Campaigners who are fighting to prevent a disused railway tunnel in West Yorkshire from being permanently closed and want to see it host a cycle path have received the unanimous backing of Bradford City Council.
It is hoped that the Queensbury Tunnel, which is 2,501 yards long and closed to rail traffic in 1956, can house part of a cycle route running from Bradford to Halifax.
The Historical Railways Estate, part of Highways England, wants to seal the tunnel, rendering it permanently unusable and insists it would cost £35 million to convert into a cycling facility.
The Queensbury Tunnel Society, which is trying to save it, put the cost at £2.8 million – less than a tenth as much.
Earlier this month, campaigners reportedly secured agreement from the Department for Transport (DfT) to pay them the £3 million set aside for closing the tunnel so long as Bradford City Council assumed responsibility for the tunnel.
> Queensbury Tunnel campaigners ‘close’ to cycle route deal
Councillor Andrew Senior, who represents the Queensbury Ward for the Conservative Party, tabled a motion asking the council to “engage with interested parties in exploring options for the tunnel, investigate the feasibility of taking on its ownership, [and] facilitate discussions with the Department for Transport, Highways England’s Historical Railways Estate and other funders.”
He told councillors: “The tunnel has been earmarked for an abandonment project involving blocking it all up with concrete at a likely cost of £3 million.
“If the Council was to allow this to happen, it would mean this marvellous piece of Bradford heritage would be lost forever.”
Speaking of the plans to run a cycle path through the tunnel, he said: “It will attract people from outside of the Bradford district to visit and, in a forward-thinking way, this project will create an income back to the Council.”
Another councillor on the Queensbury ward, Paul Cromie, who sits as an independent, said that adapting the tunnel to the new purpose would boost the local economy over the long term.
“We need to keep in mind the long-term effect the tunnel will have on the environment and the community,” he said.
“Sustrans estimates that, over the next 30 years, it will benefit to the tune of £37.6 million from a cycle network with the tunnel as its centrepiece. £3 will be returned for every £1 spent.”
The Labour-controlled council’s executive member for regeneration, planning and transport, councillor Alex Ross-Shaw, said that costings would need to be looked at due to the wildly divergent figures cited by each party.
“Queensbury Tunnel – we support in principle … it’s in line with our cycling strategy to expand key cycling networks across the district,” he said.
“The issue is trying to work out the accurate costs. Highways England’s is many, many millions; the Queensbury Tunnel Society – who’ve done fantastic work in raising awareness of the tunnel’s potential as an asset – their figure is a lot lower.”
Norah McWilliam, who heads the Queensbury Tunnel Society, said: “What the councillors’ support demonstrates is that this is not a party political issue.
“Everyone with their eyes open can see the sense in transforming our historic tunnel into a facility that will improve connectivity, benefit the environment and help in our battle against obesity, rather than pumping public money into a valueless abandonment scheme.
“We must look now to the council’s own structural investigations to ensure they deliver success, not excess. We have said from the outset that the only sustainable repair option for the tunnel is one that’s proportionate, pragmatic and developed by engineers with deep, specialist insight,” she added. “We don’t want to waste public money on ‘over-the-top’ repairs either.”






-1024x680.jpg)
















48 thoughts on “Bradford Council agrees to consider Queensbury Tunnel bike route plans”
Closing this tunnel is akin
Closing this tunnel is akin to the ridiculous decisions made in the mid 20th century to close canals to navigation. We all understand that the tunnel won’t be used for what it was intended, but that doesn’t mean it no longer has a use.
Outside Bolton, the council blew up a perfectly good canal aqueduct (Damside Aqueduct) that had stood there for almost 200 years. With dynamite. All because it dripped water onto the road, which turned into ice.
And not far from where I grew up, British Rail wanted to demolish the Outwood Viaduct because it was in dangerous condition. Thankfully, it was restored instead, and now forms part of a very well used walking/cycling/riding link from Radcliffe to Salford.
These short-sighted attitudes of “it’ll cost too much and we don’t need it any more” need to be shown for what they are.
Tell them it’s a bypass and
Tell them it’s a bypass and watch the money flow in.
While I am glad it is not
While I am glad it is not being turned into another road, I cannot help but be dismayed that another rail line is disused.
Am I the only one that would rather see them refurbished to allow people to ditch their car for longer commutes?
Ush wrote:
Tons of rail lines were ripped up many decades ago.
I don’t believe they are currently a better option than personal transport, so making them railways again would be a step backwards. Turning them into viable links for pedestrians and cyclists is a step forward.
I also don’t believe HS2 was a good use of public money for the benefit of the average commuter. However, had those billions been spent on proper cycling infrastructure…
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I think a mix… It would be unrealistic to turn all the Beeching lines back, but there’s a horribly disused rail-cum-shared use path near me, that I don’t use because it’s permanently mud.
