Might the Whitehaven tunnel issues result in closure? Could Whitehaven be brought back into use? And other speculation on this issue...

[ChrisC]

I think the Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway, and the associated tourist activity might have something to say about that, as would coast to coasters at St Bees (another lovely spot) and the people of "Whitehaven South".

I’ve just been having a look at passenger numbers after reading some recent posts in this thread. I was quite surprised to see that St Bees gets around twice the number of passengers that Ravenglass gets. I had also forgotten about the coastal village of Seascale which has slightly higher passengers than Ravenglass. I suppose that Seascale has quite a wide catchment area also including the nearby village of Gosforth.

 

[yorksrob]

I’ve just been having a look at passenger numbers after reading some recent posts in this thread. I was quite surprised to see that St Bees gets around twice the number of passengers that Ravenglass gets. I had also forgotten about the fairly sizeable village of Seascale which has actually slightly higher passengers than Ravenglass.

St Bees is quite handy for local towns such as Egremont and Cleator.

It's rather nice in its own right as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve just been having a look at passenger numbers after reading some recent posts in this thread. I was quite surprised to see that St Bees gets around twice the number of passengers that Ravenglass gets. I had also forgotten about the fairly sizeable village of Seascale which has actually slightly higher passengers than Ravenglass.

Doesn't surprise me. Ravenglass barely exists as a place (the attraction being the railway) while St Bees is bigger, and as others have said St Bees is the nominal start of the Coast to Coast (though when I did it I'm pretty certain we started in Whitehaven).

 

[Straus]

Politically its not an either/or question.

However if funding has to come out of the current budget, then NR has to get on with it. It's job is to get the railway running, not to pick and choose which lines it fancies running.

As another poster has mentioned the budget was set several years ago for the current control period and all that budget is allocated, with a small to non existent risk pot.

Bransty tunnel likely had several 100's k allocated for drainage and track maintenance but nothing else. £35M is not an insubstantial sum and must come from somewhere. The question is where is the most effective place to spend a limited budget? A limited closure on the WCML is much mor significant than a lengthy closure on the Cumbrian coast - the SAC was closed for what, 18 months? To repair a landslide. That was an easier engineering issue with the backdrop of a better funding settlement (when inflation is accounted for)

And network rail must look to the future, with rising sea levels and higher energy storm events the Cumbrian coast is likely to (at some point) become unmaintainable - how much money do you spend on interventions in the interim at the expense of resilience on 'more important' lines?

I have heard some lines have already been proposed in the long term to be mothballed.

 

[Annetts key]

Unfortunately it is an either/or question as Network Rail's funding is fixed for the control period so whatever is spent on reopening the tunnel will be money that can't be spent elsewhere in the North West.

Network Rail's funding may fixed for the control period, but there is nothing to say that a government can't provide extra funding at any time in the future.

 

[yorksrob]

As another poster has mentioned the budget was set several years ago for the current control period and all that budget is allocated, with a small to non existent risk pot.

Bransty tunnel likely had several 100's k allocated for drainage and track maintenance but nothing else. £35M is not an insubstantial sum and must come from somewhere. The question is where is the most effective place to spend a limited budget? A limited closure on the WCML is much mor significant than a lengthy closure on the Cumbrian coast - the SAC was closed for what, 18 months? To repair a landslide. That was an easier engineering issue with the backdrop of a better funding settlement (when inflation is accounted for)

And network rail must look to the future, with rising sea levels and higher energy storm events the Cumbrian coast is likely to (at some point) become unmaintainable - how much money do you spend on interventions in the interim at the expense of resilience on 'more important' lines?

I have heard some lines have already been proposed in the long term to be mothballed.

Network Rail need to have their feet held to the fire.

It is not their place to pick and choose which lines they fancy maintaining. Their job is to maintain the railway and keep it running. They need to get on with it.

 

[Straus]

Network Rail need to have their feet held to the fire.

It is not their place to pick and choose which lines they fancy maintaining. Their job is to maintain the railway and keep it running. They need to get on with it.

Ok so what do you propose is stopped to provide budget?

