North Lakes Railway

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And nothing like a desire to quash all well-meaning suggestions.

This brings to mind, a play on words of the notice that was often displayed in many retail establishments...."Do not ask for realism, as a refusal often offends"

 

[backontrack]

It doesn't necessarily offend, just can be a bit dismissive. People don't think about what people's intentions are.

But enough of that. Surely the age of the structure is important? Come on - it's been there for quite a while...

 

[6Gman]

So? Why did people turn out en masse to fight the closures? Why did so many of our citizens protest the closures of the railways? People cared. And they always have.

When the Blaenau Ffestiniog line was proposed for closure my father went to the well-attended public meeting to protest. Yes - as bacontrack says - people turned out en masse.

After the meeting he walked back to the station to catch the train home.

Nobody else did .........

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But enough of that. Surely the age of the structure is important? Come on - it's been there for quite a while...

Unlike an operational railway which has NOT been there for quite a while.

 

[backontrack]

Exactly. If there was a new bridge and a railway, wouldn't it be safer?

 

[miami]

The reason I mentioned Pooley Bridge was that was a well maintained bridge built in 1764 that has survived 250 years of floods. And it collapsed.

The flooding in the north Lakes is unprecedented.

This has nothing to do with the viability of a Penrith-Keswick-Coast line or not, but the fanciful idea that Workington to Penrith would have survived when the A66 which runs on the same Workington-Keswick path is closed, when roads are literally holes, when the M6 is barely passable, is just evidence of someone who hasn't got a clue about the situation.

 

[RichmondCommu]

And nothing like a desire to quash all well-meaning suggestions.

Also, how old is that bridge? Would a new structure, built to withstand floods, fall straight away?

In all fairness this forum is full of well meaning suggestions which is why its such a great read. However very few of those well meaning suggestions are ever likely to materialize and I'm afraid this is one of them. Who would be prepared to fund it, how could it ever gain priority status when so much more work needs to be done on our network, could the business case ever stand up to the scrutiny of potential investors?

If members wish to post ideas on this forum they should also be prepared to accept constructive criticism, often from those who work in the rail industry. Without such acceptance its much harder to take threads and their authors seriously. If we're so keen to re-open the line from Penrith to Workington we should perhaps look at the line from Uttoxeter to Buxton via Ashbourne! I'm afraid both have zero chance of being re-opened.

 

[6Gman]

Exactly. If there was a new bridge and a railway, wouldn't it be safer?

Safer than what?

The old bridge?

Well, there isn't a new bridge nor a railway so it's an imponderable.

 

[deltic08]

Unlike an operational railway which has NOT been there for quite a while.

Come on, let's have a bit of realism here that you keep quoting. The bridge has been there for a long time but probably had no maintenance since before closure in 1972 unlike open routes that are regularly inspected and maintained or replaced if life expired.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In all fairness this forum is full of well meaning suggestions which is why its such a great read. However very few of those well meaning suggestions are ever likely to materialize and I'm afraid this is one of them. Who would be prepared to fund it, how could it ever gain priority status when so much more work needs to be done on our network, could the business case ever stand up to the scrutiny of potential investors?

If members wish to post ideas on this forum they should also be prepared to accept constructive criticism, often from those who work in the rail industry. Without such acceptance its much harder to take threads and their authors seriously. If we're so keen to re-open the line from Penrith to Workington we should perhaps look at the line from Uttoxeter to Buxton via Ashbourne! I'm afraid both have zero chance of being re-opened.

Well thank goodness we are not all like you.

I was on the committee that fought to keep open the Settle-Carlisle route. It wasn't just people living along the line that supported the fight, it was nationwide and from people who had not travelled over the line like my father. He was a member of the Friends until he died yet lived in the West Country. He only travelled on the line after it was reprieved. Had it closed, where would all the coal trains have been diverted to? Certainly not the ECML south of Northallerton.

