North Lakes Railway

[simonw]

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.

Within 10- 15 years? Hardly.

Maybe in one or two cases but not across the country as a whole.

 

[muddythefish]

You obviously weren't stuck in traffic jams in the 1970s then.

 

[simonw]

You obviously weren't stuck in traffic jams in the 1970s then.

I was and they would have been there if the railways hadn't been closed.

Traffic jams in the overwhelming majority of occasions existed because people wanted to go by car not because they were denied the chance to go by rail.

 

[yorksrob]

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

Yet all ofthose people who campaigned against the closure of the borders line, the Settle - Carlisle, the Ashford - Hastings line seemed to have been able to tell what their world would be like in 40 - 50 years time. They were spot on the money.

Perhaps the mistake was in trusting ideology masquerading as statistical analysis, rather than local people about their services.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yet all ofthose people who campaigned against the closure of the borders line, the Settle - Carlisle, the Ashford - Hastings line seemed to have been able to tell what their world would be like in 40 - 50 years time.

Did they?

Or did they just want to retain their train service (a reasonable desire, of course)

 

[backontrack]

Yeah. They got it right at the Settle to Carlisle line, the Bentham line, the Borders line, the Marshlink line, the Far North line, the Heart of Wessex line, at St Pancras, at the Penistone line, and at a few more too..
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did they?

Or did they just want to retain their train service (a reasonable desire, of course)

Look at places like Levenmouth and Hawick. They really suffered when they lost their railways, and arguably neither have really recovered - although there's still a big difference between them.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Yet the amazing ever-decreasing railway didn't do anything to increase passenger numbers either, and didn't do a lot to increase revenue. It seems the decline only stopped when the slash and burn approach of railway management was abandoned in favour of getting on with running the railway.

To be fair, the Stedeford committee had already made up its mind on what it thought was needed. Beeching performed his role in collecting evidence, however incomplete, to support that belief. He could have just as easily written a report taking into account options for de-staffing and running pay-trains etc. He didn't. For those apologists still in any doubt, the evidence for this is in the Beeching Report itself. Just read the worked example of York to Beverley via Market Weighton.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did they?

Or did they just want to retain their train service (a reasonable desire, of course)

They clearly recognised that there was a need for those services into the future, so yes, they did.

 

[simonw]

Yet all ofthose people who campaigned against the closure of the borders line, the Settle - Carlisle, the Ashford - Hastings line seemed to have been able to tell what their world would be like in 40 - 50 years time. They were spot on the money.

Perhaps the mistake was in trusting ideology masquerading as statistical analysis, rather than local people about their services.

Really? What are the economics of the S&C likely to be with the end of most of the coal traffic?

 

[Bald Rick]

They clearly recognised that there was a need for those services into the future, so yes, they did.

But I don't think they predicted the level of rail use, or what their world would be like, in 50 years time. Just like we can't accurately predict rail use in 50 years time now. Or even 5 years to be honest.

 

[yorksrob]

But I don't think they predicted the level of rail use, or what their world would be like, in 50 years time. Just like we can't accurately predict rail use in 50 years time now. Or even 5 years to be honest.

They beat the great and good of the Stedeford committee, Governments and other assorted civil servants. They may not quite have guessed just how much nuisance and congestion the motorcar would bring, but they guessed that not everyone would drive in fifty years time, not everyone would have a car and there would still be a need for public transport. To be fair, that's not that outlandish a prediction. What's surprising is that our betters had such blind faith in the progress of motor transport.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Really? What are the economics of the S&C likely to be with the end of most of the coal traffic?

Very good I would expect. The route has a substantial body of regular passengers, both local and from the West Riding. A periodical fluctuation in freight traffic won't change that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Very good I would expect. The route has a substantial body of regular passengers, both local and from the West Riding. A periodical fluctuation in freight traffic won't change that.

Well you're right, the likely demise of coal traffic in the next decade won't change the line's economics. It will still be absolutely appalling! And I wouldn't call a service with 16 trains a day a 'substantial body of regular passengers' even if they were all 12 coaches long and full and standing.

Doesn't mean it should close though.

 

[yorksrob]

And I wouldn't call a service with 16 trains a day a 'substantial body of regular passengers' even if they were all 12 coaches long and full and standing.

Given the trains are usually well loaded, I certainly would. Everywhere can't be Borough Market Junction y'know.

That aside, trying to calculate the value of a route using just fare box revenue is a nonsense anyway. The line is recognised as valuable politically.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Given the trains are usually well loaded, I certainly would. Everywhere can't be Borough Market Junction y'know.

