer a larger habitat but maintain a (more limited) canopy for dormice and squirrels. The larger root base of the larger trees would provide better protection against landslips and the trees would be less likely to collapse across the line in gales.
	North of Tintern Quarry the line is a public footpath, and certain areas are deemed by people to be interesting enough to be worth preserving. We will provide an alternative, lower footpath from Tintern Quarry and our proposed station at Tintern Quarry North up to Tintern Junction (which we would be delighted to have supported by the cycleway organisations who currently want to put their cycleway on the railway). Although there may be some fuss about the presence of a railway (this has been made a Site of Special Scientific Interest since the line closed) the railway will actually cause less harm than a footpath, as people will not be able to leave the railway to scramble around the hills, and the vibrating rails will give small animals like dormice sufficient warning to get out of the way - which cyclists probably won't offer, particularly not in the evening. Continuously welded rail combined with a modern, well-maintained diesel train makes minimal noise and would not cause any wider disturbance as it travelled through the landscape. Total disruption in any one spot from an hourly service would only amount to one minute per hour anyway. Animals are quite adaptable - even dormice.
	The river crossing at Tintern presents a few issues for making it blend in, avoiding damage to the river and still being able to carry trains. We have drawn up a selection of possible designs here. The picture to the left shows the current yawning chasm, which ends the continuous trackbed from Wye Valley Junction. The railway runs through Tintern Tunnel and emerges onto the overgrown right-hand abutment; the trackbed subsequently picks up on the left-hand abutment (behind the brown-grey tree) and enters the Tintern station area. North of here, there are only fairly minor obstructions until the line reaches Redbrook. The original bridge had two supports which were set in the river. As it's unlikely that BR filled the river bed with dynamite to blow them up when they took out the bridge the bases are probably still there. The standard bridge support around here was a concrete post clad in steel (or a hollow steel tube filled with concrete - same thing in the end) and these were often left when bridges were demolished. This would allow us to re-instate the piers without touching the riverbed, although there may be certain issues with sticking new concrete onto 130-year-old concrete. However, given the expense of sticking supports into the water our current preferred solution is to produce a duplicate of the bowstring span which the Ross and Monmouth railway built to carry it across the Wye at Monmouth. This would be painted in a suitable colour and a footbridge would be slung off the west side, allowing people to cross the river and climb the hill to the Monk's Path, above the tunnel. The abutments look to be in fairly good health but should a full examination show that they are starting to crumble they would have to be carefully dismantled and rebuilt, probably with the original stone as cladding for a new concrete abutment. If the bridge does have to be built without supports the whole weight of the bridge and any trains crossing would be imposed on these abutments, which would therefore have to be to quite high quality. A large railway bridge would also provide a home to a wide variety of animals, and so would enhance the local ecosystem. Herons, for example, would appreciate a quiet place on which to stand looking down on the rapids (which would rule out a footpath however).
	It is historically accurate to have a railway passing through Tintern station - that is what it was built for, and it should be the case again. We would re-route the miniature gauge line to terminate slightly further down the embankment by the bridge abutment (it currently terminates on the abutment) or arrange it to follow Sustrans's plans (start in platform 3 and descend to Brockweir, with no turntables). The buildings would carry on with their current uses but the area between platforms 1 and 2 would have to be opened out again. A loop would be provided, along with a shelter on the island platform and a foot crossing. Most trains would use platform 1. The signal box would be allowed to retain its current job (currently a craft centre). We would recommend using it as a viewpoint except the WVR, worried that the signalman would spend all his time watching the scenery rather than the trains, didn't put any windows in the back. It won't be used as a signal box as the whole line is due to be controlled from one box - probably at Tidenham, although Monmouth is an option. On the left, in the former cattle dock, are three railway vehicles. All three will be tidied up and repainted, but will probably be retained, as there's no reason to remove them (they aren't in the way).
	At Brockweir the bridge has been removed and filled in. The abutments are still just about there. If it was a girder, there are three options for re-instating it: Close road, dig out area, and build new bridge (very expensive). Wait for the main bridge over the Wye to close for its next overhaul and re-instate the rail bridge at the same time (could take a while). Tunnel under the road (possible but challenging). Of course, if the bridge was an arch to begin with, then it has probably just been infilled and an afternoon with a JCB will re-instate a route under the road. Unfortunately we haven't seen any pictures looking towards the bridge so we don't know what it looked like. A preliminary dig (i.e. dig up the side of the road with a garden spade) would reveal the answer, but the council might not take kindly to it. It should also be possible to re-route the railway so that it passes under the river bridge. There is, between the bridge abutment and the river, about enough room for a single track line. Although this will make it more susceptible to flooding, most of the route is susceptible to flooding anyway, and if the river breaks its banks we would probably be obliged to close the line whether it went under its own bridge or under the river's span. The halt platform has been partly demolished and the site allowed to return to nature. However, as the JCB digging out the bridge would probably be here for the day, it shouldn't be very hard to clear the place up a bit in the morning.
