The Wye Valley line does have its problems. To start, housing developments at Redbrook and a garage at Whitebrook both block the trackbed. Girder spans are missing on the Monmouth viaduct, and at Wyesham, Redbrook, and Tintern. A new underbridge would be required at Brockweir halt. The trackbed would need buying back from farmers. But at Wyesham and Monmouth, where the route could so easily have been obliterated with housing, the trackbed has been preserved. Things can be done, although the budget would probably be in excess of £2,000,000.

The other problems with the trackbed and surviving track readily available include:

• The line from Wye Valley Junction to Netherhope and around Tintern Quarry needs substantial clearance. The route is almost impassable on foot. One of Britain's larger gorse bushes would need chopping down to reach Netherhope.
• The remaining sleepers will have mostly rotted too far to cope with a very small diesel shunter.
• Tidenham Tunnel needs major refurbishment.
• The Shorn Cliff section between Tidenham and Tintern tunnels is, after many years, beginning to collapse. Heavy rebuilding is becoming essential, which is why this needs doing quickly.
• Tintern station is occupied by other groups. Unless they are very keen on the proposed upgrades and clearance of a lot of their pleasent developments, a new route around the old Tintern station would be needed. On the other hand, Monmouthshire is happy with running a cycleway through it.
• Between Brockweir and Whitebrook the line would need to be bought back off farmers.
• At St Briavels, the road has been raised at the old level crossing and the station is owned privately. Careful thought would be required to get around this.
• All of the drainage adits are in declining condition and could well need substantial investment (or not, as the case may be).
• Penallt viaduct is in decline and a new structure would be advisable, retaining the old one as a footbridge, although structures in worse condition have been rebuilt.
• Between Redbrook and Wyesham the locals use the railway as an unofficial right of way. As the alternative is the road, which is busy, this is reasonable.
• Monmouth gasworks is no longer adjacent to Monmouth May Hill. It is now sited in the Monmouth Troy station throat. It could be moved or we could resign ourselves to only using one platform.

Just for the record, this is what we're up against. Shown here is Tidenham Tunnel, about the third biggest obstacle against re-opening to Monmouth and the first one of the three that we'd end up against. Would you run an expensive modern train through this? The tunnel is 1,188 yards long, opened in 1876, runs through solid limestone, is partially lined and was last used in 1981. Rails are visible leading into the tunnel still - it is the only section clear between Wye Valley Junction and Tintern Quarry.

The railway would be an excellent candidate for rebuilding as a general experiment into promoting minimum-emissions transport by making it nicer to use than a high-priced car. The scenery is already there, albeit a trifle overgrown. Unfortunately there's nothing that we can do about that, since chopping the trees down to make the valley lighter and so people could amble around the hillside appreciating the view would not go down very well with certain sectors of society. It would go down very well with other sectors of society, but it's easier to go with the people wanting to maintain the status quo.

It would also be jolly nice to be able to rebuild the line in a style vaguely reminiscent of the Great Western. In most cases this would simply feature a platform with a small metal shelter, a large nameboard and a couple of lights. The four original stations, Monmouth Troy and Netherhope Halt would be treated slightly differently:

