Reopen Penrith to Workington via Keswick

[yorksrob]

I shall certainly give this bus connection a try.

If popular, it could help to prove the case for reinstatement of the railway. It will be interesting to see how long the journey takes, as this has generally been the downfall of bus alternatives in my experience.

 

[Falcon1200]

If popular, it could help to prove the case for reinstatement of the railway.

If popular it would surely prove exactly the opposite! In that people are prepared to use a bus service that suits their needs.

 

[yorksrob]

If popular it would surely prove exactly the opposite! In that people are prepared to use a bus service that suits their needs.

Well, we're often told on these pages things along the lines of, "this route can barely support a bus service so a railway has no chance", so it stands to reason that if the bus does well, it could point to the need for a fixed link.

Unless it's a case of the anti-rail brigade trying to have it both ways.

 

[Falcon1200]

so it stands to reason that if the bus does well, it could point to the need for a fixed link.

Again, I would argue the exact opposite; If the bus service does well it is obviously fulfilling the transport need, and at far, far less cost than (effectively) building a new railway and subsidising its operation.

I am very much pro-rail, when rail is the right solution, eg HS2, in its complete form. A branch line in an area of low population is a different matter.

 

[zwk500]

Well, we're often told on these pages things along the lines of, "this route can barely support a bus service so a railway has no chance", so it stands to reason that if the bus does well, it could point to the need for a fixed link.

Unless it's a case of the anti-rail brigade trying to have it both ways.

Remember that patronage is only 1 side of a rail case.

I agree with you that a well-loaded bus link will help the rail case. However it will not do anything material towards proving it. A bus is, by definition, much lower capacity but this is balanced by it's much lower costs. At the moment the bus service in rail journey planners is every half hour, and a bus takes 40-50 people, or approximately 1/2-2/3rds of a single rail carriage. A single rail car shuttling up and down the branch every half hour will need the absolute cheapest costs.

Now for a bit of feasibility. A route broadly following the A66 is c.15 miles, and to keep costs down we'll go with a target speed of 60mph. That gives a flat-out journey time of 15 minutes, plus 1 minute at either end for acceleration/deceleration, so 17 minutes. As it's a short journey and train we'll assume a 3 minute turnround at Keswick is feasible. That gives 17+3+17 - 37 minutes between wheels start and wheels stop at Penrith. So we need a 2nd unit and loop/platform on the branch. This massively increases the infrastructure costs as you now can't just have a single axle counter at the top of the branch and One Train in Section. It also increases crew and unit running costs.

You could reduce the service to hourly - this would certainly allow a simple single-track with plenty of room at Penrith for connections. This would be balanced with the reduced journey opportunities as connections are longer and the service itself less frequent. This is a classic line where if it had never closed, it'd be getting an hourly service trundling on unable to be improved or removed. However given the season nature of the traffic, 1tph with the additional buses in high traffic period might well be sufficient for what the line is meant to do.

For reference, to go the other way - to achieve a reliable 2tph service with a single unit you'll want 10 minutes turnround between the two termini (3 minutes at Keswick might be viable but you don't want every train on minimum margins, if you're extending other services down the branch you'll want about 10 at Keswick to provide resilience), so you have 10 minutes for the journey each way. Remembering we're adding a minute for acceleration and braking at each end, that's a journey of 15 miles in 8 minutes, which is 112.5mph. Of course, the higher your top speed the longer you'll spend accelerating and braking so we're now talking a 125mph railway, defeating the point of 'low cost'.

 

[yorksrob]

Again, I would argue the exact opposite; If the bus service does well it is obviously fulfilling the transport need, and at far, far less cost than (effectively) building a new railway and subsidising its operation.

I am very much pro-rail, when rail is the right solution, eg HS2, in its complete form. A branch line in an area of low population is a different matter.

I dare say that there are many rail routes today where a bus service would do well - without railway competition. That doesn't mean to say that it would be the "right" solution.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2024 ==

Remember that patronage is only 1 side of a rail case.

I agree with you that a well-loaded bus link will help the rail case. However it will not do anything material towards proving it. A bus is, by definition, much lower capacity but this is balanced by it's much lower costs. At the moment the bus service in rail journey planners is every half hour, and a bus takes 40-50 people, or approximately 1/2-2/3rds of a single rail carriage. A single rail car shuttling up and down the branch every half hour will need the absolute cheapest costs.

