North Lakes Railway

[muddythefish]

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

?

Exactly. Anything is possible, given the political will. Perhaps English devolution will make a difference.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

T
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
.

Some wonderful revisionism to paint a crooked minister in a good light.

 

[deltic08]

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

Exactly. That is why I bought a car in the 1960s. Even the rail replacement buses had been withdrawn when I bought my first car as they only lasted two years. People would happily use the train but rejected a replacement bus.

 

[simonw]

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

I'm sorry but traffic jams predated railway closures. When people had the opportunity to travel by train to avoid the jams they still drove.

 

[MarkRedon]

I'm sorry but traffic jams predated railway closures. When people had the opportunity to travel by train to avoid the jams they still drove.

And the only reason we have the luxury to have this kind of conversation at all is that increasingly that choice is not being made to the same extent as it has been in the past. Young people delay buying their first car, as they delay buying their first house – very largely because those of us who are older have accreted the wealth to ourselves and built a huge imbalance of wealth and property between the generations. Younger people also are slightly more likely to make choices that disadvantage themselves so that others, or the environment, or the planet: can benefit and thrive. Things have changed, I hope for the better and for the long term. In these new circumstances, we should in this thread somehow be trying to find ways to make it possible for people to travel in less selfish, polluting and unsustainable ways. My hope is that people in this forum can find ways to suggest reopening railways in a low-cost and sustainable way even into relatively rural areas. Meanwhile, because of the traffic that the branches are building and will build, we will need to invest more in capacity on the trunk routes.

I awoke to the potential of railways only after the bulk of the Beeching-era closures had gone through. Some of those closures – but by no means all – must now be occasions, not for regret, but for finding ways to restore or renew them. I look forward to your positive suggestions.

I live in France, an even more car-dominated country than the UK – but one where local and regional politicians are pushing hard both for new high-speed railways and selective investment in and reopening of relatively lightly-trafficked rail routes. The political setup is different, and there is much more real devolution to the regions and to the communities of communes. But things are changing fast in Britain too; a Tory Chancellor offers significant new transport funding to combined authorities which are often Labour-dominated! Kind of good, isn't it?

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Ah yes, I was just saying thirty years ago it was unfitted wagons, today it's coal, in twenty years time it might be something else. That said, I'm sure that the strategic need for the freight corridor will remain in one way or another.

 

[Altfish]

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

Why is everything about 'money'? What about the benefit to the community, the country as a whole?

Do libraries make money? Do children's playgrounds make money?

 

[Bald Rick]

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?

I don't like to upset the applecart with facts, but reopening the Borders was nearer £13m a mile, and the amount of Civils rehabilitation required was not anywhere near the equivalent to building a new railway; it is broadly what can be expected. Even then it was cheap. It is a good benchmark for this type of reopening in a largely rural setting.

Meanwhile TfL are spending £150m a mile the Croxley link, only half a mile of which is actually new.

 

[simonw]

Why is everything about 'money'? What about the benefit to the community, the country as a whole?

Do libraries make money? Do children's playgrounds make money?

Straw man. I have not said everything is about money.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

Fact 2. Coal trains don't pay the most in track access charges. Indeed all freight trains pay only marginal costs (and there is much debate about whether they actually cover them, see ORR periodic reviews) and therefore get a much cheaper rate than passenger.

I'm pretty sure there weren't 41 loaded coal trains daily also, almost 4 an hour 24 hours a day, but happy to be corrected.

 

[muddythefish]

I'm sorry but traffic jams predated railway closures. When people had the opportunity to travel by train to avoid the jams they still drove.

I'm sorry but traffic jams were largely confined to the cities before the railway closures. When people not longer had the option to use the train they were forced to drive.

 

[simonw]

I'm sorry but traffic jams were largely confined to the cities before the railway closures. When people not longer had the option to use the train they were forced to drive.

Not true. People deserted the railways before they closed.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Yes, I well remember being stuck in traffic jams in the Lake District in the 1960s before the North Lakes Line closed. "Are we nearly there yet?"

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm sorry but traffic jams predated railway closures. When people had the opportunity to travel by train to avoid the jams they still drove.

One only has to look at the number of occasions in those historical days after the closure of a branch line, especially in some rural-served area, where the replacement bus service did not carry on after a period of time.

 

[muddythefish]

Not true. People deserted the railways before they closed.

Irrelevant. People had no choice once the railways closed.

 

[simonw]

Irrelevant. People had no choice once the railways closed.

It's not irrelevant, it's why the railways closed because in many cases there were fewer and fewer passengers as people moved to other modes of transport.

 

[muddythefish]

It's not irrelevant, it's why the railways closed because in many cases there were fewer and fewer passengers as people moved to other modes of transport.

And now there are more people travelling on the railways than at any time since the 1920s, roads are full, the country will have 70 million people by 2040 or so and we need those old railway lines (and new ones) more than ever. You'll have to do much better than simplistic one liners.

