Plan B versus 'Nothing'
There is a misconception in the community that the rail trail proposal is an alternative to the train. This is not so. The name 'Plan B' was chosen in particular to acknowledge that returning the train was 'Plan A'. In fact, Plan B is an alternative to ending up with 'nothing' should the campaign to return the train fail, as it would now seem inevitable.
We must ALL remain strongly opposed to any move by government to sell off any part of the railway corridor. It must be retained as a public asset; we should have a train or a trail but not nothing!
It's true that we believe the rail trail would be a better more sustainable asset for the challenging times ahead and that the reasons for not reintroducing the train are very compelling. For more information about why we believe that reintroducing the train is not viable, see the sub menu pages titled 'Why not a Train?' and 'Tourism and the Train'.
Ultimately, this proposal also preserves the corridor for a future train, should the population demographic in 20 or 30 years move back inland from the coast, should future trains still be a viable regional public transport option and should we consider that a train would be a better asset than a trail.