Beeching made all his closure decisions in 1962/3 very much still in the steam era and there had been no attempt to modernise many of the routes in question. Nearly all still had labour intensive and expensive to maintain manual block post signal boxes with semaphore signalling and a mix of steam and diesel operated services, Workington-Keswick-Penrith included. The Lakes Express was steam hauled until the end. Tokenless block wasn't even introduced until later so non-stop trains had to slow for token exchange causing extended journey times. We could still be using the Great Central north of Aylesbury, the Somerset and Dorset, Exeter-Plymouth via Okehampton and Tavistock, Grimsby-Louth-Boston and others including branch lines to seaside resorts particularly in Devon, Cornwall and the east coasts of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Norfolk.

I find the people who are mostly irritated by the Beeching closures weren't even born until after the 1960s and can't understand why their town/village was cut off when it has probably doubled in size in the last 30 years and is on a car commuter route to a grid-locked town or city. Ripon, Wetherby, Tadcaster, Pool and Otley have more than doubled in size since closure and are still expanding as they are now dormitory settlements for Leeds.

72% of 6th Form students in Ripon stated in a survey that reopening a station in Ripon is the most important thing to improve their lives. Why should they be denied access to a local rail line when they were not around to protest against closure? All they can do now is lobby for reinstatement.

Cameron, Osborne and all the under Ministers of Transport are too young to have lived through the mass closure of OUR railways to understand what it was like.

I repeat again. Many settlements lost their station and line because Beeching didn't understand the concept of contributary revenue.

In 1961 there were 70,000 visitors to Keswick and the Workington-Keswick-Penrith line was losing £18,000 annually looking at total fare box takings from stations along the line, Workington and Penrith excepted, in the 1963 Beeching Report. In 1961 all stations were manned with no attempt to deman by introducing Paytrains. Removing staff from 7 intermediate stations would have saved half of the losses. In 1972 the line between Keswick and Penrith was closed because of annual losses of £50,000. How losses can nearly treble in nine years when the line had been reduced to a long siding is questionable. In 2014 there were 290,000 visitors to Keswick Tourist Information office in Moot Hall with estimated total visitor numbers in excess of 800,000 of which 300,000 were estimated to use a reinstated Keswick-Penrith railway line. These tickets would be booked either online or t booking offices elsewhere but certainly not at Keswick. An estimated 100,000 journeys annually would be generated from the population at Keswick and Park&Ride from Cockermouth. All this would be additional revenue from passengers not currently using rail to travel to the North Lakes.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I find the people who are mostly irritated by the Beeching closures weren't even born until after the 1960s and can't understand why their town/village was cut off when it has probably doubled in size in the last 30 years and is on a car commuter route to a grid-locked town or city. Ripon, Wetherby, Tadcaster, Pool and Otley have more than doubled in size since closure and are still expanding as they are now dormitory settlements for Leeds. Why should they be denied access to a local rail line when they were not around to protest against closure? All they can do now is lobby for reinstatement. Cameron, Osborne and all the under Ministers of Transport are too young to have lived through the mass closure of OUR railways to understand what it was like.

I repeat again. Many settlements lost their station and line because Beeching didn't understand the concept of contributory revenue.

Being born in 1945, I was at University until 1966, so by that time I was well aware of the implications of what was happening at that period of time. The Marples era as Minister of Transport saw the beginnings of Britain taking on the implications of the advantages of the motorway network which the autobahns of Germany had revealed to be a success in linking areas by a fast modern road system unhindered by traffic lights, etc. The first of these in Britain is in the area that leads to the area of discussion on this particular thread, viz. The Preston By-Pass, as it was first known as, is ignoring the realities of life in post-WWII Britain.

To think only of the time period in terms of railways and ignoring the roads, when the British car industry was still strong and people were being encouraged to take on car ownership which led to less and less reliance on rail as a means of transport, notably so in the months of the British summer holidays.

To return to the area of this thread, rail links between the area of Cumbria and those north Eastern areas across the Pennine chain did have historical industrial links for ore transportation, such as the former Eden Valley Railway and the former South Durham and Lancashire Union Railway and one must then ask why it was seen that closing these lines and the various rail lines in Cumbria that fed into them at connectional points on what once was the line of the former Lancaster and Carlisle Railway was seen as to be included in the closure programme of that time period.