 

[Dr Hoo]

In the context of why branch lines closed it is easy to forget how dominant bus travel was in the 1960s.

There were 11.6 billion bus journeys in 1965 of which less than half (5.3 billion) were on London or major conurbation services. So much of it was in the smaller towns and rural areas that felt the brunt of the closures.

In contrast the total number of main line rail journeys was a mere 865m, much of which would have been focused in London and major conurbations.

I know that a lot people on this forum tend to dismiss buses but, when the Beeching report was published, for the great majority of people without a car "public transport" meant a bus.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the bus travel habit had grown up since the time when the vast majority of the rail network was already in place. Many people were actually quite happy to choose the bus and had already done so.

 

[simonw]

And now there are more people travelling on the railways than at any time since the 1920s, roads are full, the country will have 70 million people by 2040 or so and we need those old railway lines (and new ones) more than ever. You'll have to do much better than simplistic one liners.

50 years have passed. In 1965 No one could see what the world would look like in 2015, in the same way no one in 1915 foretold how the world would be in 1965.

Some lines will reopen but many will not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the context of why branch lines closed it is easy to forget how dominant bus travel was in the 1960s.

There were 11.6 billion bus journeys in 1965 of which less than half (5.3 billion) were on London or major conurbation services. So much of it was in the smaller towns and rural areas that felt the brunt of the closures.

In contrast the total number of main line rail journeys was a mere 865m, much of which would have been focused in London and major conurbations.

I know that a lot people on this forum tend to dismiss buses but, when the Beeching report was published, for the great majority of people without a car "public transport" meant a bus.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the bus travel habit had grown up since the time when the vast majority of the rail network was already in place. Many people were actually quite happy to choose the bus and had already done so.

Quite so, in many cases the bus took them where they wanted to go, whereas the railway often had stations well away from where they wanted to go. To bring the thread back to the original topic, it is only a slight exaggeration to say that the Penrith Keswick line went out of its way to avoid the villages on its route.

 

[Bald Rick]

And now there are more people travelling on the railways than at any time since the 1920s, roads are full,

You've said this before, and it is patently not the case. Some roads are full at some times of day / week / year, much the same as some railways are full. It is notable that there is a high degree of overlap between roads and rails at full capacity, ie routes into cities and many intercity routes, particularly in England.

However there are many road routes in rural areas that are nowhere near full. And many of these serve the same communities where lines were closed. Equally there's many rural routes with traffic issues where the railway is still open - take any summer Saturday down to Cornwall for example.

Also worth pointing out that official figures show that total traffic in Great Britain is only 1.3% higher than it was 10 years ago, and indeed car traffic has actually fallen 0.2% in that time.

 

[yorksrob]

You've said this before, and it is patently not the case. Some roads are full at some times of day / week / year, much the same as some railways are full. It is notable that there is a high degree of overlap between roads and rails at full capacity, ie routes into cities and many intercity routes, particularly in England.

However there are many road routes in rural areas that are nowhere near full. And many of these serve the same communities where lines were closed. Equally there's many rural routes with traffic issues where the railway is still open - take any summer Saturday down to Cornwall for example.

Also worth pointing out that official figures show that total traffic in Great Britain is only 1.3% higher than it was 10 years ago, and indeed car traffic has actually fallen 0.2% in that time.

According to The Times yesterday (p10), The Department of Transport has concluded that the number of vehicles on the roads are set to rise by 55% over the next 25 years. Given that I already think the roads are too congested, I'm not looking forward to negotiating that lot. I doubt the residents in the North Lakes will be looking forward to a 55% increase either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some lines will reopen but many will not.

If only I had your faith. When even extending East-West to Cambridge is in the "too expensive" pile, England seems to get nothing but procrastination while Scotland powers ahead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not irrelevant, it's why the railways closed because in many cases there were fewer and fewer passengers as people moved to other modes of transport.

Some chose the car, many had their hand forced - particularly in cases where Beeching had underestimated contributory revenue, as with seaside branches.

 

[Bald Rick]

According to The Times yesterday (p10), The Department of Transport has concluded that the number of vehicles on the roads are set to rise by 55% over the next 25 years. Given that I already think the roads are too congested, I'm not looking forward to negotiating that lot. I doubt the residents in the North Lakes will be looking forward to a 55% increase either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't find the data easily, but reasonably sure that in 2000 the forecast for road traffic was to increase by 20-30% over the next decade. It didn't. In fact it went down. So I wouldn't put too much faith in these forecasts, just as you don't put much faith in DfT (or Beeching) forecasts for rail usage.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There is a good summary of official transport statistics, dating from 2014 at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389592/tsgb-2014.pdf

One of the things that stands out is that the number of registered vehicles on the roads continues to increase but the actual usage has been fairly static for quite a long time. This applies to both cars and goods vehicles.