Strip out £35M track drainage schemes? Stop track renewals? Get rid of staff? Sell and rent back estate?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ok so what do you propose is stopped to provide budget?

Strip out £35M track drainage schemes? Stop track renewals? Get rid of staff? Sell and rent back estate?

What will probably happen is that some other works will be delayed into the next Control Period to fund it. As noted above I wouldn't really see a major issue splitting it into two branch lines permanently, and this would have some advantages, but I suspect because the area is so poor and disadvantaged that it will get done anyway - and work may be needed anyway to ensure the tunnel doesn't collapse taking whatever is on top with it, even if that doesn't extend to running trains (e.g. fill it with concrete or even turn it into a pedestrian route between the stations).

 

[yorksrob]

Ok so what do you propose is stopped to provide budget?

Strip out £35M track drainage schemes? Stop track renewals? Get rid of staff? Sell and rent back estate?

What will probably happen is that some other works will be delayed into the next Control Period to fund it. As noted above I wouldn't really see a major issue splitting it into two branch lines permanently, and this would have some advantages, but I suspect because the area is so poor and disadvantaged that it will get done anyway - and work may be needed anyway to ensure the tunnel doesn't collapse taking whatever is on top with it, even if that doesn't extend to running trains (e.g. fill it with concrete or even turn it into a pedestrian route between the stations).

Exactly. Some things will have to take longer than we would have wanted. That's just the nature of things I'm afraid.

As Harold MacMillan once said "events dear boy, events"

(That said, I see no justification whatsoever to having two long dead end branch lines facing eachother in Whitehaven for want of a tunnel).

 

[The Planner]

What will probably happen is that some other works will be delayed into the next Control Period to fund it. As noted above I wouldn't really see a major issue splitting it into two branch lines permanently, and this would have some advantages, but I suspect because the area is so poor and disadvantaged that it will get done anyway - and work may be needed anyway to ensure the tunnel doesn't collapse taking whatever is on top with it, even if that doesn't extend to running trains (e.g. fill it with concrete or even turn it into a pedestrian route between the stations).

That is already happening with a lot of work with the increased costs in CP8 that will occur due to inflation. All it does is just remove other jobs from CP8. There will be an element of managed decline on some routes, there has to be.

 

[yorksrob]

That is already happening with a lot of work with the increased costs in CP8 that will occur due to inflation. All it does is just remove other jobs from CP8. There will be an element of managed decline on some routes, there has to be.

Or Government might be forced to pay up more.

 

[Straus]

What will probably happen is that some other works will be delayed into the next Control Period to fund it. As noted above I wouldn't really see a major issue splitting it into two branch lines permanently, and this would have some advantages, but I suspect because the area is so poor and disadvantaged that it will get done anyway - and work may be needed anyway to ensure the tunnel doesn't collapse taking whatever is on top with it, even if that doesn't extend to running trains (e.g. fill it with concrete or even turn it into a pedestrian route between the stations).

The deferrals list is already pretty enormous, what happens when the risk becomes intolerable? There has to be compromise and unfortunately for the residents of the Cumbrian coast this line is of low value

 

[yorksrob]

The deferrals list is already pretty enormous, what happens when the risk becomes intolerable? There has to be compromise and unfortunately for the residents of the Cumbrian coast this line is of low value

Government has to cough up more. It does so with the roads, it will have to do do with the railway.

It would be a "brave" Government to tell residents that their line is of "low value".

 

[The Planner]

Or Government might be forced to pay up more.

They won't.

 

[HSTEd]

Government has to cough up more. It does so with the roads, it will have to do do with the railway.

The railway already costs the government as much as the entire road system.

And the government is seriously floating closing A-roads because they aren't worth maintaining in the face of deteriorating ground conditions (see Snake Pass).

There is no limitless supply of money for anything, in the end.

It would be a "brave" Government to tell residents that their line is of "low value".

Ultimately the population density is low enough that the number of seats that this can impact is very small - I think one.

If, as reported, the service south of the tunnel blockade is improved by the closure, then the level of public backlash might be rather smaller than anticipated.

