Reopen Penrith to Workington via Keswick

[waverley47]

Is there anywhere the two different criteria are available to read?

I'd be interested to know how many lines in England would suddenly become viable if one used the Scottish criteria. I'm firmly in the "build it and they will come" camp (induced demand really does work on trains as well as roads), especially in light of Okehampton where passenger numbers were double expectations, which leads me to think the numbers on whatever models the DfT uses may need tweaking.

I'd also to be curious to know if any consideration is seriously given to the utility of diversionary routes. On that front I'd be thinking that avoiding Dawlish (in the light of 2014, even with all the improvements to sea defences) would be a considerable boost to the Bere Alston - Tavistock - Okehampton line, even with basic infrastructure that allowed a skeleton service through in terms of disruption.

Similarly Uckfield - Lewes might be more viable if one considers all the money saved by having a diversionary route to Brighton from London (with/without a new west facing junction at Lewes to avoid reversals), that avoids the need for mass cancellations and delayrepay payments in the event of a serious incident on the two track bottleneck.

Again, new thread, but no. It's all commercially sensitive information. Scotland puts a heavy premium on the social service aspects, and so we calculated things differently. The UKGov is far more concerned with cost, so we had to estimate highest possible cost, with pessimism bias. We did a best estimate, which takes several months and a good couple of hundred thousand pounds at minimum, and climbs from there based on the scale of the project.

I can tell you that no railway will ever satisfy a positive BCR if 'diversionary route' is the primary motivator. Not Uckfield, not the Waverley Route, not the Tavistock to Okehampton route, not ever.

It has to stand on its own merits.

 

[yorksrob]

.

I can tell you that no railway will ever satisfy a positive BCR if 'diversionary route' is the primary motivator. Not Uckfield, not the Waverley Route, not the Tavistock to Okehampton route, not ever.

It has to stand on its own merits.

Absolutely. And most proposed routes do.

 

[waverley47]

Absolutely. And most proposed routes do.

Not really.

Take this thread for example. I could propose the railway as a solution to a problem; over-tourism in the national park. Of course the railway might be solving that problem, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever that the proposal stands up to even the slightest scrutiny, and therefore doesn't stand on its own merits.

The bar, fortunately or unfortunately, is incredibly high, because the cost of building, operating, and maintaining a railway line is incredibly high. Just because a proposal seems like it would solve a problem on paper, it doesn't mean it comes anywhere close to clearing that bar.

 

[wilbers]

Following on from some of the posts about a week ago, its Friday again. Traffic reported to be particularly bad this afternoon.

Delays and Queuing Traffic on M6 and A66 Around Penrith

Delays and Queuing Traffic on M6 and A66 Around Penrith

penrith.town

Drivers are again facing Friday’s long delays and queuing traffic on the M6 and A66 around Penrith along with queuing traffic through Penrith town centre.

Vehicles heading south on the M6 are queuing back from J40 to J41 with delays of 30-40 minutes to exit on the A66 at J40.

Traffic is also queuing on the A66 with delays of 20 minutes to travel between Kemplay Roundabout and J40 and Delays of 20 minutes between Slapestone Roundabout and Kemplay Roundabout.

 

[6Gman]

Following on from some of the posts about a week ago, its Friday again. Traffic reported to be particularly bad this afternoon.

Delays and Queuing Traffic on M6 and A66 Around Penrith

Delays and Queuing Traffic on M6 and A66 Around Penrith

penrith.town

There are 20 minute delays around Nantwich most Fridays.

Perhaps we should reopen the Nantwich - Market Drayton - Wellington railway ?



(This is not a serious suggestion.)

 

[yorksrob]

Not really.

Take this thread for example. I could propose the railway as a solution to a problem; over-tourism in the national park. Of course the railway might be solving that problem, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever that the proposal stands up to even the slightest scrutiny, and therefore doesn't stand on its own merits.

The bar, fortunately or unfortunately, is incredibly high, because the cost of building, operating, and maintaining a railway line is incredibly high. Just because a proposal seems like it would solve a problem on paper, it doesn't mean it comes anywhere close to clearing that bar.

The point is, that the anti-rail brigade will jump upon any sense of diversionary capability for a proposal and come up with "oh, you can't make a case on diversions" when many proposed routes are worthwhile as part of the day to day network.