Whilst all forecasting is a mug's game it would certainly be a break with recent trends for there to be a further major increase in road traffic (beyond things like population growth), which may not be quite as rapid in a national park as in major cities, especially London.

 

[yorksrob]

There is a good summary of official transport statistics, dating from 2014 at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389592/tsgb-2014.pdf

One of the things that stands out is that the number of registered vehicles on the roads continues to increase but the actual usage has been fairly static for quite a long time. This applies to both cars and goods vehicles.

Whilst all forecasting is a mug's game it would certainly be a break with recent trends for there to be a further major increase in road traffic (beyond things like population growth), which may not be quite as rapid in a national park as in major cities, especially London.

Is that usage per vehicle, because a static usage per vehicle on a 55% increase in vehicles will still represent a substantial increase in usage.

I accept your point about predictions not always coming true, but even a fairly large over estimate at 55% seems likely still to result in a substantial increase.

 

[Altfish]

Straw man. I have not said everything is about money.

"The line will lose substantial sums of money without the freight traffic."

 

[simonw]

"The line will lose substantial sums of money without the freight traffic."

and it will, but that is not the same as saying everything is about money.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Is that usage per vehicle, because a static usage per vehicle on a 55% increase in vehicles will still represent a substantial increase in usage.

I accept your point about predictions not always coming true, but even a fairly large over estimate at 55% seems likely still to result in a substantial increase.

The document isn't absolutely explicit but I am pretty sure that it is overall vehicle miles (or km) rather than per vehicle with a rising number of vehicles.

Without wanting to turn this into a statistical battle there really are loads of raw data out there. For example in https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442158/tra0106.xls

At a quick glance this shows that vehicle miles by cars in the "Rest of the North West" (outside Manchester and Merseyside) have been constant between 2004 and 2014, for example although there has been a marginal increase in "van" traffic and one or two other bits and pieces.

This sort of thing hardly indicates 'imminent gridlock in the Lake District' although I accept that there can be local variations.

 

[yorksrob]

The document isn't absolutely explicit but I am pretty sure that it is overall vehicle miles (or km) rather than per vehicle with a rising number of vehicles.

Without wanting to turn this into a statistical battle there really are loads of raw data out there. For example in https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442158/tra0106.xls

At a quick glance this shows that vehicle miles by cars in the "Rest of the North West" (outside Manchester and Merseyside) have been constant between 2004 and 2014, for example although there has been a marginal increase in "van" traffic and one or two other bits and pieces.

This sort of thing hardly indicates 'imminent gridlock in the Lake District' although I accept that there can be local variations.

To be fair, even if all of these predicted new cars were left on the driveway, I find that traffic makes a lot of the country unpleasant to be in, even now. Try walking around any medium sized town or city.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is a good summary of official transport statistics, dating from 2014 at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389592/tsgb-2014.pdf

The very stats I was using. I couldn't locate the same for the early part of last decade, but I know they are out there somewhere.

The interesting bit for me was the increase in use of the strategic roads network - Motorways and Trunk Roads, and the reduction on urban roads. This implies a gradual concentration of traffic on the roads that are designed to take it, with a reduction in traffic in areas we don't want it, ie cities, presumably in part due to traffic restraint measures. This tallies with my own experience of an increased probability of congestion on the motorways at busy times, but an improved ability to walk across central London roads at any time.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I can't find the data easily, but reasonably sure that in 2000 the forecast for road traffic was to increase by 20-30% over the next decade. It didn't. In fact it went down. So I wouldn't put too much faith in these forecasts, just as you don't put much faith in DfT (or Beeching) forecasts for rail usage.

There is one reason to believe traffic levels could start rising again though. Since 2000, there has been relatively little road-building, whereas the current Government has made clear that it is intending to build more roads. Since availability of road space seems to be one of the most important factors in determining to what extent people choose to use cars for their journeys, it doesn't seem implausible that if road-building does increase, then so will road traffic.

 

[Dr Hoo]

From a quick skim of current DfT traffic forecasts, methodology and planned road schemes it is not particularly obvious that there is likely to be a significant release of suppressed demand on the Penrith-Keswick-Cockermouth axis.

There are no major road schemes planned for the Lake District and national congestion maps show the nearest routes with regular problems as being in the immediate vicinity of Sellafield and Barrow in Furness.

Overall the North West is predicted to see lower traffic growth than most areas as the population is only expected to increase at a lower rate.

The 55% growth figure is very much the top end of quite a large range. The forecasting methodology is already under review in the light of continuing broadly static traffic levels in most areas.

Much of the national traffic growth is actually by small vans rather than cars as patterns of employment and delivery change. This sort of traffic can hardly be attracted to a re-opened rail line although it can undeniably make traffic conditions and parking more difficult.

Although reduction of congestion by major road schemes in, say, Manchester might make a few people think that it would now just be worthwhile making an extra car trip to Keswick I still do not see gridlock round the corner.