Is it the Westinghouse top section from Borough Market Junction signal box that is now in the National Railway Museum in York?

 

[yorksrob]

Is it the Westinghouse top section from Borough Market Junction signal box that is now in the National Railway Museum in York?

I know the signalbox cabin is there, but I've never actually looked inside it so I don't know if it has its minature lever frame. Will have to take a peek inside when I'm next there !

 

[simonw]

They beat the great and good of the Stedeford committee, Governments and other assorted civil servants. They may not quite have guessed just how much nuisance and congestion the motorcar would bring, but they guessed that not everyone would drive in fifty years time, not everyone would have a car and there would still be a need for public transport. To be fair, that's not that outlandish a prediction. What's surprising is that our betters had such blind faith in the progress of motor transport.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Very good I would expect. The route has a substantial body of regular passengers, both local and from the West Riding. A periodical fluctuation in freight traffic won't change that.

I'm sorry but that is nonsense. The line will lose substantial sums of money without the freight traffic.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm sorry but that is nonsense. The line will lose substantial sums of money without the freight traffic.

The line is worth its weight in gold to the local economy and tourist industry. To suggest otherwise betrays a lack of knowledge of the region.

 

[Bald Rick]

That aside, trying to calculate the value of a route using just fare box revenue is a nonsense anyway. The line is recognised as valuable politically.

Then that's politics, not economics. The economics of the line are appalling.

The social value, and political value are something else. But they are not economics.

 

[simonw]

The line is worth its weight in gold to the local economy and tourist industry. To suggest otherwise betrays a lack of knowledge of the region.

Some figures might help your case until then I will stick with my knowledge of the region, thank you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then that's politics, not economics. The economics of the line are appalling.

The social value, and political value are something else. But they are not economics.

Quite so.

 

[yorksrob]

Then that's politics, not economics. The economics of the line are appalling.

The social value, and political value are something else. But they are not economics.

Well, yes they are because the local economy relies on people being able to get into the area, aside from social and political value.

In terms of the quite narrow definition of whether a given stretch of track pays for itself through farebox takings, yes it's quite long and has a lot of engineering to look after which the passenger trains might not pay for immediately through the fare takings, but I say it would be highly damaging to the network as a whole if the line weren't there. The choice of destinations available to passengers would be less, resilience of the network in times of disruption would be less and the ability to find capacity for future freight and passenger flows between England and Scotland would be impeded.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some figures might help your case until then I will stick with my knowledge of the region, thank you.

Really, you've been fairly quiet on figures on this thread I notice.

 

[simonw]

Well, yes they are because the local economy relies on people being able to get into the area, aside from social and political value.

In terms of the quite narrow definition of whether a given stretch of track pays for itself through farebox takings, yes it's quite long and has a lot of engineering to look after which the passenger trains might not pay for immediately through the fare takings, but I say it would be highly damaging to the network as a whole if the line weren't there. The choice of destinations available to passengers would be less, resilience of the network in times of disruption would be less and the ability to find capacity for future freight and passenger flows between England and Scotland would be impeded.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Really, you've been fairly quiet on figures on this thread I notice.

I don't think anyone has quoted any real numbers in this thread. But I await yours with anticipation.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think anyone has quoted any real numbers in this thread. But I await yours with anticipation.

Well, you seem to have all the answers, so I await yours.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some figures might help your case until then I will stick with my knowledge of the region, thank you.

According to the PTE's, every £ of Government money spent on rail in the North of England delivers approximately £4.30 of economic value:

http://www.pteg.net/system/files/ge... of rail in the North of Englandv_FINAL_0.pdf


For the Settle Carlisle there will be fewer benefits in terms of congestion relief as this will be less than in the urban areas, however, on page 10, section 2.20, it states

" benefits to rural areas are much wider than those linked to commuting, with stations in the national parks providing leisure access to large numbers of people, removing traffic from sensitive roads and making areas with poor road links more easily accessible"

It also notes on page 11:

"The Settle to Carlisle railway line links the West Yorkshire conurbation with southern and western sections of the Yorkshire Dales and Cumbria. Described as one of the most beautiful railway journeys in England, the line has seen a steady increase in passenger numbers, with a third of a million people using the stations on the line each year25. This represents an increase of 25% from 2002/03"

It's also worth noting on p15 this point which is particularly relevant to the Settle Carlisle:

"The economic benefits of rail in the North of England extend well beyond the largest urban areas. Trips which start outside the five metropolitan areas represent 24% of total demand, 30% of Consumer Surplus and 33% of fare-box revenue37. This highlights the role of the local rail network in connecting the wider regional economy and supporting smaller economic centres as well as rural areas"

Hope this helps

 

[Bald Rick]

Well, yes they are because the local economy relies on people being able to get into the area, aside from social and political value.