 

[deltic08]

Being born in 1945, I was at University until 1966, so by that time I was well aware of the implications of what was happening at that period of time. The Marples era as Minister of Transport saw the beginnings of Britain taking on the implications of the advantages of the motorway network which the autobahns of Germany had revealed to be a success in linking areas by a fast modern road system unhindered by traffic lights, etc. The first of these in Britain is in the area that leads to the area of discussion on this particular thread, viz. The Preston By-Pass, as it was first known as, is ignoring the realities of life in post-WWII Britain.

To think only of the time period in terms of railways and ignoring the roads, when the British car industry was still strong and people were being encouraged to take on car ownership which led to less and less reliance on rail as a means of transport, notably so in the months of the British summer holidays.

To return to the area of this thread, rail links between the area of Cumbria and those north Eastern areas across the Pennine chain did have historical industrial links for ore transportation, such as the former Eden Valley Railway and the former South Durham and Lancashire Union Railway and one must then ask why it was seen that closing these lines and the various rail lines in Cumbria that fed into them at connectional points on what once was the line of the former Lancaster and Carlisle Railway was seen as to be included in the closure programme of that time period.

It was iron ore from West Cumberland to the steelworks in the Northeast and coke and coking coal from the Northeast pits to the steelworks at Workington.

What a wonderfully scenic route that would be today if still open. Sadly there is no drivers eye view record of the route.

Paul, are you an insomniac like me?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Paul, are you an insomniac like me?

Indeed I am, with many of my postings timed at 01xx, 02xx, 03xx, 04xx then starting at 06xx and onwards. Reaching the age of 70 (it is now three years since my stroke in July 2012) seems to have made matters worse, not better, according to my good lady wife Patricia of some seventy four years vintage...

Still I have my "holy of holies" known as my study at the end of the long corridor on the first floor elevation (formerly the sixth bedroom before I had it rearranged after we bought the property on our return from Canada in 2004) with an annexe that contains all my railway hard-copy archive material that has been collected over the years, where I am at this moment in time.

 

[Helvellyn]

Being born in 1945, I was at University until 1966, so by that time I was well aware of the implications of what was happening at that period of time. The Marples era as Minister of Transport saw the beginnings of Britain taking on the implications of the advantages of the motorway network which the autobahns of Germany had revealed to be a success in linking areas by a fast modern road system unhindered by traffic lights, etc. The first of these in Britain is in the area that leads to the area of discussion on this particular thread, viz. The Preston By-Pass, as it was first known as, is ignoring the realities of life in post-WWII Britain.

To think only of the time period in terms of railways and ignoring the roads, when the British car industry was still strong and people were being encouraged to take on car ownership which led to less and less reliance on rail as a means of transport, notably so in the months of the British summer holidays.

It is also overlooked how much road building planned in the 1960s and 1970s (and even 1980s) never actually happened due to cutbacks, environmental protests, etc. I wonder how many rail closures were partly influenced by road schemes that were planned but that never actually then came off?

 

[deltic08]

The reason I mentioned Pooley Bridge was that was a well maintained bridge built in 1764 that has survived 250 years of floods. And it collapsed.

The flooding in the north Lakes is unprecedented.

This has nothing to do with the viability of a Penrith-Keswick-Coast line or not, but the fanciful idea that Workington to Penrith would have survived when the A66 which runs on the same Workington-Keswick path is closed, when roads are literally holes, when the M6 is barely passable, is just evidence of someone who hasn't got a clue about the situation.

You obviously think you do have a clue?

Northside Bridge over the Derwent at Workington was a well maintained arched masonry bridge that tragically was washed away but the more modern railway bridge only a couple of hundred yards further downstream wasn't as piers offered less resistance to the weight of water unlike the more substantial masonry bridge. The volume of water rose above the arches and washed the arches away. The height of water didn't reach the deck of the railway bridge as it was higher.

From what I could see at Pooley Bridge a similar thing happened. When the volume of the water could not flow clear under the arches the weight of water washed the arches away.