• Tidenham would have two platforms, linked by a footbridge and barrow crossing. A signal box would be provided at the northern end of the Monmouth-bound platform. The buildings would be fairly simple affairs in the style of the original (which had three and a half walls - half of the building was a shelter with an open front and the other half was the office). Some indication would be provided that this was home of the National Diving and Activity Centre and a joint car park and through ticketing system would be useful. Gardens would be provided and the line heading north would be accompanied by a footpath and laid as double track most of the way to...
• Netherhope Halt, which would regain its single platform accessed by a ramp. This would have to be amended so that the ramp extends down to the platform (currently there is a flight of steps for the last bit). The halt platform would still be surrounded by trees, but of a different sort. The cutting opposite the platform would be cleared and grass provided, possibly with the halt name laid out in painted stones. Removing all trees in the cutting between Bishton Bridge and Netherhope Halt would make the railway blend into the landscape better.
• Tintern station would be reshuffled. The bridge across the river would incorporate a footpath which would then head off up the hill to somewhere. The two main platforms would be dug out with a barrow crossing being provided. The current wooden statues would be shifted off the trackbed. The stock in the cattle dock would remain in place although it is unlikely that their siding would be connected to the railway. A shelter and gardens would be provided on platform 2. A footpath would run down alongside the railway to Brockweir. Between trains the location would be as quiet as it is at present.
• St Briavels would mostly remain with the fishing group, although it would be nice to have the platform back. An alternative building will be provided and the goods shed tidied up. There would be no requirement for access to the goods yard, since the platform and building could be accessed from the road. Never much more than a halt, St Briavels would probably receive some gardens and a visiting caretaker.
• Redbrook would have two platforms squeezed into the available space. The second platform will therefore overlook the river in the manner of the former station at Symonds Yat. A footbridge and barrow crossing would be provided. The current car park will remain as is unless it is agreed otherwise. The gardens for which the station was famous will be reinstated and an argument held as to whether Redbrook or Redbrook-on-Wye sounds better; Redbrook was the original name, but by closure it had been renamed Redbrook-on-Wye. When referred to as a whole, the double village of Upper and Lower Redbrook is simply called Redbrook.
• Monmouth Troy could simply be renamed Monmouth (in the absence of its fellow station at May Hill) or given the full name, which appeared on the nameboards, of Monmouth (Troy). The presence of a gas station adjacent to the station throat rather limits operations here. Only one platform will be rebuilt, with a replica of the original building being provided (on the basis that the Gloucestershire & Warwickshire Railway has no desire to return the original). A suburban estate called Troy Gardens has now been built on the goods yard and approach road, so a tarmac footpath would be provided around the back of the estate along the top of a field, heading down towards the dual carriageway and separated from the houses by a hawthorne hedge. Possibly a narrow-gauge tramway could also feature. The station itself will attempt to landscape this unattractive corner of Monmouth with stone paving, gardens, trees, handsome Great Western Railway signage and signalling (not that much will be needed, but some decoration wouldn't go amiss) plus some carefully painted trains. The Ross and Monmouth trackbed will be cleared up although nothing will be done with the bridge, since nothing can be done to make it level without compromising the long-term future of the structure. It may, however, be cleaned up, rubbed down and repainted, either in rust red, battleship grey or heavy-duty black. It would be nice to be able to relay track along the route with a footpath stuck in a trough between the rails. On the other hand, as this wouldn't go anywhere, it would do nothing more than provide decoration and suggest to the children of Monmouth that they can walk along railway lines. Just because the author of this webpage got the impression in his youth that disused railway lines can be walked along (on a since-lifted double-track section of the Northampton and Lamport Railway) does not mean that it should be given to anyone else. Aside from the decorative benefits, however, it would stake a claim on the route towards what is a fairly obvious next target - Ross-on-Wye. Anyway, it would be if the route hadn't been rather thoroughly built on, demolished and done away with.

Another things which would make the line pleasant would be a frequent service using comfortable trains. We suggest an electric service using second hand stock from elsewhere on the network. This would be slightly tired, but cheap and hopefully sufficient. With passenger numbers being likely to be fairly low it could be provided with first-class style seating - 2+1 with tables - throughout (that is, with each window on one side of the train having four seats around a table and each window on the other side having one seat on each side of a smaller table). Some vehicles could be fitted with compartments, with the ensuing advantages (peace, privacy) and disadvantages (enclosed space with mad strangers, can only see out one side) which such stock brings. We would love to run trains twice an hour in each direction, but once per hour is the best we can timetable. (Three per hour could be provided with passing loops at Tidenham, Tintern, St Briavels and Redbrook, but that could be best described as overkill. The current bus is bi-hourly.) All trains would have to be "all stations and halts" to Monmouth Troy. If the unions do not object too much (having prompted the abandonment of the idea in the first place) the driver's cab would have a glass back so that passengers can see the line ahead through the cab and windscreen - useful for a better view of the scenic beauty. However, this would vary based on what stock could be acquired; most modern stock was not built with such a facility in mind.

We would also love to run a mixture of semi-fast and stopping services, but we recently designed a possible timetable, and have discovered that the savings of not stopping at intermediate stations would be wonderful, but the train would then have to wait so long at a passing loop that the saving would be wiped out, just giving the residents of Tidenham and Redbrook the opportunity to see a fast arrive and not leave the house until then.

Some of the savings were sufficiently impressive that this is not much of an exaggeration, but unfortunately they were not big enough to avoid delaying the next train at the next passing loop.

Click here for journey plans.