 

[The Planner]

The point is, that the anti-rail brigade will jump upon any sense of diversionary capability for a proposal and come up with "oh, you can't make a case on diversions" when many proposed routes are worthwhile as part of the day to day network.

Just because you don't like the reality of the fact diversionary capability is tiny in a business case doesnt make anyone anti rail.

 

[yorksrob]

Just because you don't like the reality of the fact diversionary capability is tiny in a business case doesnt make anyone anti rail.

It might be a reality of the business case, however it demonstrates that the methodology of the business case is anti-rail as it fails to take account of the many potential benefits of a rail connection.

 

[daodao]

It might be a reality of the business case, however it demonstrates that the methodology of the business case is anti-rail as it fails to take account of the many potential benefits of a rail connection.

@yorksrob

You seem to be obsessed with making cases to re-open former rural through routes in the middle of nowhere. Railways in the modern era are only useful for carrying large numbers of people into, within or between major population centres, and for bulk trainload freight. Beeching was a wise man in recognising this premise, although I accept that the subsequent closures in the couple of decades post 1962 were a little "rough and ready" and his detailed recommendations were not always carried out. Some lines that should have been kept (such as Bletchley-Oxford and Hadfield-Sheffield) were closed, and a few others that probably should have closed (such as the Settle and Carlisle line and the Heart of Wales line) were retained.

There are reasonable cases for re-opening lines into major cities, such as the Northumberland line from Ashington to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. However, proposals to re-open lines such as that discussed in this thread, or other rural lines such as Aberystwyth-Carmarthen, Beverley-York, Okehampton-Tavistock, Ripon-Northallerton or Matlock-Buxton/Peak Forest, have no plausible business case.

 

[yorksrob]

@yorksrob

You seem to be obsessed with making cases to re-open former rural through routes in the middle of nowhere. Railways in the modern era are only useful for carrying large numbers of people into, within or between major population centres, and for bulk trainload freight. Beeching was a wise man in recognising this premise, although I accept that the subsequent closures in the couple of decades post 1962 were a little "rough and ready" and his detailed recommendations were not always carried out. Some lines that should have been kept (such as Bletchley-Oxford and Hadfield-Sheffield) were closed, and a few others that probably should have closed (such as the Settle and Carlisle line and the Heart of Wales line) were retained.

There are reasonable cases for re-opening lines into major cities, such as the Northumberland line from Ashington to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. However, proposals to re-open lines such as that discussed in this thread, or other rural lines such as Aberystwyth-Carmarthen, Beverley-York, Okehampton-Tavistock, Ripon-Northallerton or Matlock-Buxton/Peak Forest, have no plausible business case.

Beeching was clueless about railways.

The whole premise of removing duplicate routes was deeply flawed, and showed a complete lack of understanding issues such as severe weather and periodic renewals etc.

At one point he extols the virtue of freight trains travelling at uniform speeds and at another, proposes pushing all traffic down one route, thus contradicting himself.

I've no doubt that the same voices would have said that Borders, Okehampton etc had no business case.

 

[daodao]

Beeching was clueless about railways.

The whole premise of removing duplicate routes was deeply flawed, and showed a complete lack of understanding issues such as severe weather and periodic renewals etc.

At one point he extols the virtue of freight trains travelling at uniform speeds and at another, proposes pushing all traffic down one route, thus contradicting himself.

I've no doubt that the same voices would have said that Borders, Okehampton etc had no business case.

Removal of duplicate routes was in most cases sensible, as they are redundant as "diversionary" routes for 90-95% of the time, so waste money for 90-95% of the time. The Borders line from Hawick-Carlisle and the Okehampton-Tavistock line don't have a viable business case for re-opening, nor does the Penrith-Workington line.

 

[yorksrob]

Removal of duplicate routes was in most cases sensible, as they are redundant as "diversionary" routes for 90-95% of the time, so waste money for 90-95% of the time. The Borders line from Hawick-Carlisle and the Okehampton-Tavistock line don't have a viable business case for re-opening, nor does the Penrith-Workington line.

Removing duplicate routes has time and time again proved to be a terrible idea. He should have stayed making paint.

Anyhow, back to this line, I certainly think that it would be as successful as the Windermere line.

 

[waverley47]

It might be a reality of the business case, however it demonstrates that the methodology of the business case is anti-rail as it fails to take account of the many potential benefits of a rail connection.

This is just blatantly and provably untrue.

If business cases were anti-rail, we wouldn't ever reopen any lines would we.