If the train line was still there, I could get directly to my place of work with a train journey of a few stops and a 5 minute walk at either end. As it is, to take the train, I have to get into Warrington town centre, to travel into Manchester, to travel out again. It is insane. I don’t want to travel into Manchester or Warrington; Warrington and Manchester don’t want me travelling into Warrington or Manchester, but there is no other way. So, most of the time I ride a bike, and avoid Warrington and Manchester. Occasionally I get the train(s), via Warrington and Manchester. Somewhere between the two frequencies, I drive.
Loads of people do similar journeys – into towns and cities, to travel out again. And loads more think ‘sod that’ and take the car onto roads that at least resemble something like a straight-ish line between two points. If you look at some of the Beeching lines criss-crossing the country, their removal explains perfectly the hideous state of road traffic on roads running near them, to me.
Train lines, like *proper* cycling infrastructure, and roads, are in the ‘if you build (and maintain) it, they will come’ category. Unfortunately, whenever bike and train infrastructure investment is discussed, the ‘return’ on that is never far from the agenda. I haven’t noticed a similar clamour for return on roads, which don’t exactly pay for themselves either.
Beeching, Sharples, and anyone else involved in one of the most petty, corrupt and self-destructive episodes in modern UK history, should be annually dug up and hung for treason.
Oh God … that picture. Like
Oh God … that picture. Like the cover of an Enid Blyton book.
Government mandarins these days only give out money to community projects with a heavy focus on ‘diversity’.
Forget your tunnel …
Valbrona wrote:
You do confuse me at times with some of your comments. What on earth has a street dance troop got to do with a tunnel in Yorkshire?
Pushing50 wrote:
That’s it!
Rename it ‘Diversity Tunnel’, get Bradford’s yoof to paint some multiculti murals on the inside … and then the project will win some funding.
Valbrona wrote:
quite a good idea. It might also help to get people who are not white and middle class to feel more welcome in the countryside.
Valbrona wrote:
Valbrona – for the sake of your blood pressure, and the sake of everyone else on here, I suggest you leave this site and go back to reading the Daily Mail.
Although as a troll I would have thought the idea of lurking underground would appeal?
Valbrona wrote:
… because Valbrona already performs the job of an old bore?
Duncann wrote:
Enid Blyton books certainly didn’t do very well on diversity. Better at sexism and racism.
Maybe they are your kind of thing Valbrona.
Please forgive me if I’ve
Please forgive me if I’ve overlooked something obvious, but I fail to see the attraction of cycling in a hole in the ground that’s nearly a mile-and-a-half long.
Woldsman wrote:
Done properly, isn’t that exactly the attaction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85O0AqSrNzo
Jitensha Oni wrote:
I watched until the bitter end – which came as a blessed relief. I’m sorry. Unless it’s done to avoid some hideous alternative – and even then I’m not sure – I just don’t get it. Maybe I’m claustrophobic.
Woldsman wrote:
Well, the Two Tunnels project outside Bath is incredibly popular, but perhaps most people aren’t like you.
burtthebike wrote:
Fair enough.
Woldsman wrote:
Marvel at the graffiti?
Woldsman wrote:
quite a pleasant way of cooling down on a hot day. Try the tunnels on the Tissington Trail and the Monsal Trail – quite nice.
ConcordeCX wrote:
That is genius.
So, tunnels are useful because on two days a year in the UK and when it’s hot you can ride through one and cool down?
Valbrona wrote:
yes. You’ll have to drive there pretty quickly though before the sun goes behind a cloud.
ConcordeCX wrote:
The Monsal Trail, particularly the tunnels, is great.
Haven’t tried the Two Tunnels near Bath yet but it’s on my ‘To Do’ list.
Woldsman wrote:
The appeal I imagine is being able to cycle between two towns/cities without going over some massive f off hill. Also car free. The monsal trail in the peak district seemed pretty popular when I was there and features quite a few tunnels.
Not justification for building a tunnel, but sufficient to justify using one that’s already there.
Yet Valerie seems to think
Yet Valerie seems to think Birmingham has little chance with event hosting despite its proximity to the black country.
He really is an odious little turd isn’t he?
Would you really want to
Would you really want to cycle through 2.5km of rotten tunnel?
Having seen photos of the tunnel it needs a hell of a lot of money spending on it to get it to a condition that is fit and safe for public access and even then it’s a maintenance liability for ever more for Bradford.
Littlemisslucy1978 wrote:
One end of the tunnel was at one point completely flooded. Some great photos of it here , here, and here. Mudguards…and an aqualung required.
£3m works out at just over £1300 per metre of tunnel, which doesn’t seem enough to me especially if they have to ‘spraycrete’ the whole length.