Now for a bit of feasibility. A route broadly following the A66 is c.15 miles, and to keep costs down we'll go with a target speed of 60mph. That gives a flat-out journey time of 15 minutes, plus 1 minute at either end for acceleration/deceleration, so 17 minutes. As it's a short journey and train we'll assume a 3 minute turnround at Keswick is feasible. That gives 17+3+17 - 37 minutes between wheels start and wheels stop at Penrith. So we need a 2nd unit and loop/platform on the branch. This massively increases the infrastructure costs as you now can't just have a single axle counter at the top of the branch and One Train in Section. It also increases crew and unit running costs.

You could reduce the service to hourly - this would certainly allow a simple single-track with plenty of room at Penrith for connections. This would be balanced with the reduced journey opportunities as connections are longer and the service itself less frequent. This is a classic line where if it had never closed, it'd be getting an hourly service trundling on unable to be improved or removed. However given the season nature of the traffic, 1tph with the additional buses in high traffic period might well be sufficient for what the line is meant to do.

For reference, to go the other way - to achieve a reliable 2tph service with a single unit you'll want 10 minutes turnround between the two termini (3 minutes at Keswick might be viable but you don't want every train on minimum margins, if you're extending other services down the branch you'll want about 10 at Keswick to provide resilience), so you have 10 minutes for the journey each way. Remembering we're adding a minute for acceleration and braking at each end, that's a journey of 15 miles in 8 minutes, which is 112.5mph. Of course, the higher your top speed the longer you'll spend accelerating and braking so we're now talking a 125mph railway, defeating the point of 'low cost'.

It does sound like such a route could do with a loop and the sort of "radio" signalling employed on longer, more remote lines.

 

[Falcon1200]

I dare say that there are many rail routes today where a bus service would do well - without railway competition. That doesn't mean to say that it would be the "right" solution.

I agree! However an existing line with a passenger service, or a freight-only line over which a passenger service could be introduced, is a very different matter from having to build, pretty much from scratch, a new line.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree! However an existing line with a passenger service, or a freight-only line over which a passenger service could be introduced, is a very different matter from having to build, pretty much from scratch, a new line.

Maybe true to an extent, however the Borders route has shown that replacing lifted lines can make sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again, I would argue the exact opposite; If the bus service does well it is obviously fulfilling the transport need

Depends on how many cars are still found on the road which could be parked in something like a Swiss style P&R in Penrith instead of going into the National Park at all!

I am very much pro-rail, when rail is the right solution, eg HS2, in its complete form. A branch line in an area of low population is a different matter.

It's important to realise that, at least in tourist season, while the Lake District and Snowdonia are rural, the transport demands are very akin to a city because of the huge influx.

 

[D6130]

A bit disappointed to see it marketed as a 'virtual train station' as it still hints to a fear of being honest about integrated transport including buses. However extremely good to see it being done, now to get more fares added in (ideally just have it as an extra add on so anywhere with a fare to Penrith also has a fare to Keswick), and advertise it strongly. Hopefully it's a roaring success (you'd think there's plenty of trade for it over the summer) and then it will foster more rail-bus links elsewhere around the country.

Fully agree....but the potential problem is: Do the operators concerned - especially Avanti - have the capacity to absorb the extra traffic that would be generated?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fully agree....but the potential problem is: Do the operators concerned - especially Avanti - have the capacity to absorb the extra traffic that would be generated?

On the basis that I can't remember ever not getting a seat on an Avanti train outside of severe disruption or the one immediately after the end of the peak from Euston, I don't see why they wouldn't.

 

[daodao]

however the Borders route has shown that replacing lifted lines can make sense.

It's important to realise that, at least in tourist season, while the Lake District and Snowdonia are rural, the transport demands are very akin to a city because of the huge influx.

There is a big difference between a rural line linking 2 places of minor importance, such as Penrith and Keswick, with a good parallel road essentially free of congestion, and a commuter line into a major city such as Edinburgh. Tourist traffic on high days and holidays can be high, but is very unpredictable and isn't year round; building, running and maintaining infrastructure and rolling stock for such intermittent use is very expensive.

Re-opening the Keswick-Penrith line for tourist demand is not warranted - look at the waste of money in re-opening the Welsh Highland Railway and the unsustainability of a regular scheduled service on it.

The line between Penrith and Keswick survived as a single track line until early 1972, so running a simple shuttle paytrain service with reduced costs was trialled for some years post Beeching, and presumably then deemed non-viable.

 

[Neptune]

Maybe true to an extent, however the Borders route has shown that replacing lifted lines can make sense.

I will always argue that a commuter line into a major city is viable as is proved by the borders. The bonus is that this route works in both directions.

