Arnside Viaduct Cycling and Walking Trail - What do you think?

[geocycle]

Lovely pictures! I'm very fortunate to ride that area. Did the access issue on the north side get resolved or is it purely a funding issue now?

[cycleruk]

Are there any news about the possibility to cross the river on the viadukt? Would be an interesting option for my next LEJOG in May '24.

Sorry but highly unlikely. There is the option of using the train to get across the river.
Stations at Carnforth, Silverdale or Arnside over to Grange Over Sands etc.
Then a leisurely ride up north, through the Lakes.

Indeed.
But why would anyone want to shorten the journey from Arnside to Grange or vice-versa? I must have gone the several and various wonderful ways from and to those places, a hundred times or more, and never felt the need to be a crow.

Perhaps those hankering for the bridge route are those strange folk who want to go from anywhere to anywhere else in a dead straight line, for reasons I can never fathom. Some of them call it "art"! If personal helicopters become available, they'll all be getting one then crashing into each other as they try to fly dead straight. "Get out of my flight path!"

On the other hand, perhaps several Arnsiders have pressing daily tasks to complete in Grange, with the Grangers similarly compelled to go to Arnside toot sweet to labour and sweat? They could just swap the tasks or perhaps retire.

Perhaps the would-be crows don't like the A6? One can avoid it easily enough, though. It increases the miles even more but also the pleasures of cycling them.

2 miles by bridge compared with 15 miles round. ( 4 mile return against 30 )
That would certainly encourage local people to cycle/walk across rather than drive all the way round.

[Fasgadh]

Imagine the round trip possibilities. Coastal walkers would love it too. A bridge would be a destination in itself.

[Cugel]

2 miles by bridge compared with 15 miles round. ( 4 mile return against 30 )
That would certainly encourage local people to cycle/walk across rather than drive all the way round.

If the objective is to speed and make easier the journey from Arnside to Grange and vice-versa, why spend oodles of cash on building a footpath and cycling track (on which cyclists and walkers can arrange priority-quarrels and minor injury inflictions)? Give those (all 7 of them) a free pass for the train, along with a bit of room for the 2 bikes and 5 haversacks.

Sledgehammers can be expensive and often they completely mangle the nut.

Me, I'd make them all wade or swim.

[Mike Sales]

2 miles by bridge compared with 15 miles round. ( 4 mile return against 30 )
That would certainly encourage local people to cycle/walk across rather than drive all the way round.

If the objective is to speed and make easier the journey from Arnside to Grange and vice-versa, why spend oodles of cash on building a footpath and cycling track (on which cyclists and walkers can arrange priority-quarrels and minor injury inflictions)? Give those (all 7 of them) a free pass for the train, along with a bit of room for the 2 bikes and 5 haversacks.

Sledgehammers can be expensive and often they completely mangle the nut.

I think it would be wade and swim, which would likely cause rather more grief than conflict with walkers.
I would just love to travel above the sea, free from traffic, enjoying the peaceful view.
The viaduct is there, adding a cycle and walker path would not be difficult, and would add a marvellous experience.
Waiting for the no doubt occasional trains would be a pain.
I once crossed one of the Cardigan Bay railway viaducts which had no path, illegally no doubt. Naughty me

[Cugel]

2 miles by bridge compared with 15 miles round. ( 4 mile return against 30 )
That would certainly encourage local people to cycle/walk across rather than drive all the way round.

If the objective is to speed and make easier the journey from Arnside to Grange and vice-versa, why spend oodles of cash on building a footpath and cycling track (on which cyclists and walkers can arrange priority-quarrels and minor injury inflictions)? Give those (all 7 of them) a free pass for the train, along with a bit of room for the 2 bikes and 5 haversacks.

Sledgehammers can be expensive and often they completely mangle the nut.

I think it would be wade and swim, which would likely cause rather more grief than conflict with walkers.
I would just love to travel above the sea, free from traffic, enjoying the peaceful view.
The viaduct is there, adding a cycle and walker path would not be difficult, and would add a marvellous experience.
Waiting for the no doubt occasional trains would be a pain.
I once crossed one of the Cardigan Bay railway viaducts which had no path, illegally no doubt. Naughty me

Will you be campaigning for that viaduct between Fleetwood and Barrow in Furnace, then? How about one across The Wash. I know! Let's demand at least one bridge per mile from one side of Lake Coniston to the other; and across all them other blasted nuisances of big puddles up there in NW England.

But perhaps personal helicopters are the best answer. Each cyclist with his own portable super-drone that unfolds from the Carradice saddle bag and wafts the cyclist across the various geographical barriers! Mind the geese & swans.

**************
But let's get back to practicalities. How much to make a walking and cycling path addition to the railway viaduct across the Kent Estuary from Arnside to Grange? I suspect it'll be something like 1,000,000X what the users of it are willing to pay.