From memory there were very few railway bridges over water on the Workington-Keswick-Penrith line that had masonry piers standing in water courses. Most were complete span bowstring bridges. Have any former railway bridges on this line been washed away this weekend?

Where was the A66 closed between Workington and Keswick due to a washout? I didn't hear anything on the news or from friends in Workington about this.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Quibbling I know, but I wouldn't call it 'stupidity'. Beeching knew what he was doing and he enjoyed doing it. It was for the benefit of Marples and himself, in order to support the motoring industry.

Let's give it one more try:

Dr Beeching had no interest in the motoring industry. His business life had been in chemical engineering. He was renowned as a logical thinker and had been educated at Imperial College. Unsurprisingly he was not impressed by the relatively traditional approach of British Railways as he found them.

Passenger journeys had been falling ever since the grouping.

Peak freight tonnage was probably in 1929, allowing for the fact that in pre-grouping times there may have been an element of double counting for consignments using multiple railway companies.

Passenger services had already been withdrawn from thousands of miles of route before Beeching’s time.

Despite the 1955 Modernisation Plan supposedly improving services through replacement of steam traction and other factors such as improved journey times, the inexorable decline in passenger traffic continued.

Similarly the spread of continuously braked freight trains, new marshalling yards, etc., did not seem to stem the gradual decline in freight volumes.

A casual inspection of the gradual trends of falling passenger and freight traffic throughout the 1950s and early 1960s would never lead one to infer that a massive modernisation strategy had been put in place to win back passenger and freight traffic from the roads. It had failed in this respect.

Although the Modernisation Plan was also expected to improve efficiency and return the railways to profitability, losses continued to increase. This was against a legislative framework dating back to nationalisation that did not allow for subsidies (only borrowing to cover losses and BR’s debt was spiralling out of control).

By the time Beeching took over the modernisation money had largely been spent but there were still many secondary and tertiary routes and activities that needed major investment if they were to survive.

Marples approved the closure of 1,436 miles to passenger services after publication of the Reshaping report before the Conservative party lost the 1964 general election.

Labour ministers subsequently approved closure of a further 2,071 miles. It is completely clear that in the essentially 'two party' political landscape of the time both of them agreed that the railway industry was over-trading in the face of growing car ownership, motorways and so forth.

Although the Workington-Penrith case was put to Marples in October 1963 he did not decide it and it was still in the ministerial ‘In’ tray when the change of government occurred in October 1964. Beeching left at the end of May 1965. In fact it was Barbara Castle who finally directed the closure in January 1966.

Interestingly even over the most intense phase of Beeching and post-Beeching closures the decline in traffic did not really accelerate. As Beeching had correctly identified, a large slice of the network was carrying a minimal proportion of the traffic, both passenger and freight. For all the claims that that the traffic surveys did not properly reflect contributory revenue or allow for the fact that some passenger lines were busier in summer it is still far from clear from either the overall network usage or revenue figures that significant extra business was lost from closures.

All of this is clearly articulated at considerable length in Gourvish's 'Business History of British Railways' and in various Transport Statistics reports.

And yes, I lived through it and remember how quiet many of those branch line trains were.

 

[deltic08]

Let's give it one more try:

Dr Beeching had no interest in the motoring industry. His business life had been in chemical engineering. He was renowned as a logical thinker and had been educated at Imperial College. Unsurprisingly he was not impressed by the relatively traditional approach of British Railways as he found them.

Passenger journeys had been falling ever since the grouping.

Peak freight tonnage was probably in 1929, allowing for the fact that in pre-grouping times there may have been an element of double counting for consignments using multiple railway companies.

Passenger services had already been withdrawn from thousands of miles of route before Beeching’s time.

Despite the 1955 Modernisation Plan supposedly improving services through replacement of steam traction and other factors such as improved journey times, the inexorable decline in passenger traffic continued.

Similarly the spread of continuously braked freight trains, new marshalling yards, etc., did not seem to stem the gradual decline in freight volumes.

A casual inspection of the gradual trends of falling passenger and freight traffic throughout the 1950s and early 1960s would never lead one to infer that a massive modernisation strategy had been put in place to win back passenger and freight traffic from the roads. It had failed in this respect.