Pure rural routes are seasonal at best and if alternative decent public transport can be provided that doesn’t necessarily run on rails (an nth of the cost of a rebuilt railway) then where is the problem? Buses can even access the places that trains could never so even better for tourism.

 

[zwk500]

Maybe true to an extent, however the Borders route has shown that replacing lifted lines can make sense.

Replacing *some* lines can make sense. And that is a very important qualification.

It's important to realise that, at least in tourist season, while the Lake District and Snowdonia are rural, the transport demands are very akin to a city because of the huge influx.

Comparing these areas to a city is, to be frank, nonsense. The travel patterns are completely incomparable, the destination sites are quite dispersed and have very different hours of high and low demand compared to a traditional city with centre and suburbs, or even a multipolar city like London. It would be far more accurate to say 'in tourist season the effective population of these areas multiplies by a substantial factor. The key question this prompts though is whether or not the tourist season is sustained enough to justify the extra costs of the infrastructure proposed for the rest of the year. The tourists will also help offset the capital costs of the overall project with the wider economic impacts, of course.

 

[yorksrob]

There is a big difference between a rural line linking 2 places of minor importance, such as Penrith and Keswick, with a good parallel road essentially free of congestion, and a commuter line into a major city such as Edinburgh. Tourist traffic on high days and holidays can be high, but is very unpredictable and isn't year round; building, running and maintaining infrastructure and rolling stock for such intermittent use is very expensive.

Re-opening the Keswick-Penrith line for tourist demand is not warranted - look at the waste of money in re-opening the Welsh Highland Railway and the unsustainability of a regular scheduled service on it.

The line between Penrith and Keswick survived as a single track line until early 1972, so running a simple shuttle paytrain service with reduced costs was trialled for some years post Beeching, and presumably then deemed non-viable.

The interesting thing about the Borders line is that everyone thought that local journeys nearer to Edinburgh would be the more lucrative. Yet as it turned out, the more distant, rural settlements on the line saw much higher than expected growth.

Penrith might not seem like a big place, but it is infact a very busy railway hub taking people further afield. This would likely be boosted by better public transport links to the lakes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Penrith might not seem like a big place, but it is infact a very busy railway hub taking people further afield. This would likely be boosted by better public transport links to the lakes.

I certainly can't see why it'd be any quieter than the Windermere branch. And that's now getting 6-car trains at busy times.

 

[zwk500]

The interesting thing about the Borders line is that everyone thought that local journeys nearer to Edinburgh would be the more lucrative. Yet as it turned out, the more distant, rural settlements on the line saw much higher than expected growth.

Ahem, https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/richard.rowson/viz/RailODManalysis/Topdestinationsbystation

Selecting all stations south of Newcraighall (exclusive), Edinburgh (Haymarket and Waverley) is nearly 60% of all journeys on the Borders line.
Glasgow Queen Street is more popular than Galashiels.

Penrith might not seem like a big place, but it is infact a very busy railway hub taking people further afield. This would likely be boosted by better public transport links to the lakes.

'very' is doing some seriously heavy lifting there. It has 500,000 entries and exits a year.

 

[yorksrob]

Replacing *some* lines can make sense. And that is a very important qualification.

Comparing these areas to a city is, to be frank, nonsense. The travel patterns are completely incomparable, the destination sites are quite dispersed and have very different hours of high and low demand compared to a traditional city with centre and suburbs, or even a multipolar city like London. It would be far more accurate to say 'in tourist season the effective population of these areas multiplies by a substantial factor. The key question this prompts though is whether or not the tourist season is sustained enough to justify the extra costs of the infrastructure proposed for the rest of the year. The tourists will also help offset the capital costs of the overall project with the wider economic impacts, of course.

If you take the St Ives line, the travel patterns are very similar to a city metro.

Closer to home, one only has to look at Penrith itself to see that it is busy all year round, yet it's not exactly a classic commuter source to any of the big cities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2024 ==

Ahem, https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/richard.rowson/viz/RailODManalysis/Topdestinationsbystation
View attachment 160545
Selecting all stations south of Newcraighall (exclusive), Edinburgh (Haymarket and Waverley) is nearly 60% of all journeys on the Borders line.
Glasgow Queen Street is more popular than Galashiels.

'very' is doing some seriously heavy lifting there. It has 500,000 entries and exits a year.

What I meant to say was that the outer stations rather exceeded their predictions before opening.

 

[zwk500]

If you take the St Ives line, the travel patterns are very similar to a city metro.