Pub bike wrote:
I thought the quoted figure was very much on the optimistic side too
Pub bike wrote:
I thought the quoted figure was very much on the optimistic side too
Seems pointless to me. Who
Seems pointless to me. Who wants to go to Bradford.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
You misunderstand. It’s for the people who want to leave Bradford.
As long as no-one disturbs
As long as no-one disturbs any bat roosts.
Bats are cool. Any animal you can catch rabies from in the UK is cool.
Valbrona wrote:
I think we’re more at risk of rabies from you – any mention of multicultaralism seems to have you frothing at the mouth and rabid paranoia.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Valbrona wrote:
https://scarfolk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/rabies
I believe while the idea in
I believe while the idea in principle is excellent. In practise its probably just going to end up a tunnel for local thugs, drugged up prostitutes to hang about in. Steal bikes and other possessions from the odd brave sole who dares venture into it. The local Asian population predominantly don’t ride cycles to work. Shame really great idea.
While I hope this 2.3km
While I hope this 2.3km tunnel doesn’t turn into a place for yoof or undesirables to congregate, looking at the location of it, it does look a little ‘close to the suburbs and local main roads’ for this to become a viable horror zone.
Because it’s close to the ‘burbs’ it is a totally viable stretch of a commuter path into that part of the city. Maybe they should put solar powered automaticly closing gates on each end of it as well, closed from 10pm to 6am maybe?
Also thought it’s no good for TT’s, it is almost a quite unique ‘parkrun’ course.. there and back being nearly 5km.. and being flat and straight might offer one of the fastest courses in the land, I can see people being drawn to that.
Overall anything that stops this place being filled with concrete for the environmental cost alone, has to be a good thing.
peted76 wrote:
Fixed that for you.
I see the village idiot is
I see the village idiot is getting confident in spouting his racism and shite like the thick twat that he is.
Back in your box you vile little cunt!
Just re-read my earlier post.
Just re-read my earlier post… Sharples?! I’d blame autocorrect but is Sharples even a word/name? Answers to the usual address please…
davel wrote:
(Ena) sharples used to run the Rovers Return in Coronation St. Probably named after the old Parish in Bolton
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Good call – possibly a Corrie-related brainfart.
Anyhoo, I can’t blame her for being the corrupt, concreting and tarmaccing dodgy Tory bastard whose legacy is generations of motons. That would be Marples.
davel wrote:
Yeah those bloody chisel makers are rights bastards
(I only know the name cos I bought my son a set for college some years back)
In any case, what does it matter if the cost to fix this up over runs, because that never happens with roads ever right and yet the benefit ratio of most roads isn’t even a thing, in fact I’d say that on top of the actual costs, most roads built for motorvehicles (that’s every road ever in the last 100 years) actually have a negative impact financially due to it solely focussing on motorvehicle use.
You can also guarantee that the £3M filling in costs wouldn’t be accurate either or the long term costs to ensure it’s safe because it will continue to flood at the entrance and cause even more of a hazard if that happens.
They should demand to fins out what a true figure would be to fill in and ask for that money plus the ongoing maintenance to keep it safe (if filled in) money too.
Back to the subject. I used
Back to the subject. I used to live near Queensbury and my brother lives there. Comparing this tunnel to ones in places like Bath is chalk and cheese. Queensbury/ Bradford/ Halifax are NOT scenic.
No way would I ride to Queensbury to try out the tunnel as the roads are just so busy. These areas are clogged with traffic.Opening this route would quickly attract the vandals,fly tippers,become a dog toilet,etc.
joeegg wrote:
Of course , never seen a traffic jam in Bath!
Queensbury:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7722506,-1.8489716,3a,42.6y,52.38h,82.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snWm2ZqQ8rmkuvxTbm_WEQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Bath:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3791325,-2.3625804,3a,75y,186.07h,97.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-LTwh0LW6mDHFXWJD7hGsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It’s easy to be selective, but to say that the Queensbury , Bradford and Halifax areas have no scenic merit is bollocks. As for fly tippers.. its a bike path accessible by bike, when did you last see a cargo bike emptying a load of asbestos waste in a back street?
pockstone wrote:
The scenic merits of Bradford are usually found whilst looking away from Bradford.
peted76 wrote:
So pretty much the same as any city anywhere in the world then?
So how much did the tunnel
So how much did the tunnel cost to maintain when it was used by the railway?
The maintenance cost seems vital to judging whether it makes any sense or not, and surely that must already be known from it’s previous incarnation?
https://www.google.co.uk
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7722506,-1.8489716,3a,75y,50.04h,83.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snWm2ZqQ8rmkuvxTbm_WEQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3791325,-2.3625804,3a,75y,186.07h,97.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-LTwh0LW6mDHFXWJD7hGsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Hope this works!