Although the Modernisation Plan was also expected to improve efficiency and return the railways to profitability, losses continued to increase. This was against a legislative framework dating back to nationalisation that did not allow for subsidies (only borrowing to cover losses and BR’s debt was spiralling out of control).

By the time Beeching took over the modernisation money had largely been spent but there were still many secondary and tertiary routes and activities that needed major investment if they were to survive.

Marples approved the closure of 1,436 miles to passenger services after publication of the Reshaping report before the Conservative party lost the 1964 general election.

Labour ministers subsequently approved closure of a further 2,071 miles. It is completely clear that in the essentially 'two party' political landscape of the time both of them agreed that the railway industry was over-trading in the face of growing car ownership, motorways and so forth.

Although the Workington-Penrith case was put to Marples in October 1963 he did not decide it and it was still in the ministerial ‘In’ tray when the change of government occurred in October 1964. Beeching left at the end of May 1965. In fact it was Barbara Castle who finally directed the closure in January 1966.

Interestingly even over the most intense phase of Beeching and post-Beeching closures the decline in traffic did not really accelerate. As Beeching had correctly identified, a large slice of the network was carrying a minimal proportion of the traffic, both passenger and freight. For all the claims that that the traffic surveys did not properly reflect contributory revenue or allow for the fact that some passenger lines were busier in summer it is still far from clear from either the overall network usage or revenue figures that significant extra business was lost from closures.

All of this is clearly articulated at considerable length in Gourvish's 'Business History of British Railways' and in various Transport Statistics reports.

And yes, I lived thorough it and remember how quiet many of those branch line trains were.

Government agreed to the Modernisation Plan and then subsequently refused electrification of the ECML causing need to order diesel locos where electric locos should have been ordered and paused WCML electrification after it was in full swing delaying modernisation. Euston-Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool and Kings Cross-Leeds/York electrification should have been completed before Beeching was appointed, but steam was still operating into both termini in 1962. More modernisation should have been allowed before Beeching took over.

He made two grave mistakes.

1. He didn't understand contributory revenue so holiday lines were closed.

2. He assumed that traffic from lines he closed would transfer to the nearest railhead for trunk haulage for both passenger and freight and then back to road for final delivery. It didn't. Once on road it stayed on road for the entire journey and it was all lost to rail.

Due to this rapid increase in road traffic, more roads had to be built to cope with it instead of further modernisation of the railways. This played right into Marples hands.

 

[miami]

Where was the A66 closed between Workington and Keswick due to a washout? I didn't hear anything on the news or from friends in Workington about this.

It was on the bbc local page, twitter too
https://twitter.com/HighwaysNWEST/status/673720413361410048
https://twitter.com/HighwaysNWEST/status/673405176989003776

11:34 PM - 5 Dec 2015: #A66 #Cumbria #Keswick btwn #A5086 + #A616 is likely to remain closed through the morning due to flooding. http://ow.ly/VxgA6
8:27 PM - 6 Dec 2015 : #A66 at #Keswick re-opened after flooding. Thanks to our contractors for their hard work. The details are here: http://ow.ly/VyrHG

It seemed to be impossible on Saturday afternoon to leave Keswick on any route that didn't involve driving through deep floodwater.

It's a lot easier to reopen a road than a train line after flooding.

As for the bridges, from the keswick website:

Between Keswick and Threlkeld there are eight "bowstring" girder bridges.
Their shape resembles a simple archery bow. Some girders arch above track level and some below.
Such bridges are quite rare in the UK and considered by many to give the line an "alpine" character.
.
These bridges are all on the Railway Path maintained by the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA).
Railway tracks have been replaced by specially designed wooden "decks" and handrails which make the route easily accessible for walkers, cyclists, people with pushchairs and wheelchair users.
.
A news story in April 2013 gave the impression that those girder bridges were being removed and replaced by footbridges.
That would have been a disaster for the Railway Project - adding millions of pounds to the re-opening costs.
In fact the LDNPA was removing all rotten wood and rubbish, then building new decks on top of the steel structures.
This work will help protect the structures from the worst effects of the weather.
This work is due to be completed in early 2014 and is a welcome move, keeping the route accessible and preserving it for all types of future transport use.