Do your best business case, and if you can come up with a BCR of more than 1.2 over twenty-five years, then I'll be impressed.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Not read this thread entirely, but I suspect that for 1/10th of whatever it would cost to reopen this line you could invest in the Cumbrian Coast, improving the loading gauge to remove the restrictions and increase the line speed to 70 mph where useful and it would prove far more cost effective to far more people. And string up a basic overhead 25kV system to Windermere at the same time.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Removing duplicate routes has time and time again proved to be a terrible idea. He should have stayed making paint.

Anyhow, back to this line, I certainly think that it would be as successful as the Windermere line.

I think the problem is that diversionary routes do not get used enough to justify the cost of them. Roughly speaking a diversionary (or parallel) route would mean a doubling of overall costs for the infrastructure for any given A to B journey. Even if you can knock those costs down it is still going to add a lot of expense. It really needs the line under consideration to be able to generate a lot of its own business.

What extra percentage would you add to the infrastructure costs for a journey from A to B so as to have a diversionary route for that journey ?.

The larger the percentage then the less need for the new route to generate its own passengers. But I doubt more than 10% would be justifiable for an eventuality that has a small likely-hood. That means 90% of the costs must be borne by new passengers for the new route. Those are rough for-instance percentages so feel free to come up with your preferred split.

 

[Neptune]

I’m scratching my head trying to think what use Penrith to Workington would be for diverted services. Sounds like a nettle grasp reason for reopening to me.

 

[Killingworth]

It's curious how often the 1960s Beeching report is cited with a tone of derision as though it was total nonsense.

I suspect many have accepted that view without reading it and without living through the period of quite rapid changes in society in the post WW2 era. Most of it made excellent sense. Cutting out lines such ss this certainly did. The momentum of branch line closures even predates WW2 but accelerated in the 50s as the desire for a family car took hold - and smokeless zones and diesel trains started to bite into demand for coal, the core commodity moved by rail.

Some of the detailed implementation and subsequent ripping up of suppposedly surplus track on mainline corridors may now be seen as mistaken but on the evidence of rapidly declining passenger numbers until the mid/late 1980s it was understandable.

There may have been a very weak case to retain Penrith-Keswick but not on the patronage at the time of closure.

Beeching report can be read in full from this link and further discussion to go in another thread; https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=13

 

[Neptune]

It's curious how often the 1960s Beeching report is cited with a tone of derision as though it was total nonsense.

Likewise I believe most of those against it have never read it as they don‘t want to read something that makes sense that they don’t like because their life is “railways is the answer to everything at the expense of everything else”. The Beeching report probably saved as many lines as it closed thanks to the cost savings made by the closures of these heavy loss makers but that is quietly ignored as it doesn’t fit their narrative.

I’m sure there were lines that closed that would have a benefit today such as any line which would bring commuters/leisure travellers into a big city in large numbers like the Wetherby branch (not something I’m advocating now although I’m sure it would have a better case than all these seasonal rural middle of nowhere ideas) but I’m sure likewise there are lines that stayed open which really should have been closed.

 

[yorksrob]

This is just blatantly and provably untrue.

It's curious how often the 1960s Beeching report is cited with a tone of derision as though it was total nonsense.

I suspect many have accepted that view without reading it and without living through the period of quite rapid changes in society in the post WW2 era. Most of it made excellent sense. Cutting out lines such ss this certainly did. The momentum of branch line closures even predates WW2 but accelerated in the 50s as the desire for a family car took hold - and smokeless zones and diesel trains started to bite into demand for coal, the core commodity moved by rail.

Some of the detailed implementation and subsequent ripping up of suppposedly surplus track on mainline corridors may now be seen as mistaken but on the evidence of rapidly declining passenger numbers until the mid/late 1980s it was understandable.

There may have been a very weak case to retain Penrith-Keswick but not on the patronage at the time of closure.

Beeching report can be read in full from this link and further discussion to go in another thread; https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=13

I've read it and it is full of flaws. One only has to look at the worked example of York to Beverley to see the worst.

I'd recommend everyone reading both of Beeching's reports. The second one is even more nonsensical than the first.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I've read it and it is full of flaws. One only has to look at the worked example of York to Beverley to see the worst.

I'd recommend everyone reading both of Beeching's reports. The second one is even more nonsensical than the first.