The service runs to a metro because that's the only way it works. But I struggle to believe that 90% of the traffic arrives in a 3-hour window in the morning and leaves in a 3-hour window in the evening. St Ives is busy through the day in summer, as holidaymakers work to a less rigid schedule. In a way, that can be a benefit! But let's not go deluding ourselves about the lakes turning into Manchester for 3 months of the summer.

Closer to home, one only has to look at Penrith itself to see that it is busy all year round, yet it's not exactly a classic commuter source to any of the big cities.

Penrith, population just under 17,000, 0.5m entries and exits at the station. Lewes (also a honeypot tourist town on the edge of a National Park), population just over 17,000, 2.5million entries and exits.
I don't deny Penrith is a hub for the lake district. but lets set our scales correctly.

What I was saying was that the outer stations rather exceeded their predictions before opening.

Could you link to these predictions please to demonstrate your point?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Penrith, population just under 17,000, 0.5m entries and exits at the station. Lewes (also a honeypot tourist town on the edge of a National Park), population just over 17,000, 2.5million entries and exits.
I don't deny Penrith is a hub for the lake district. but lets set our scales correctly.

Lewes is a London commuter town (admittedly a long commute, but a goodly proportion of those 2.5 million will be doing it). Many will also commute to Brighton. They are not comparable.

No station on the former Network SouthEast is really comparable with any station outside of that area because of that particular source of massive demand.

I suspect there may well be a few weekly or Tues, Weds and Thurs London "commuters" at Penrith though, but the number will be comparatively small.

 

[Tetchytyke]

'very' is doing some seriously heavy lifting there. It has 500,000 entries and exits a year.

Given that Penrith's population is 16,000, that suggests that Penrith serves as an important rail hub for much of the north lakes.

The key question this prompts though is whether or not the tourist season is sustained enough to justify the extra costs of the infrastructure proposed for the rest of the year.

Which in this case it would be- the Lake District is busy all year around.

The line between Penrith and Keswick survived as a single track line until early 1972, so running a simple shuttle paytrain service with reduced costs was trialled for some years post Beeching, and presumably then deemed non-viable.

Lots of things were deemed non-viable in the 1970s which, only a few short years later, was shown to be a very much mistaken opinion.

The Keswick branch should never have closed. If it had survived another few years it wouldn't have closed. But now that it is closed, and so much of the trackbed put to other uses, the costs of reinstating it would be too high to be justifiable. There's also an A66-shaped obstacle in the way.

Just had a look at the timetable for that.

Might take advantage of the £2 fares and do the full route.

If you're spending the day in the Lakes, the Stagecoach North West Explorer at £12 is already extremely good value.

 

[yorksrob]

The service runs to a metro because that's the only way it works. But I struggle to believe that 90% of the traffic arrives in a 3-hour window in the morning and leaves in a 3-hour window in the evening. St Ives is busy through the day in summer, as holidaymakers work to a less rigid schedule. In a way, that can be a benefit! But let's not go deluding ourselves about the lakes turning into Manchester for 3 months of the summer.

Penrith, population just under 17,000, 0.5m entries and exits at the station. Lewes (also a honeypot tourist town on the edge of a National Park), population just over 17,000, 2.5million entries and exits.
I don't deny Penrith is a hub for the lake district. but lets set our scales correctly.

Could you link to these predictions please to demonstrate your point?

It was @Bald Rick in 2019 who alerted me about the point regarding the outer stations:

Borders Railway Extension: suggestions on how this should progress

They'll be cheering in the streets of Hawick the day it's extended there. Maybe it could be called the McLaren extension?

www.railforums.co.uk

Sorry I may have misrepresented what I meant.

I didn’t mean that the scheme has to benefit all of Scotland, far from it. Very few infrastructure projects, or works of public service for that matter, will benefit anything but a small proportion of the country.

What I meant was that for the amount of money spent, both up front and on an ongoing basis, there would likely be more benefits, to more people, if it was spent elsewhere in Scotland on other projects, and therefore the other projects should be afforded priority.

As an aside passenger numbers have not far exceeded expectations. They are just about on target. It is true that there are more coming from Tweedbank / Gala than expected, but this is offset by fewer coming from the Lothian stations.

I'm familiar with Lewes and the South Downs area and their beauty, however Lewes does have the obvious additional passenger source of being in the commuter belt, both to London and Brighton, so it's not surprising it has a lot more passengers.

In terms of St Ives, it's probably more efficient than a London commuter railway because as with most tourist oriented routes, whilst they might be more seasonal, they are generally less "peaky", i.e. they get a steadier flow throughout the day.