Efforts would also be made to run a large evening service to Newport and Cardiff. This would enable the local youths to get out of the valley, and youths in the country often feel that there is nothing to do. A service with quite cheaply overhauled trains would enable people to get drunk on the town without causing expensive damage to the train on the run home. It would prevent someone from having to stay sober for the drive home.

Public transport has never been good in the Wye Valley - since 1959 it has been worse. The bus service of today is a small bus which can seat about 25 - 30 people. This is quite a contrast to a two-coach train. The bus is also about as regular as the train as well, so the service has not improved. However, at least this bus is still running. When a railway closes in Britain it is replaced with a bus virtually by default (replacement public transport is always insisted upon). The average survival time of one of these services is six months. The locals all go out and buy cars instead.

The result is that car ownership has shot up and a slow pleasant drive down the valley is now impossible as there are all these cars zooming about along narrow roads. People, after all, do want to get from A to B and the car is simply the best way to do it in the Wye Valley. Unfortunately cars produce huge quantities of CO₂ which is not terribly good for the environment.

Our electrification scheme proposes third rail electrification. This is noted for its ability to discourage trespassers, but might also have an unfortunate effect on local wildlife. Consequently the third rail will have to be turned off at nights and carefully sheathed to protect passing wildlife - it is traditionally placed between two wooden panels in areas where track workers are likely be wandering around while the rail is live. Many of these disadvantages could be reduced by using bottom-contact third rail as used on the Docklands Light Railway in London. (Most third-rail schemes are top contact, so anything which touches the top of the rail and the ground gets 750V DC flowing through it. Bottom contact allows the top of the rail to be insulated. It is more expensive than top contact, but less unsightly than overhead wires.) Overhead electrification is more likely to be used on the mainline, but would cause visual pollution in the Wye Valley with the catenary stringing through the landscape and be liable to damage in winter floods. Trains can easily be persuaded to change between the two options.

There is one other option which British Rail experimented with in the 1960s. They didn't declare it to be a failure, but they didn't go very far with it either. A diesel multiple unit was fitted with a battery and put on a very strenuous line from Aberdeen to Ballartar in Scotland for tests, recharging at each end. The unit cut costs, but not enough, and the line closed in 1966. The unit was then transferred to the Derby Technical Centre (in Derby, unsurprisingly), where it underwent further tests before sale as surplus to further development requirements. This way to the history of this unit.

The other Battery Multiple Unit effort came from the Southern Region of British Rail for London to Folkestone Docks boat trains, which linked directly into ferries from France. This was a fleet of ten battery powered vehicles known as 1MLV, which meant it was a 1 car unit and was a Motor Luggage Van. Out of them, eight have been preserved, while the sixth member of the fleet was involved in a shunting mishap and the seventh was stripped for spares to restore the eighth. Both have been scrapped. As the first, second and eighth members of the fleet are described as "restored" and are supposed to haul trains presumably someone has found a method of charging their batteries from somewhere. They carried luggage and staff and were not not fitted with corridors to link them to the rest of the train for security reasons. Although they normally ran at one end of the train, they were powered and were fitted with cabs at each end so they could assist the train engines and also run alone. A battery was charged off a live third rail and this could be used to move the van (and, indeed, the entire train) on the docks where a live rail would be dangerous. For a while they operated over a stretch of line which was not electrified off the batteries on a regular service carrying mail. Up to 20 minutes power could be gained off the battery before the MLV had to return to a live rail for recharging but as the aforementioned service only took a little less than 20 minutes a clear run was needed. One unit was robbed by masked gunmen in 1989 while operating a mail train between Brighton and London Bridge. After all the trouble taken to hold up this poor little unit it probably came as a surprise to everyone afterwards that all that was nicked was a sack of Polish newspapers. The MLV was an excellent idea but was not pursued any further. A very good website on these unique units is available here.

The other battery-powered type of vehicle in the UK is the slow, quiet, now elderly, and suitable for a lot of stopping road vehicle known as the milk float. This is another display of the uses of battery power (and is about the only electric vehicle on the British roads to have made any impact). Milk Floats for Beginners

A few minor examples can be found with the odd shunter, some much fussed-over cars (which introduce car owners to performance that railway people have known about for years) and a couple of buses.

While this idea could be developed on the WVR, none of these fleets managed to offer a lengthy journey without spending large amounts of time re-charging, even with an average speed of 35mph. A modern train has a large number of additional calls on its power aside from the basic requirement to move of the 1960s - now a train must offer heating and air conditioning, open and close its own doors, and carry a far more solid bodyshell.