Of course the ‘second one’ was only about the (positive) Development of Major Trunk Routes between, err, major centres of industrial activity in order to satisfy the Board and government that BR could handle a hoped-for massive uplift in long-distance freight from modal shift from road and a heroic assumption of 4% compound economic growth for 20 years. It was produced by the BRB member for planning, James Ness, who as a former regional General Manager probably did know a bit about railways. It specifically stated that it wasn’t about closures and contained no further closure proposals.
Although it was the new 1964 Wilson government’s target of 4% compound growth behind it, it was his ministers’ response to later produce a Network for Development that did indeed propose further closures beyond those in the Reshaping Report. This was followed by the spiffing idea of Surplus Track Capacity [hasty elimination] Grants in Castle’s 1968 Transport Act. Long after Dr B had gone and from a government that had been elected on a pledge to halt major rail closures. You couldn’t make it up.

 

[The Planner]

It might be a reality of the business case, however it demonstrates that the methodology of the business case is anti-rail as it fails to take account of the many potential benefits of a rail connection.

Which isnt what you said

 

[deltic08]

@yorksrob

You seem to be obsessed with making cases to re-open former rural through routes in the middle of nowhere. Railways in the modern era are only useful for carrying large numbers of people into, within or between major population centres, and for bulk trainload freight. Beeching was a wise man in recognising this premise, although I accept that the subsequent closures in the couple of decades post 1962 were a little "rough and ready" and his detailed recommendations were not always carried out. Some lines that should have been kept (such as Bletchley-Oxford and Hadfield-Sheffield) were closed, and a few others that probably should have closed (such as the Settle and Carlisle line and the Heart of Wales line) were retained.

There are reasonable cases for re-opening lines into major cities, such as the Northumberland line from Ashington to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. However, proposals to re-open lines such as that discussed in this thread, or other rural lines such as Aberystwyth-Carmarthen, Beverley-York, Okehampton-Tavistock, Ripon-Northallerton or Matlock-Buxton/Peak Forest, have no plausible business case

Yorksrob is not obsessed in making cases for reopening rural routes in this case. Penrith-Keswick is not what I would call a rural route nowadays. It would cross through the Northern Lakes again and connect the tourist hotspot of Keswick with the outside world where millions, yes millions, go annually for recreation by car as they have no other choice but to travel by road. Keswick residents would be able to travel to Carlisle for shopping and further for leisure without having to use a car.
I had family living in Keswick and Workington when the Keswick-Workington line closed and when Keswick-Penrith closed. Those in Keswick did not have a car until 1972 and were forced to buy one when the railway closed. Not only did they stop using rail between Keswick and Penrith/Carlisle but altogether to the rest of the country losing BR thousands throughout the rest of their lives. That must have happened to millions who lost their railway connections through Beeching. He assumed they would drive to the next nearest railhead but they didn't as they found the car more convenient for all travel rather than rail.
A Demand forecast will tell us how many would travel by rail if there was one. In the railway reinstatement that I have been involved with more than 50% said they would/could convert to rail if there was one. That could be over a million per annum in this case and half a million less cars on the A66 and parked in Keswick.

Ripon-Northallerton should read Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton connecting the largest settlement in North Yorkshire, a city with the oldest cathedral in England with Northallerton, the County headquarters of North Yorkshire creating a strategic through route from West Yorkshire to the Northeast and Scotland avoiding the congested junction that is York. This would also incidentally create a diversion route between York and Northallerton, the only part of the entire ECML between Kings Cross and Edinburgh currently without a diversion route. If anything happens on this section such as dewirement, the entire ECML is stopped with passenger and freight.
A demand forecast for Ripon-Harrogate in 2004 showed more footfall than Exeter-Okehampton! per annum

Beeching was clueless about railways.

The whole premise of removing duplicate routes was deeply flawed, and showed a complete lack of understanding issues such as severe weather and periodic renewals etc.

At one point he extols the virtue of freight trains travelling at uniform speeds and at another, proposes pushing all traffic down one route, thus contradicting himself.

I've no doubt that the same voices would have said that Borders, Okehampton etc had no business case.