In terms of the quite narrow definition of whether a given stretch of track pays for itself through farebox takings, yes it's quite long and has a lot of engineering to look after which the passenger trains might not pay for immediately through the fare takings, but I say it would be highly damaging to the network as a whole if the line weren't there. The choice of destinations available to passengers would be less, resilience of the network in times of disruption would be less and the ability to find capacity for future freight and passenger flows between England and Scotland would be impeded.

The question posed was about the economics of the line, not the economics of the region the line runs through. The economics of the line are appalling, of that there is no doubt. The farebox doesn't even cover the costs of the fuel and train crew for the passenger trains that run on it. Let alone the cost of maintaining (or buying!) the trains themselves. Nor the hundreds of millions that NR has spent on the line over the last 15 years.

However there is also no doubt that it brings tourists in, both to access the area and to use / see the line itself. Although, given that only around 300k journeys are made to the intermediate stations from Settle northwards, almost half of which are to/from Settle, I do wonder what proportion of journeys in that part of the world actually use the train. (As opposed to those travelling the whole route, which brings nothing to the local economy). I'd be surprised if it was more than 2%. In which case, would the local economy really suffer without it? I'm not so sure.

However, politically, as we know, it is a completely different question.

 

[yorksrob]

T
However there is also no doubt that it brings tourists in, both to access the area and to use / see the line itself. Although, given that only around 300k journeys are made to the intermediate stations from Settle northwards, almost half of which are to/from Settle, I do wonder what proportion of journeys in that part of the world actually use the train. (As opposed to those travelling the whole route, which brings nothing to the local economy). I'd be surprised if it was more than 2%. In which case, would the local economy really suffer without it? I'm not so sure.

Well, doubtless some of those using Settle and Appleby are using those stations as gateways to the region. However, those end to end journeys represent greater journey opportunities and less congestion on other areas of the network. Given the increasing number of severe weather incidents, would you be happy closing one of the few routes between the North of England and Scotland ? Should another Scotland - England freight flow develop in 10 - 20 years time, would you feel confident that the network could accommodate it without the Settle-Carlisle ?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Very good I would expect. The route has a substantial body of regular passengers, both local and from the West Riding. A periodical fluctuation in freight traffic won't change that.

Whilst I agree with everything else that you've said about the S & C, I'm afraid the decline in coal traffic is permanent. A switch to biomass and the closure of coal fired power stations has seen to that. Of course other freight still uses the line, including a new flow of aggregate from Helwith Bridge which is due to start running in the new year. Whilst this won't entirely replace the lost coal traffic its nevertheless good news and the even larger quarry near Kirkby Stephen should be the next target in my opinion.

 

[miami]

The line is worth its weight in gold to the local economy and tourist industry. To suggest otherwise betrays a lack of knowledge of the region.

About 70 miles long of double track, so say 300 miles of rail at say 100lb a yard, about 24,000 tonnes. Gold is about £25k per kilo, £25m per tonne, so the track alone would be worth about £600 billion. That's just the track, and excludes the sleepers which Soild be about 2500*150*300 kg, or 100,000 tonnes, quintoupling the price to about £3T.

The GDP of Cumbria is about £6 billion.

So I don't think that the line is "worth its weight in gold".

 

[Dr Hoo]

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.

The 1955 Modernisation Plan was already running into problems before either Marples or Beeching came on the scene. The “Re-appraisal of the Plan for the Modernisation and Re-equipment of British Railways” white paper was published in July 1959. By that time the railways had already basically ‘given up’ on East Coast Main Line electrification, describing the project in terms of “eventually”.
Study of the West Coast Main Line electrification by a Select Committee soon after Marples became minister at the end of 1959 showed that the project was in a sorry state and massively over budget. Marples had introduced a process of examining all modernisation schemes over £250,000 soon after he took office. Beeching was among a group of business leaders brought in to assist with analysis.
It is certainly true that Beeching was sceptical about the value of electrification – largely because the original case had been based on replacing steam traction on the WCML directly rather than examining a diesel option as well. However, Marples was undoubtedly his own man and ignored Beeching’s proposal for a more rigorous assessment. Marples signed the letter authorising the completion of the Manchester/Liverpool-Birmingham-London routes at the end of January 1961.
For all of the contempt poured on Marples by many railway supporters, certainly in the context of this thread that is, after all, about the North Lakes line, it has to be accepted that:
1) Marples had the chance to stop the Euston 25kV electrification but decided to continue even though the financial case was unclear;
2) Marples was given the proposal to close the North Lakes Line but decided not to support it; and, interestingly
3) Barbara Castle had the chance to finally bin the proposal to close the North Lakes Line but decided to pronounce its death sentence.