I would guess that http://i.imgur.com/wIqorlj.jpg (shown earlier) is one of them.

You seriously think that while

The West Cumbrian line has washed away in two places between Maryport and Wigton earlier today cutting off rail services south of Wigton.

Keswick to Workington would have emerged intact? All that would have happened is there would be two lines to rebuild.

Friday's landslip, imaged here: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/landslips-headache-on-cumbria-railway-track-1.1231264, hardly looks like a major issue, but obviously people are a bit busy fixing the important parts of the railway first - like the WCML

 

[deltic08]

It was on the bbc local page, twitter too
https://twitter.com/HighwaysNWEST/status/673720413361410048
https://twitter.com/HighwaysNWEST/status/673405176989003776


It seemed to be impossible on Saturday afternoon to leave Keswick on any route that didn't involve driving through deep floodwater.

It's a lot easier to reopen a road than a train line after flooding.

As for the bridges, from the keswick website:


I would guess that http://i.imgur.com/wIqorlj.jpg (shown earlier) is one of them.

You seriously think that while


Keswick to Workington would have emerged intact? All that would have happened is there would be two lines to rebuild.

Friday's landslip, imaged here: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/landslips-headache-on-cumbria-railway-track-1.1231264, hardly looks like a major issue, but obviously people are a bit busy fixing the important parts of the railway first - like the WCML

Thank you for the info. After driving this road for nearly fifty years I thought I knew it intimately. I know where the A5086 is at Cockermouth and the A66 is high at this point and unlikely to flood but have no idea where the A616 is and how far away from Keswick along the A66. I will have to get my OS maps out.

I know where all the bowstring bridges are between Keswick and Penrith but did any former rail bridges on the whole route wash away this weekend? I think not. I accept very few remain west of Keswick but even so, the railway formation was quite elevated even along Bassenthwaite then up the hill to Cockermouth station. Cockermouth to Brigham was on embankment much higher than the adjacent river Derwent. Only at/from Brigham was the railway formation low enough to flood. If the road here hasn't flooded then the railway at Brigham wouldn't have flooded as both are/were at the same height above the river.

As the Derwent has room to spread out onto a floodplain from here to Bearpot I doubt much damage would have been done in washing anything away but really we can only surmise 50years on as rainfall does appear to be worse now than when the line was open.

As I said earlier, I have no recollection since 1950 of any part of Workington-Keswick line closing due to flooding.

After pouring over my OS map of Keswick without success I have discovered that the A616 isn't anywhere near the A66, It is partly in Derbyshire and South Yorkshire so can we try again? Where exactly was the A66 closed due to flooding and was the road surface damaged by it and was any part of the former railway formation damaged at the same time?

 

[tbtc]

We should really have a subforum called "My Misty Eyed Proposal For Opening A Quaint Rural Branchline (That Was Closed By A Conspiracy Involving Beeching, Marples And The Establishment)", where a certain type of enthusiasts can focus on such things, without anyone daring to bring them down to earth by trying to point out the realities of mass transportation in the twenty first century.

Otherwise, it’s like trying to argue with Evangelists; there’s no way that the happy clappers can be convinced of anything other than what they already believe in.

My first question on such threads, when someone has the premise of needing a new line (or re-opening one), is to ask why we can’t simply make more of the existing lines in the area. You can justify HS2 by pointing out that Euston to Rugby sees nine/eleven coach 390s (or ten coach Voyagers) nine times an hour (as well as four 350s that can be up to twelve coaches long) – i.e. there’s not much scope to extend the length of these trains or to squeeze more paths per hour out of the timetable (some scope, sure, but demand will soak that up before the end of the decade)...

...however the existing line from Barrow to Carlisle (via Workington, Whitehaven and Maryport) has been roughly hourly and mainly single 142/ 153/ 156s for many years (the recent 37s clearly being there as a temporary measure to free up 156s for Blackpool services). If there’s a need to improve services to Workington/ Whitehaven (etc) then couldn’t we find space for a half hourly service (on a mainly double track line)? If there’s so many passengers then why are single Pacers/ Sprinters seemingly able to cope? Couldn’t we do something straightforward like extend these DMU formations, without spending hundreds of millions on a new route?