I agree that Beeching was either naive, stupid or deliberately clueless. Again he assumed that seaside branch line stations were losing money by looking at fare box takings at that station and closed them not realising that holidaymakers bought their tickets inland. When the holiday resort lost its railway station holidaymakers deserted the railways for road coaches and cars as the only way now of reaching their holiday destination. He did not understand contributory revenue which was crucial in BR overall revenue which contributed to a seaside branch line but now lost completely to BR.
Another example of his ineptitude was Ripon. Ripon was the only main settlement between Harrogate and Northallerton. He looked at the fare box takings at Ripon on a Tuesday in February. This showed Ripon losing £18,000 per annum so decided it should close as there was another route via York but twice as long in distance but more than twice as long in time. What he didn't know and should have known was that army revenue from a large camp at Ripon was paid directly to BR by the MOD and didn't go through Ripon fare box showing Ripon line making a profit of £13,000. Ripon lost a valuable asset unnecessarily through his stupidity. It was also shown that 8% of passengers were visitor buying their tickets elsewhere which BR lost when the line closed.

What he didn'tNot read this thread entirely, but I suspect that for 1/10th of whatever it would cost to reopen this line you could invest in the Cumbrian Coast, improving the loading gauge to remove the restrictions and increase the line speed to 70 mph where useful and it would prove far more cost effective to far more people. And string up a basic overhead 25kV system to Windermere at the same time.

Why should it be either or? Invest in a railway to Keswick and you have 20 miles of new railway giving rail travel opportunity to millions increasing BR revenue in additional revenue in to/from Penrith portion of the overall ticket price that BR wouldn't otherwise receive.

 

[daodao]

Ripon-Northallerton should read Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton connecting the largest settlement in North Yorkshire, a city with the oldest cathedral in England with Northallerton, the County headquarters of North Yorkshire creating a strategic through route from West Yorkshire to the Northeast and Scotland avoiding the congested junction that is York. This would also incidentally create a diversion route between York and Northallerton, the only part of the entire ECML between Kings Cross and Edinburgh currently without a diversion route. If anything happens on this section such as dewirement, the entire ECML is stopped with passenger and freight.
A demand forecast for Ripon-Harrogate in 2004 showed more footfall than Exeter-Okehampton! per annum

Correction: I stated Ripon-Northallerton specifically, as an example of a rural re-opening, like Workington-Keswick-Penrith, for which there is a poor business case. Harrogate-Ripon should be considered separately as there might be a possible business case for re-opening it as a "commuter" link to a major city (Leeds). However, further discussion about railways to Ripon is off topic for this thread. Experts such as @The Planner have made it clear that diversionary capability can only be a minimal part of the business case for re-opening any line - promoters who emphasise it are clutching at straws.

I agree that Beeching was either naive, stupid or deliberately clueless. Again he assumed that seaside branch line stations were losing money by looking at fare box takings at that station and closed them not realising that holidaymakers bought their tickets inland. When the holiday resort lost its railway station holidaymakers deserted the railways for road coaches and cars as the only way now of reaching their holiday destination. He did not understand contributory revenue which was crucial in BR overall revenue which contributed to a seaside branch line but now lost completely to BR.
Another example of his ineptitude was Ripon. Ripon was the only main settlement between Harrogate and Northallerton. He looked at the fare box takings at Ripon on a Tuesday in February. This showed Ripon losing £18,000 per annum so decided it should close as there was another route via York but twice as long in distance but more than twice as long in time. What he didn't know and should have known was that army revenue from a large camp at Ripon was paid directly to BR by the MOD and didn't go through Ripon fare box showing Ripon line making a profit of £13,000. Ripon lost a valuable asset unnecessarily through his stupidity. It was also shown that 8% of passengers were visitor buying their tickets elsewhere which BR lost when the line closed.

The key fact in assessing the need for a place to have a railway service is the size of the local population, who might use the service all year; the actual/potential ticket sales from that place is a good way of assessing it, and Beeching was right to use this criteria, which you stated he did at Ripon, to assess core traffic. Seasonal tourist traffic, which fluctuates greatly, shouldn't really be considered as a major factor, as it requires infrastructure, trains and facilities to be provided that may only be used for a small fraction of the year.

The population of Keswick is only slightly over 5000, and it is difficult to see how a 20 mile railway re-opening can be justified for a town of this size. Its tourist traffic is barely relevant, and is best provided (as now) from a public transport perspective by additional seasonal bus services that don't require infrastructure that is used ineffectively most of the time.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Why should it be either or?

For the same reason that you haven't got (say, assuming you'd like to have, but don't possess) a four-bedroomed country house in the home counties and another near Barcelona.