[Mike Sales]

If the objective is to speed and make easier the journey from Arnside to Grange and vice-versa, why spend oodles of cash on building a footpath and cycling track (on which cyclists and walkers can arrange priority-quarrels and minor injury inflictions)? Give those (all 7 of them) a free pass for the train, along with a bit of room for the 2 bikes and 5 haversacks.

Sledgehammers can be expensive and often they completely mangle the nut.

I think it would be wade and swim, which would likely cause rather more grief than conflict with walkers.
I would just love to travel above the sea, free from traffic, enjoying the peaceful view.
The viaduct is there, adding a cycle and walker path would not be difficult, and would add a marvellous experience.
Waiting for the no doubt occasional trains would be a pain.
I once crossed one of the Cardigan Bay railway viaducts which had no path, illegally no doubt. Naughty me

Will you be campaigning for that viaduct between Fleetwood and Barrow in Furnace, then? How about one across The Wash. I know! Let's demand at least one bridge per mile from one side of Lake Coniston to the other; and across all them other blasted nuisances of big puddles up there in NW England.

But perhaps personal helicopters are the best answer. Each cyclist with his own portable super-drone that unfolds from the Carradice saddle bag and wafts the cyclist across the various geographical barriers! Mind the geese & swans.

**************
But let's get back to practicalities. How much to make a walking and cycling path addition to the railway viaduct across the Kent Estuary from Arnside to Grange? I suspect it'll be something like 1,000,000X what the users of it are willing to pay.

This is the technique known as 'reductio ad absurdam'.
What I suggest is only that since there is a viaduct there already, adding a path would increase public amenity, with little cost and a great increase in pleasure. I imagine that it is little used by trains, like the Cardigan Bay viaducts. It is good that the Barmouth Viaduct path has been restored, and it can be hardly noticed by those who do not want to use it.

The reductio ad absurdum fallacy occurs when someone tries to prove an argument false by misapplying the premises or making false and absurd conclusions from the argument.

[Cugel]

But let's get back to practicalities. How much to make a walking and cycling path addition to the railway viaduct across the Kent Estuary from Arnside to Grange? I suspect it'll be something like 1,000,000X what the users of it are willing to pay.

What I suggest is only that since there is a viaduct there already, adding a path would increase public amenity, with little cost and a great increase in pleasure. I imagine that it is little used by trains, like the Cardigan Bay viaducts. It is good that the Barmouth Viaduct path has been restored, and it can be hardly noticed by those who do not want to use it.

The reductio ad absurdum fallacy occurs when someone tries to prove an argument false by misapplying the premises or making false and absurd conclusions from the argument.

I'll admit to some naughty rhetoric concerning the Fleetwood to Barrow viaduct your Arnside viaduct improvement suggests you might also like. However, let's get down to the actual costs & benefits of adding this proposed cycle and walking path to the Arnside viaduct.

This viaduct is used frequently by railway trains as its part of the only rail link around the Cumbria coast, from Carnforth to Carlisle and the many towns & villages along the way.

At present there's no room for walking and cycling so the viaduct would have to widened in some way.

The number who need to travel shortest route via walking or cycling, Arnside to Grange, are very low, considering that the populations of both places are low, the number of those residents wanting to travel Arnside to Grange via walking or cycling rather than getting on the train being even lower. (I suspect single figures).

So, how much would be this "little cost" you suggest for a new walking & cycling addition to the viaduct? How much does that work out per resident using it?

What would be the cost of providing those residents of Arnside or Grange needing a direct link with a free ticket to use the trains instead?

What economic advantages would accrue to the area if the walking and cycling addition was also used by (how many) additional tourists attracted by the facility?

Frankly, I can think of many things that the rates would be better spent on in that area - some good quality council houses, for example, available for fair rents.

[arnsider]

I live very close to Arnside and cycle the area regularly. I both ride the train the one stop and ride my bike the long way round.
I never have a problem. Loaded tourers can suit their itinerary to train times and as said here, leisure cyclists can ride the quiet stretches of the old A590 , Methop, Storth and the quiet lanes from Park Side to Levens.
I am retired now,but was Setting out Engineer for a period when the new decks were installed on the existing railway viaduct.
I can say categorically that the new deck designs from Gifford and partners made no concession whatever to retro fitting a cycle/footway.
There were no references anywhere on the drawings.
The original deck supports are steel trestles founded in the estuary bed at around nine meter centers. The engineering brick piers are an after thought. and may not be capable of accomodating the cantilevered load of a subsidiary deck, necessitating connection to the new deck itself. All big bucks!
A cantilevered add on would cost millions to design and construct and would be at the mercy of high tides, high winds and other dangers which would have to be mitigated somehow by monitoring and regulating access.
A blatantly obvious hurdle would be the closure of the bridge during any additional work and the loss of revenue to the train operators, both during shut down and subsequently.
Would Network Rail countenance such a business case? I wouldn't hold my breath.