Aside from passenger traffic there is the small issue of freight. The WVR has a long history of carrying stone from local quarries, which was a sufficiently remunerative form of traffic to keep nearly three miles of railway open until 1981, and a mile of that until 1992. Overall, it seems to have been worthwhile to carry this traffic.

However, quarrying has now, from the point of view of the general public, ceased entirely in the Wye Valley area. It hasn't, with one quarry still being in use to the south of Tintern. The stone is removed by road.

Ideas for re-opening the WVR have various solutions to the quarrying problem. The problem works out as follows:

• If the railway re-opens it will make re-opening the quarries a more attractive prospect, leading to more noise.
• If the quarries re-open they will expect the railway to carry their loads and produce enough stone to keep the railway happy, resulting in heavy freight trains.
• If the quarries do re-open and send their traffic out by road the roads will become overcrowded and unpleasant to drive on.

Railways are nowadays expected to carry heavier things like coal, oil, steel and of course stone, so it would be reasonable to expect them to carry stone from Tintern Quarry should it choose to re-open.

The previous schemes have all tried to deal with the risk of quarry traffic in their own ways. One was due to be run with old Southern Region commuter stock from Monmouth to Chepstow - but doesn't seem to have mentioned locomotives, thus ruling out the risk of carrying any stone traffic. The next was to be narrow gauge (3 ft) which would prevent it from doing much in the way of mass transport. The last one, and the most recent, recommended that the line should be built to light railway standards, which would rule out the following:

• Stone traffic
• Travel above 25 mph
• A large construction budget.

Except this shows how much research they did since a light railway is not instantly banned from carrying heavy loads. There are two types of light railway: dowgraded ex-heavy-rail lines, with big earthworks and solid structures but now working to light railway standards, and light railways built as light railways, which carry very lightweight vehicles at slow speeds. The WVR was built as a heavy rail route with good construction work, the 35 mph speed limit being enforced by the curvature of the route, which has virtually no straight track (except for some short bits just south of Tintern, just north of Redbrook, and in the middle of Tidenham Tunnel). But freight trains are quite happy at 35 or even at the 25 mph speed limit for light rail traffic. Curves are not an issue. Structure quality is, and the WVR can handle the traffic. To prove this, the West Somerset Railway handled frequent stone trains during 1997 and 1998 going to rebuild the sea wall at Minehead. Standard mainline stone trains operated - complete with the locomotive, which normally appears to have been 130 ton "heavyweight" 37707 (which we wouldn't mention except it's the second one of its type and we want it. Preferably for free).

There are, out of interest, currently no plans to re-open any of the closed quarries in the Wye Valley. It is unlikely that Tintern Quarry, which is just visible from the main road, would be allowed to re-open, and Dayhouse Quarry is almost permanently closed, having been flooded. Consequently we are taking the view that this rules out most requirements to make life difficult for ourselves in the future to stop people making us run stone trains.

And the other way to dodge stone traffic is, when some bright spark announces that they want to re-open the quarry, insist that they hold a full public inquiry into how the stone is transported. Because there are only two ways to get stone onto the motorway or main line from Tintern Quarry - one is the local main road (not popular with all the people who live en-route) or by rail (which will not be popular with anyone who lives over Tidenham Tunnel or the people at Netherhope Halt). Getting that through the public enquiry should kill any possibility of the quarry re-opening. So that's not a problem for anyone to worry about.

If all this was successful (comfortable, frequent services between attractive stations on a railway connecting to a lot of footpaths and trying to be close to settlements) then the expensive bits could be sustained on income, donations and subsidy (hopefully mostly the first option). Other rail links could then be opened up on the same model and fewer people would need to drive. This would benefit the environment and make the valley quieter. If necessary, cycle lanes could be provided alongside the A466 in the knowledge that the quieter road would be safer to cycle along.

If it was tremendously unsuccessful then it would rapidly become a two-hourly service from Cardiff worked by a tired two-car Sprinter unit calling at a variety of shacks and Tintern station. A different way of interesting rural areas in rail travel could be used elsewhere or the same one repeated in a more profitable area. The A466 would remain fairly busy, but hopefully the rural nature of the route would protect the line from vandalism. The railway would probably survive, since closing a railway is rather a lot of trouble and there would be the issue of dealing with all the structures along the line if it were to shut again.