Okay, it’s a boring answer, it’s not giving you the result that you've already decided that you want, but Carlisle is going to be a *much* bigger market for daily work/ shopping than Penrith is. We seem to have glossed over the fact that the “North Lakes” market is so slight that Penrith has been losing stops from some services. Maybe that doesn’t fit the narrative of “we must re-open a railway” though?

But, no... people are clinging to the We Must Reopen This Line approach – there’s really no getting through to those who’ve already made their mind up (and are desperately trying to find any excuse to justify it – e.g. this laughable idea that services could have been diverted through Keswick this week to cope with the “Desmond” flooding elsewhere... it’s fanciful). Keep dreaming

 

[backontrack]

So? At the end of the day, people want to travel by train to Keswick. Many do. And they can't. But what if they could?

It's as simple as that. You can't bully people when they come up with ideas - which I think you'll find is what you're doing. A lot of the time.

I respect your opinions, but frankly it's getting to the point where people will start to become offended. I'm not, but many will. If you could express your opinion differently, maybe more people wouldn't be making 'misty eyed proposals'. Maybe there wouldn't be so many 'crayonistas' if you didn't antagonise them all and make them feel stupid. Maybe you'd actually be able to make them reconsider their views instead of going on the offensive and belittling them. Because, at the end of the day, that's what you're doing. Belittling them.

Just my two cents.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

After pouring over my OS map of Keswick without success I have discovered that the A616 isn't anywhere near the A66, It is partly in Derbyshire and South Yorkshire so can we try again? Where exactly was the A66 closed due to flooding and was the road surface damaged by it and was any part of the former railway formation damaged at the same time?

I recall that the A616 started at Huddersfield and continued to Newark-on-Trent. How on earth was made mention of this particular road when discussing the area of this thread..:roll:

 

[miami]

I recall that the A616 started at Huddersfield and continued to Newark-on-Trent. How on earth was made mention of this particular road when discussing the area of this thread..:roll:

I suspect a typo by the highways agency people, who were rather inundated by an enourmous number of road closures throughout the weekend.

However the following statement by an agency of the UK government:
"#A66 #Cumbria #Keswick btwn #A5086 + #A616 is likely to remain closed through the morning due to flooding. http://ow.ly/VxgA6 "

would by why it comes up when discussing the likelihood of a train service being able to run along the route that A66 has taken near Keswick during and after this weekends floods.

 

[backontrack]

It was probably meant to mean A66, but what about A596?

 

[miami]

So? At the end of the day, people want to travel by train to Keswick. Many do. And they can't. But what if they could?

Then a few people would travel to Keswick normally, but not at the moment as the line wouldn't be running. Network rail would be paying more compensation to Northern for not running the line, and it would cost lots to fix.

There are many places that could do with "backup routes" for weather and other availability and capacity reasons -- Dawlish for example, perhaps Woodhead too. I'm not convinced that Workington-Carlisle is one of those routes. Are you?

 

[CaptainHaddock]

We should really have a subforum called "My Misty Eyed Proposal For Opening A Quaint Rural Branchline (That Was Closed By A Conspiracy Involving Beeching, Marples And The Establishment)", where a certain type of enthusiasts can focus on such things, without anyone daring to bring them down to earth by trying to point out the realities of mass transportation in the twenty first century.

Otherwise, it’s like trying to argue with Evangelists; there’s no way that the happy clappers can be convinced of anything other than what they already believe in.

My first question on such threads, when someone has the premise of needing a new line (or re-opening one), is to ask why we can’t simply make more of the existing lines in the area. You can justify HS2 by pointing out that Euston to Rugby sees nine/eleven coach 390s (or ten coach Voyagers) nine times an hour (as well as four 350s that can be up to twelve coaches long) – i.e. there’s not much scope to extend the length of these trains or to squeeze more paths per hour out of the timetable (some scope, sure, but demand will soak that up before the end of the decade)...