 

[43096]

Government has to cough up more.

It doesn't "have to" at all.

 

[Pinus contorta]

The railway already costs the government as much as the entire road system.

And the government is seriously floating closing A-roads because they aren't worth maintaining in the face of deteriorating ground conditions (see Snake Pass).

There is no limitless supply of money for anything, in the end.

Ultimately the population density is low enough that the number of seats that this can impact is very small - I think one.

If, as reported, the service south of the tunnel blockade is improved by the closure, then the level of public backlash might be rather smaller than anticipated.

The service is a bit hit and miss when there's crew shortages ( like everywhere else) there can be long periods without anything running. 2 hours or more either you sit twiddling your thumbs or don't travel.

The train company have done their best with the resources available. If there's no extra money to fill the hole then this is probably the new normal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Making it safe for the properties above is a much easier task than safe for the passage of trains.

You could fill with foamed concrete for a few 100k, you might even bypass liability for mines drainage that way.

I'd be surprised if they managed to do that for 100K or even 300K, consider railway inflation 100K will barely build a house in 2025.

I'd agree it would be cheaper though.

I think this is a unique case of a situation where it would be hugely cheaper to close the tunnel and not that disadvantageous given the main passenger flows on the route and the simplification of operations running it as two branch lines would provide for (as I outlined above, hourly extensions of the Barrows to Millom with two hourly ish extensions based on Sellafield shifts to Whitehaven South/Corkickle* plus an hourly extension of the Newcastle-Carlisle to Whitehaven Central would be a very usable service pattern and very much in line with demand and would allow the Barrow side operation to be simplified to exclusively use Class 195 units** as well as offering stations a direct service to Manchester Airport which don't presently have one).

However I do still think the tunnel work will be done unless it proves totally impossible because it would be politically difficult to "abandon" the generally quite poor population of West Cumbria. I do however think it might take a while to do it. After all money is always found to patch up the Conwy Valley yet again (though I do think a major collapse in Ffestiniog tunnel would probably result in closure south of Betws on that route) and that's needed every few years, not once since it was built!

* That renaming might well make sense though Corkickle is such an odd, quirky name I'd love to see it on the big display at Manchester Piccadilly!
** In the event of insufficient Class 195s to do this, some could be released from the east Manchester locals, sending 15x there instead.

 

[35B]

Government has to cough up more. It does so with the roads, it will have to do do with the railway.

It would be a "brave" Government to tell residents that their line is of "low value".

It doesn’t with the roads and, just because something is vitally important to you, it isn’t necessarily vitally important to the population as a whole.

For an example, look at hospital A&E closures countrywide over decades.

 

[yorksrob]

It doesn’t with the roads and, just because something is vitally important to you, it isn’t necessarily vitally important to the population as a whole.

For an example, look at hospital A&E closures countrywide over decades.

It does with the roads.

When's the last time the Government's closed a regional road link without a replacement ? The one in Edale in the 1970's probably.

The Cumbrian coast route isn't vitally important to me - it is to Cumbria.

 

[35B]

It does with the roads.

When's the last time the Government's closed a regional road link without a replacement ? The one in Edale in the 1970's probably.

Closed, maybe. Reduced maintenance, allowed managed decline, downgraded, dumped on local councils. Routine. Meanwhile, what about those A&E closures I asked about?

 

[yorksrob]

And the government is seriously floating closing A-roads because they aren't worth maintaining in the face of deteriorating ground conditions (see Snake Pass).

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2025 ==

Closed, maybe. Reduced maintenance, allowed managed decline, downgraded, dumped on local councils. Routine. Meanwhile, what about those A&E closures I asked about?

That's not the same as closed though, is it.

If you want to talk about A&E closures, perhaps you ought to join a hospitals UK forum ?

 

[35B]

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2025 ==



That's not the same as closed though, is it.

If you want to talk about A&E closures, perhaps you ought to join a hospitals UK forum ?

Or perhaps you might want to consider how governments behave, and the lack of political penalties for that behaviour?