 

[daodao]

Penrith might not seem like a big place, but it is infact a very busy railway hub taking people further afield. This would likely be boosted by better public transport links to the lakes.

Penrith already has good public transport links to the lakes by existing relatively frequent regular bus services to Derwentwater and Ullswater. This is publicised by the station name of Penrith North Lakes, formerly Penrith for Ullswater.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Can I ask an operating question about the layout at Penrith?
The ‘Down Loop/Slow’ through Platform 3 is one of the few loops north of Preston capable of holding a long freight train, such as an intermodal. It is not unusual to overtake such a train when stopping or passing through on a passenger service.
I am not clear how a hypothetical reinstated passenger line to Keswick would interact with this. Would there have to be an independent ‘fourth line’ for the branch shuttle, with associated extra platform, connecting pointwork, extended footbridge and lift, etc.?

 

[zwk500]

Can I ask an operating question about the layout at Penrith?
The ‘Down Loop/Slow’ through Platform 3 is one of the few loops north of Preston capable of holding a long freight train, such as an intermodal. It is not unusual to overtake such a train when stopping or passing through on a passenger service.
I am not clear how a hypothetical reinstated passenger line to Keswick would interact with this. Would there have to be an independent ‘fourth line’ for the branch shuttle, with associated extra platform, connecting pointwork, extended footbridge and lift, etc.?

If you are keeping costs as low as absolutely possible, the Shuttle would connect into the down slow just before it crosses the M6 and there would be an extra signal or 2 added to permit departures towards Keswick. Freight would have to be held further back or sent onwards to Carlisle if the shuttle was turning up when it was due to be there.
However if you provide a new bridge over the M6, you could shift the turnout further north, but still south of platform 3. You'd need to rejig signal positions but you'd be able to preserve 800m+ of standage on the Down Slow without blocking a branch shuttle coming in and out of the existing platform. A single track bridge over the motorway would be a bit of a hit in the budget though.

 

[yorksrob]

Penrith already has good public transport links to the lakes by existing relatively frequent regular bus services to Derwentwater and Ullswater. This is publicised by the station name of Penrith North Lakes, formerly Penrith for Ullswater.

It does - but it could still have better !

 

[The Prisoner]

Can I ask an operating question about the layout at Penrith?
The ‘Down Loop/Slow’ through Platform 3 is one of the few loops north of Preston capable of holding a long freight train, such as an intermodal. It is not unusual to overtake such a train when stopping or passing through on a passenger service.
I am not clear how a hypothetical reinstated passenger line to Keswick would interact with this. Would there have to be an independent ‘fourth line’ for the branch shuttle, with associated extra platform, connecting pointwork, extended footbridge and lift, etc.?

There is a disused bay (track lifted) between platforms 2 and 3, albeit that would be accessed via the loop. You could pull the track approaching platform 3 further out to make a duel track approach allowing reinstated bay and freight to co-esist

Not sure how many times a day that loop in 3 is used, but I would imagine a 60-90 minute interval shuttle to Keswick could stay out of the way of freight needing to use platform 3

 

[zwk500]

There is a disused bay (track lifted) between platforms 2 and 3, albeit that would be accessed via the loop. You could pull the track approaching platform 3 further out to make a duel track approach allowing reinstated bay and freight to co-esist

Except the shuttle would be trapped in the bay by any freight holding in 3, as they're rather long.

Not sure how many times a day that loop in 3 is used, but I would imagine a 60-90 minute interval shuttle to Keswick could stay out of the way of freight needing to use platform 3

The loop is long enough that you could put in another signal to hold freight south of the station while the shuttle uses the platform.
However the shuttle would need to be every 60 minutes at the minimum, probably going to 30 minute intervals in peak season.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Thanks for the replies on the Penrith layout. (I have, in fact, used the old bay during the period of the Penrith-Keswick ‘shuttle’ around 1970.)
I’m still not entirely convinced that a revived branch service could somehow be timetabled ‘round’ freight use of the loop. Surely the whole point is that the loop might be used at any time during disruption, let alone when it might be occupied for an extended period during a failure. We are regularly reminded on these forums of the desirability of ‘working to the point of obstruction’ during problems on the WCML rather than pulling off all Avanti services north of Preston. If this were to be achieved in either direction at Penrith it is easy to see how Platform 3 might be occupied for extended periods (and desirably extended to 11 cars).

 

[yorksrob]

Thanks for the replies on the Penrith layout. (I have, in fact, used the old bay during the period of the Penrith-Keswick ‘shuttle’ around 1970.)

I'm extremely envious.