 

[RichmondCommu]

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

As a member of the FoSCL (although my involved is really limited to donations given that I live in SW London) I can say with absolute sincerity that I'm grateful for your efforts, especially given that I use the S & C to visit my in-laws who live in Dent Dale.

However, I think its fair to say that its much easier to save a railway that is still in operation rather to re-open one that has been closed for several decades and has lost part of its track bed to a major road. Not to mention one that doesn't run to a important regional centre.

This is a honest and genuine question; how much of a fight was put up to try and stop the line from Keswick to Penrith closing in the 1970's? I've seen a picture in one of the books that I own which shows the last ever train complete with a head board but I've not seen any information regarding protests trying to stop the closure of the line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So I don't think that the line is "worth its weight in gold".

Oh for crying out loud, don't be so bloody stupid. You and I both know that Rob wasn't suggesting that the S & C was literally "worth its weight in Gold" so what was the point in posting that? In what way has your post added to this interesting and knowledge laden thread?

 

[deltic08]

As a member of the FoSCL (although my involved is really limited to donations given that I live in SW London) I can say with absolute sincerity that I'm grateful for your efforts, especially given that I use the S & C to visit my in-laws who live in Dent Dale.

However, I think its fair to say that its much easier to save a railway that is still in operation rather to re-open one that has been closed for several decades and has lost part of its track bed to a major road. Not to mention one that doesn't run to a important regional centre.

This is a honest and genuine question; how much of a fight was put up to try and stop the line from Keswick to Penrith closing in the 1970's? I've seen a picture in one of the books that I own which shows the last ever train complete with a head board but I've not seen any information regarding protests trying to stop the closure of the line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah, we agree on something. Yes much, much harder to reinstate lines but it is being done in Wales and Scotland.

As I have said previously, so much work was done on the former formation of the Waverley route to stabilize cuttings and embankments and replace bridges that it was like building a new route. The whole reinstatement cost something like £8-£9m per mile including the new build northern section.

There is very little problem with the current disused section from Penrith to Keswick that a couple of JCBs and a team of Orangemen couldn't sort out if funding was available. Non has been lost to road building although two bowstring bridges have been knocked off their abutments in the current torrents, one by a caravan washing down the River Greta. Reinstatement would cost £5-£6m per mile for 17 miles?

This is very economical when you consider that the Bedale bypass in North Yorkshire is costing £22m per mile for just a normal two way road and the A1 widening north of Leeming Bar to motorway standard is a touch under £30m per mile.

The Keswick branch would have to be electrified as we all know electric trains are 30% cheaper to operate and maintain and 25% cheaper to build and lease than diesel traction and would make sense with the WCML already wired.

Unfortunately, I was at Leeds University from 1970-76 and was too busy with studies in medicine and clinical attendances at night and weekends and a new wife to be involved with any campaign to keep the Keswick line open. I now wish I had done. I have a soft spot for this line as my parents spent the first night of their honeymoon in Keswick in September 1929 before catching a train to London for the rest of it.

It will happen if enough pressure is put on Government and a good case can be made to reinstate. I understand a feasibility study has been done but as yet I am unable to find a benefit/cost ratio.

There must have been some kind of resistance from Keswick Town Council and the National Park to closure?

 

[muddythefish]

I was and they would have been there if the railways hadn't been closed.

Traffic jams in the overwhelming majority of occasions existed because people wanted to go by car not because they were denied the chance to go by rail.

Traffic jams existed because people often had to go by car because their local railway line had shut.

 

[deltic08]

About 70 miles long of double track, so say 300 miles of rail at say 100lb a yard, about 24,000 tonnes. Gold is about £25k per kilo, £25m per tonne, so the track alone would be worth about £600 billion. That's just the track, and excludes the sleepers which Soild be about 2500*150*300 kg, or 100,000 tonnes, quintoupling the price to about £3T.

The GDP of Cumbria is about £6 billion.

So I don't think that the line is "worth its weight in gold".

Certainly worth its weight in black gold. Coal trains pay the most in track access charges and with 41 loaded trains daily they have paid for the upgrade of the S&C since 1987. Perhaps Hunterston will gear up to biomass imports and then traffic will remain at current levels as two biomass trains are required to one of coal to maintain the same thermal output.

It is a pity that the southern half of the Waverley route is not open as Keilder would supply enough home produced biomass without any imports.