...however the existing line from Barrow to Carlisle (via Workington, Whitehaven and Maryport) has been roughly hourly and mainly single 142/ 153/ 156s for many years (the recent 37s clearly being there as a temporary measure to free up 156s for Blackpool services). If there’s a need to improve services to Workington/ Whitehaven (etc) then couldn’t we find space for a half hourly service (on a mainly double track line)? If there’s so many passengers then why are single Pacers/ Sprinters seemingly able to cope? Couldn’t we do something straightforward like extend these DMU formations, without spending hundreds of millions on a new route?

Okay, it’s a boring answer, it’s not giving you the result that you've already decided that you want, but Carlisle is going to be a *much* bigger market for daily work/ shopping than Penrith is. We seem to have glossed over the fact that the “North Lakes” market is so slight that Penrith has been losing stops from some services. Maybe that doesn’t fit the narrative of “we must re-open a railway” though?

But, no... people are clinging to the We Must Reopen This Line approach – there’s really no getting through to those who’ve already made their mind up (and are desperately trying to find any excuse to justify it – e.g. this laughable idea that services could have been diverted through Keswick this week to cope with the “Desmond” flooding elsewhere... it’s fanciful). Keep dreaming

It's refreshing to see someone able to look at the bigger picture here. As enthusiasts we're all sometimes guilty of following our hearts rather than our heads when it comes to potential reopening of closed lines.

Let's face it, some closed lines are far busier as footpaths and cycleways than they were when trains rain; I suspect the Penrith-Keswick is very much one of them.

 

[backontrack]

Then a few people would travel to Keswick normally, but not at the moment as the line wouldn't be running. Network rail would be paying more compensation to Northern for not running the line, and it would cost lots to fix.

There are many places that could do with "backup routes" for weather and other availability and capacity reasons -- Dawlish for example, perhaps Woodhead too. I'm not convinced that Workington-Carlisle is one of those routes. Are you?

No, and I wasn't talking about it being one either. I was talking about it being a route for everyday usage. :roll:

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There are many places that could do with "backup routes" for weather and other availability and capacity reasons -- Dawlish for example, perhaps Woodhead too. I'm not convinced that Workington-Carlisle is one of those routes. Are you?

I am always chary of counties who describe certain difficult roads as driving "routes". From the Duddon Valley, there are two such of these:-
Wrynose Pass.....to and from Langdale
Hardknott Pass...to and from Eskdale

 

[muddythefish]

Let's give it one more try:

.

No doubt some lines were very lightly used but some connected towns of significant size and the closures left whole swathes of the country without a rail link and many people who did not drive without transport.

You can excuse Beeching all you like but his legacy is that many rural areas are devoid of any kind of public transport and are entirely dependent on cars and big towns in my area such as Northampton and Cambridge are gridlocked because the railway lines that used to serve them have been closed.

It is a fact that many routes that may have been uneconomic 50 years ago would be extremely busy and useful if they were still around today. Beeching wasn't a visionary; he was a fool.

 

[simonw]

No doubt some lines were very lightly used but some connected towns of significant size and the closures left whole swathes of the country without a rail link and many people who did not drive without transport.

You can excuse Beeching all you like but his legacy is that many rural areas are devoid of any kind of public transport and are entirely dependent on cars and big towns in my area such as Northampton and Cambridge are gridlocked because the railway lines that used to serve them have been closed.

It is a fact that many routes that may have been uneconomic 50 years ago would be extremely busy and useful if they were still around today. Beeching wasn't a visionary; he was a fool.

50 years is a rather long time. Can you tell what the world will be like in 2065?.

 

[muddythefish]

The repercussions of Beeching were apparent within 10 - 15 years.

Unless someone invents transportation al la Star trek it's fairly safe to assume trains and cars will still be around in 50 years' time.

By the way, the UK population is forecast to exceed 70 million long before then, so someone needs to make some hard decisions soon about how people get around this crowded island.

HS2, 3 (and hopefully 4 and 5) will help, but some people would argue we need those old lines closed by Beeching more.