	At Llandogo the line will pass between a farmhouse and the church. For convenience, safety, etc., the platform will be located on the village side of the line. As it was previously on the farmhouse side of the line, the trackbed will need some very slight re-aligning as it passes the village. The halt will be to the same design as the previous one - a basic shelter with a nameboard and a light - and if we can extend a turbine into a local stream (just a little one) we should be able to illuminate the whole halt at night free of charge. Recently, however, this has been suggested in Tintern, and despite agreement that the turbine would produce enough power for ten kettles to be boiled simultaneously (or 1000 lightbulbs to all be on at once) the general opinion of the locals in the village newsletter was anti-turbine. Among the various comments was a grumble that Brockweir and Llandogo would nick the electricity. As the station would be located next to a private house if the old site was re-used we would consider moving the route around here to minimise disturbance to the current owner of the site, with the platform being shifted to the north by a few dozen yards.
	St Briavels is still essentially intact, except the signal box has gone. This is because the road has been re-aligned through the old box, with the road now being above rail level. The simple solution is to lower the road again so that the railway can have the original level crossing here. The slightly harder one is to raise the railway to build a new level crossing over the road. The problem with the first option is that it will probably be difficult to sort out (it will involve partly re-aligning the road again, though with a desire from the authorities to lower traffic levels and us wanting people to slow down as much as possible when approaching the crossing it may be no bad thing). The second option will require us to build a new station as it will preclude the use of the old one. The new station would be a basic 1970s style concrete platform on the north side of the crossing. Both station sites would leave room for small car parks on their side of the road. Currently the station is being used by a fishing group, who kindly gave permission for this photograph to be taken. The station is in very good health and the trackbed to the south has been kept intact. It is private property and this should be respected. In exchange for ploughing a railway through their nice site we would be quite happy to pay any membership fees which they wish to impose. We would also look at the possibilities of carrying their fishing rods. It would not be impossible to organise a four-wheeled trolley of some kind for trundling down the line to the fields just north of Llandogo, which are separated from the station by a short section of line where the river tightly hugs the wooded hillside. This would require a lot of care and attention by users and by the signalling staff, but it could still be installed.
	At Whitebrook a garage has been located on the trackbed, and although the occupiers of the house will be sufficiently close to the halt to no longer really need the car, we are willing to pay for the purchase of another strip of land on the other side of the house to allow the construction of a new garage. Trains will depart as quietly as possible to minimise disturbance.
	Over the following section of trackbed an alternative route will be found for the current forest road to allow access for anyone who needs it - although it no-one does it will be provided as a cyclepath (and if no-one needs that it won't be replaced). The woodland on the east/ river/ left side of the line would be thinned and, in places, cleared. This would provide a better view accross the valley. The thin strip of meadow might find a narrow footpath being encouraged to exist across it but will otherwise be left to get on with life.
	At Penallt the viaduct will need substantial re-conditioning, including replacing most of the structure owing to its state. The similar viaduct at Lydbrook, several miles to the north, is currently falling down. Penallt viaduct, although stronger and slightly better built, is probably in a similar state. Being built five years later and having a shorter service life, as well as the footpath being slung off the side of the bridge rather than running along the main structure, will all ensure that it will have a few more years grace before it needs closing for a rebuild. The simple solution is to pull it down and start again, but as that is not really an option, we will be forced to re-condition what is there. The viaduct will of course have to be repainted. It appears that the original and only colour was black. It is now mostly a worn shade of iron oxide.
	Redbrook station is a pain - in fact Redbrook does not seem to have ever felt that the railway was likely to re-open. The station has been obliterated and replaced with private residences. We will aim to buy these as and when they come up for sale, which will save on all the bad feeling generated by compulsory purchase. Here will be the last passing loop, with two platforms and a small station building with a footbridge. The car park will remain as it is unless we are asked to re-surface it. To the north of the station, the former overbridge will be re-instated (although it will be slightly raised) and a footpath will be provided up the hill to the Coleford Branch to make up for the removal of the footpath along the WVR to Wyesham. Disabled access to the northbound platform will be provided by making use of a riverbank footpath which is already in place. This will be surfaced and given a direct link to the footpath on Penallt Viaduct at the southern end and the road at the northern end. A gentle ramp and a steeper flight of steps will connect the path to the platform. Tickets will be available from the ticket office on the southbound platform or on the train.