Basic economics - you don't have the capital savings and you couldn't justify (or the banks wouldn't lend you) borrowing the capital for the investment.

Invest in a railway to Keswick and you have 20 miles of new railway giving rail travel opportunity to millions increasing BR revenue in additional revenue in to/from Penrith portion of the overall ticket price that BR wouldn't otherwise receive.

The opportunity would surely be there, but how many, in practice, would make use of it? I suspect you'd have numbers in the hundred-thousands rather than millions. And that would go how far in terms of both increased operating costs and investment pay back?

 

[yorksrob]

Of course the ‘second one’ was only about the (positive) Development of Major Trunk Routes between, err, major centres of industrial activity in order to satisfy the Board and government that BR could handle a hoped-for massive uplift in long-distance freight from modal shift from road and a heroic assumption of 4% compound economic growth for 20 years. It was produced by the BRB member for planning, James Ness, who as a former regional General Manager probably did know a bit about railways. It specifically stated that it wasn’t about closures and contained no further closure proposals.
Although it was the new 1964 Wilson government’s target of 4% compound growth behind it, it was his ministers’ response to later produce a Network for Development that did indeed propose further closures beyond those in the Reshaping Report. This was followed by the spiffing idea of Surplus Track Capacity [hasty elimination] Grants in Castle’s 1968 Transport Act. Long after Dr B had gone and from a government that had been elected on a pledge to halt major rail closures. You couldn’t make it up.

Well, it's perhaps not surprising that closures weren't mentioned in the report following the negative publicity from the first one. But then the Dr himself did pop up on the tellybox twenty years later suggesting that two of the lines not included might be candidates for closure.

I'm not going to defend the closures after Beeching had gone, it's clear that the labour government (64-70) saw the railway network as easy pickings, but then this wasn't exclusive to them, given that the Penrith-Keswick section closed in 1972 under the following Conservative government (70-74).

 

[nr758123]

Transport for the North have just published this, so at least linking to Keswick with integrated ticketing is on the agenda. Link is https://transportforthenorth.com/press-release/connecting-penrith-project-takes-a-step-forwards/.

On Monday (3 June), Matt Smallwood (Head of Connected Mobility) and Paul Collinge (Project Manager) were pleased to meet with partners in Penrith to advance the ‘Connecting Penrith’ project.

TfN has been busy supporting this innovative and collaborative project, which is developing evidence-based interventions for how a leisure-orientated rail station can be integrated with local destinations.

This collaboration will help passengers at Penrith (North Lakes) Station access local leisure destinations through more integrated and convenient journeys, with the development of exciting new ticket options.

Present were colleagues from Avanti West Coast, Network Rail, Stagecoach Bus, Westmorland & Furness Council, Visit Cumbria and Center Parcs UK. We discussed proposed approaches to connecting Penrith station to Keswick, the wider Lakes and a large tourism destination.

TfN has supported the project through providing multi-modal demand modelling for Penrith Station, to provide evidence for local business case development. TfN has also provided integrated transport expertise, advice and challenge to the project to develop case-studies, thought leadership and best practice for other areas.

Matt commented on the visit and said: “It was great to meet with so many stakeholders in-person in the sunny setting of Penrith. The collaborative working on show is a great example of a diverse range of partners coming together, with objective evidential support from TfN, to realise practical benefits for passengers in a key destination in the North; proper place-based and user-centric delivery in action!

“Together, we’ve been exploring interventions from integrated ticketing to Keswick, meet & greet cycle hire and getting to grips with the very real logistical challenge of moving luggage in the context of leisure journeys. These aren’t abstract thought experiments but evidenced and in progress plans that we can scale, share and develop into common approaches across similar localities across the North.”

 

[Bletchleyite]

Integrated ticketing is certainly needed - a key part of which is that if you miss your train due to a delayed or cancelled bus your Advance needs to be valid on the next service. But the simple fact of having Keswick in journey planners will make a significant difference. (Bowness and Ambleside too)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Workington used to have more chemical industry and thus freight opportunities. This has now gone weakening any business case.

 

[deltic08]

Correction: I stated Ripon-Northallerton specifically, as an example of a rural re-opening, like Workington-Keswick-Penrith, for which there is a poor business case. Harrogate-Ripon should be considered separately as there might be a possible business case for re-opening it as a "commuter" link to a major city (Leeds). However, further discussion about railways to Ripon is off topic for this thread. Experts such as @The Planner have made it clear that diversionary capability can only be a minimal part of the business case for re-opening any line - promoters who emphasise it are clutching at straws.



