At Autumn Conference, our party endorsed two policy motions tied to transport. F22: Connecting Communities – Building a Transport Network for the 21^st Century built upon our party’s commitment to making rail a genuinely affordable, accessible and environmentally-friendly mode of transport, while F30: This Land is Your Land – Restoring Public Paths Through Nature sought to restore our nation’s nature and improve the public’s access to it.

Both policy motions featured the proposal that 5,000 miles of railway lines left disused since 1965 following the Beeching Cuts be redeveloped as footpaths, cycle paths or bridleways. I had hoped to speak at Conference during the debate on F30 to express my reservations about this proposal specifically. In truth, I had unsuccessfully attempted to submit amendments – one for each motion – addressing this issue. However, due to time constraints, I was not called to the rostrum. In lieu of such a speech, I would like to share with you my thoughts on this proposal in this article.

Before I do, I should say that I voted for both policy motions, including for the amendments that were successfully adopted. I believe in their proposals as well as improving and safeguarding women’s personal safety during travel, expanding Network Railcard applicability outside of London and the Southeast, and providing facilities for rest along pathways in the form of benches. I am an ardent supporter of expanded rail access and restoring nature. I am not someone to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My main fears are about potential friction between our policy commitments.

Our party is committed to expanding rail capacity including ‘implement(ing) light rail schemes for trams and tram–trains’. Our modern light rail systems are different from the tram systems that provided public transport before being supplanted by buses during the mid-twentieth century. With historic tram networks – barring Blackpool’s – having been torn out, modern systems such as Greater Manchester’s Metrolink and South Yorkshire’s Supertram utilise existing, previously disused railway infrastructure. This allows for separated routes that minimise conflict with road traffic (where thoroughfares have not been pedestrianised to accommodate trams), for integration between light rail and railways, and systems that serve communities beyond urban centres.

With the UK having 5,000 miles of what had previously been railway routes, dedicating these routes solely to creating new public rights of way risks hamstringing efforts to expand our rail capacity. The redevelopment of roads to accommodate tram lines has already been a cause for grievances when poor execution has resulted in delays, exceeded cost and disruption. Should entirely new rail routes or tramways be developed at the expense of untouched wilderness so that a former line can be repurposed as a public right of way? Should rural communities heavily reliant on road transport including unreliable bus services never again have access to rail services that they previously enjoyed?

However, not all of these 5,000 miles could be utilised for modern rail infrastructure. With sixty years having elapsed since the Beeching Cuts, these routes will likely have seen significant changes that may make them unsuitable for rail or light rail. Apart from possible reclamation by nature or deterioration, not insignificant sections of that land may have seen private or commercial developments such as housing that would hinder if not obstruct any rail lines. Such routes may be so divorced from our current railway network – even for the provision of a branch connection – that they would be better suited for footpaths, cycle paths and bridleways.

In deciding how we can get better use out of 5,000 miles worth of potential travel ways that protect and even enhance our environment and offer us greater opportunities to not be forced into using private motor vehicles, it should not be a case of either-or. To avoid creating hassle or extra work in rail expansion efforts, we should continue to utilise existing infrastructure where suitable. If, however, certain sections cannot be used for this purpose for one reason or another, they would better serve us by improving access to nature or wherever we need to get to in our daily lives. Such decisions would very much have to be on a case-by-case basis. The amendments that I previously mentioned proposed a review into the suitability of routes for rail, light rail or public rights of way.

If I am mistaken in believing that the proposals of F22 and F30 entirely preclude the use of former railway lines to build our national railway infrastructure back up or to establish new tramways, I for one would be more than happy to be proven wrong.

* Samuel James Jackson is the Chair of the Policy Committee of the Yorkshire and the Humber Liberal Democrats and had served as the Liberal Democratic candidate in Halifax during the 2024 general election.