	From a point just north of Redbrook it will be possible for trains to generate electricity on the descent to Monmouth Troy, allowing them to be nearly carbon neutral for the climb back up. The trackbed is in excellent condition and the only issue will be people objecting to a railway being built on their footpath. These people will be persuaded that the Wye Valley Walk is much better or that they could alternatively go up the Coleford Branch and down the incline into Redbrook. The Coleford Branch does not actually touch the incline so some examination of possible connecting routes would be necessary. Again, trees extending onto the railway will be removed or pruned and some thinning on the west/ river/ left side would be desirable.
	Wyesham station is a difficult one. Placing the station for the Monmouth conurbation on one extreme and terminating the line here would lead to issues with a shortage of traffic or the traffic all insisting on arriving by car. As the easiest way to get people out of their cars is to ensure that it involves minimal lifestyle change, the line will be taken as far into Monmouth as reasonably possible. This will involve organising a suitable formation around a housing development in Wyesham, unless Monmouthshire local authority agrees to knock over the row of 1960s houses which have been built on the formation. If Gloucestershire and Monmouthshire agree this station could become a railhead for a cycleway into the Forest of Dean, following the Coleford Branch to meet up with the main network at Coleford. Coleford also has a large free car park, so such a scheme (which we would be willing to sponsor) would allow visitors from the M4 Corridor to leave the car at Coleford and cycle into Monmouth. The railway was never a high-speed route anyway, even by rural branch line standards, with trains averaging about 15 mph. In the interim, this photo shows Wyesham in the background, the railway embankment across the centre, and a possible site for a small car park in the foreground.
	This is one of the very solid bridges on the Coleford Branch. Although we would like to re-open the route, it was noted for its lack of profits, and for now we would be willing to support placing a cycleway on this route in place of a cycleway on the Tintern-Tidenham section of the WVR (there is no logic in this, apart from the fact that this will actually provide a vaguely worthwhile route for a a cycleway, but then again there is no logic in building cycleways on railways, which were built to be railways. Imagine the fuss if someone built an all-new cycleway and someone else tried to put a railway on it).
	The approach to Monmouth Troy does not involve covering a long distance, but it will be an expensive one. The extension will be worthwhile, however, as there will be a certain psychological benefit caused by people in Monmouth believing a station called Monmouth to be far closer than one called Wyesham - even though Wyesham will possibly be easier to access. The viaduct will be partly dismantled to allow us to sort out what is missing and re-assemble it in as-new condition. Fences will be installed for the first time in the life of the structure. The girder span across the Wye will be re-instated with a similar design as before although we could provide a different, lighter design if it is felt to be worthwhile, although the viaduct cannot easily be seen from anywhere unless you start wandering the hill immediately to the south, which few people do. This bright, sunny day clearly shows the gap between the two stone structures - and, therefore, where much of the cost will be.
	Troy station will be re-built with a single platform and fairly simple buildings, and the surface of the forecourt will be re-done. A decent, surfaced footpath will be provided from the town centre to encourage people to walk to the station without disrupting the local residents. This view is from the Ross and Monmouth railway at the junction with the Wye Valley line, which was on the left. The building on the right is not original and is in various states of repair each time we visit. Troy station is in the distance. The structure surrounded by pallisade fencing is the gas station - an inconvenient structure which will, among other things, prevent us from using platform 2 as a loop line, putting the signal box back near its original site, or running steam trains (the area stinks of gas as a result of it). Part of the task of re-instating the station will be to make it look appealing, even on damp days like this one. Naturally, if suitable arrangements can be made and the gas station removed then platform 2 will at least get a track back and will possibly be made to look like a normal GWR platform with signs, garden, footbridge and so on. This will merely be "value added" to provide a spare stabling siding and to make the place look more attractive - particularly useful if it was decided to indulge in summer steam trains - since making platform 2 disabled friendly would be too expensive. A spur to a station near the site of Monmouth May Hill would be an option, in which case trains would make a short stop here before reversing along the Ross and Monmouth trackbed for quarter of a mile to a rather basic terminal on the south side of the bridge carrying the road to Coleford over the former railway. If this was not proceeded with the trackbed to May Hill would be available for use as a cycleway. There would naturally be the perpetual threat of re-instating the line to a station in the general vicinity of Ross (probably not the original location unless we turn up at the same time as the industrial estate built on it is being demolished) and efforts would be made to ensure that as much of the trackbed as possible was secured for such an eventuality.
	Mitchell Troy is on the other side of the tunnel, and here we have plans to build a small, dedicated maintenance depot for our trains. The depot will involve a two-lane shed with two sidings and a small side-shed, large enough for one vehicle to be parked in it out of the way - although it will mostly be used for stabling the yard shunter. The site will be surrounded by trees to minimise the noise and visual disturbance - although the adjacent A449/ A40 dual carriageway should ensure that the targets to be met on both will not be very stringent, as the area is quite noisy and has plenty of visual disturbance anyway. All maintenance will be carried out in the sheds, and any diesels used on site will have quiet, modern engines designed to minimise disturbance.