The key fact in assessing the need for a place to have a railway service is the size of the local population, who might use the service all year; the actual/potential ticket sales from that place is a good way of assessing it, and Beeching was right to use this criteria, which you stated he did at Ripon, to assess core traffic. Seasonal tourist traffic, which fluctuates greatly, shouldn't really be considered as a major factor, as it requires infrastructure, trains and facilities to be provided that may only be used for a small fraction of the year.

The population of Keswick is only slightly over 5000, and it is difficult to see how a 20 mile railway re-opening can be justified for a town of this size. Its tourist traffic is barely relevant, and is best provided (as now) from a public transport perspective by additional seasonal bus services that don't require infrastructure that is used ineffectively most of the time.

Do you know for a fact that Keswick-Penrith has a poor business case? Has one been done?

You cannot take the Ripon-Harrogate and Ripon-Northallerton as separate entities, they are linked. The Ripon-Harrogate line has a business case as was determined in 2004 by a Demand forecast and Engineering studies. This showed that there would be in excess of 2400 footfall per weekday at a reopened Ripon station in commuting and leisure and not counting any of the 1.2million visitors to Ripon precovid who currently have to come by road as having no alternative.
Ripon is expected to grow to 30,000 population by 2030 due to application for 2500 houses in the planning pipeline. This is where Ripon and Keswick are different. In Ripon rail travel is outward by over a million a year but Keswick has more tourists incoming per year which will not show in the Keswick booking office if there is one.
Harrogate-Northallerton as a through route and diversion route will have a business case once Ripon-Harrogate opens as 27% of all out of Ripon commuters travel to Teesside, Durham and Tyneside daily and a great proportion expressed an interest in using rail. It creates a strategic route from West Yorkshire to Teesside, Tyneside and Scotland without going via York and creates a through route for Harrogate passengers in less than half the time than currently travelling and changing at York.
Northern have said that they would introduce a Leeds to Middlesbrough train via Harrogate to connect both spheres of their operation which currently are separate and LNER will extend their Kings Cross-Harrogate services to Newcastle.

Don't defend Beeching. He was ignorant of many things to do with Ripon revenue. As well as not counting the army traffic which is still as great to-day but all goes by road including coach after coach of troop movements, many Ripon daily rail commuters worked for BR in York using official passes which again were not bought in Ripon but were issued in York.
When Beeching did his assessment in 1962, Ripon was a little under 6,000 population but now stands at three times that.

How can you say that tourist numbers to Keswick are irrelevant when millions a year go there? 100,000 visitors attend Keswick Convention each year. There used to be 2 through trains from London for the occasion as well as the daily summer only Lakes Express that was run as a full train and not a portion from Oxenholme via Penrith and strengthened local services.

Have you used the Penrith-Workington bus? I have as soon as the line closed. Never again as long as I can drive and not at all if I can't. I was able to sit at the front from Penrith on the upper deck as it was not busy and most had alighted at the villages on the way so was almost empty by the time we reached Keswick. It was much longer than the train, almost twice as long IIRC and very bumpy.

I remember talking to the Keswick station manager in 1960ish and he told me that revenue taken on the summer Sunday Whitehaven-Workingtom-Keswick excursion was enough to cover less traffic in winter.

Workington used to have more chemical industry and thus freight opportunities. This has now gone weakening any business case.

I think you are thinking about Whitehaven Marshon Works at Corckicle. There was only the Bessemer steel works at Workington with associated ore trains from Beckermet and latterly imported ore from the harbour and rails out.

 

[Falcon1200]

Harrogate-Northallerton as a through route and diversion route will have a business case once Ripon-Harrogate opens as 27% of all out of Ripon commuters travel to Teesside, Durham and Tyneside daily and a great proportion expressed an interest in using rail.

A great proportion of 27% would be how many people, roughly; Would their fares come anywhere covering the cost of running the service? (before we even begin to consider the huge sum required to, in effect, build a new railway).

many Ripon daily rail commuters worked for BR in York using official passes which again were not bought in Ripon but were issued in York.

BR staff would have travelled at reduced rate, if not for nothing, therefore not contributing greatly to the route's income! Albeit one might have expected the staff affected by the line's closure to have found a way to justify retaining it.