There’s been a strong campaign here in Grantham against A&E closure, yet it’s made no electoral difference despite the downgrading of services that the local community feel are important.

I am taking that as my starting point for the credibility of assertions that the closure of this lightly used line in a remote corner of the country would have if it were to be advanced.

 

[yorksrob]

Or perhaps you might want to consider how governments behave, and the lack of political penalties for that behaviour?

There’s been a strong campaign here in Grantham against A&E closure, yet it’s made no electoral difference despite the downgrading of services that the local community feel are important.

I am taking that as my starting point for the credibility of assertions that the closure of this lightly used line in a remote corner of the country would have if it were to be advanced.

It would create a hell of a stink locally, and whereas people generally only have to visit A&E occasionally (health services more generally being provided through many other local organisations) closure of the railway would cause long term hardship for many residents across the region.

Perhaps a more meaningful analogy would be leaving a large town without any A&E, hospital, GP surgeries or district nurses etc.

 

[35B]

It would create a hell of a stink locally, and whereas people generally only have to visit A&E occasionally (health services more generally being provided through many other local organisations) closure of the railway would cause long term hardship for many residents across the region.

Perhaps a more meaningful analogy would be leaving a large town without any A&E, hospital, GP surgeries or district nurses etc.

Two points. First, you elevate the railway to disproportionate importance if you assume that closing one transport mode is equivalent to the removal of all healthcare. Second, more importantly, you massively overrate the importance of the railway, and its political salience. Even if you were right about the local politics, there are only 5 constituencies in the whole of Cumbria.

 

[yorksrob]

Two points. First, you elevate the railway to disproportionate importance if you assume that closing one transport mode is equivalent to the removal of all healthcare. Second, more importantly, you massively overrate the importance of the railway, and its political salience. Even if you were right about the local politics, there are only 5 constituencies in the whole of Cumbria.

A popular Conservative government might have some leeway to ignore those five constituencies. A struggling labour government less so.

The Cumbrian coast line is the only passenger railway for miles around. Not repairing/rebuilding this tunnel would be a terrible and shortsighted setback for the area.

 

[35B]

A popular Conservative government might have some leeway to ignore those five constituencies. A struggling labour government less so.

The Cumbrian coast line is the only passenger railway for miles around. Not repairing/rebuilding this tunnel would be a terrible and shortsighted setback for the area.

I happen to agree with you that it is best the line stays open, and the tunnel is repaired. My issue is implausible and over-dramatic language. It is not convincing, and harms the case - I referred to discussion of Grantham A&E, where a centrepiece of the campaign was "what if there's a train crash", which is so rare an event as to be meaningless.

I would genuinely be surprised if even a thousand votes turned on the future of the line, and I suspect that they would be spread across a number of constituencies. Established voting patterns and other issues would dominate much more

 

[Straus]

It would create a hell of a stink locally, and whereas people generally only have to visit A&E occasionally (health services more generally being provided through many other local organisations) closure of the railway would cause long term hardship for many residents across the region.

Perhaps a more meaningful analogy would be leaving a large town without any A&E, hospital, GP surgeries or district nurses etc.

I really think you're overstating the local importance. The line for this section has passenger numbers of around 4-700/day (Vs approx 300,000 on WCML), for a large portion of the local population it isn't seen as very important.

 

[yorksrob]

I happen to agree with you that it is best the line stays open, and the tunnel is repaired. My issue is implausible and over-dramatic language. It is not convincing, and harms the case - I referred to discussion of Grantham A&E, where a centrepiece of the campaign was "what if there's a train crash", which is so rare an event as to be meaningless.

I would genuinely be surprised if even a thousand votes turned on the future of the line, and I suspect that they would be spread across a number of constituencies. Established voting patterns and other issues would dominate much more

I disagree that its over-dramatic to point out that the railway is an important transport link for the region. In terms of Grantham's A&E, they could point to any number of potential mass casualty events as a reason for staying open, however my knowledge of NHS issues is limited, so I wouldn't know whether the next one is too far away.

I really think you're overstating the local importance. The line for this section has passenger numbers of around 4-700/day (Vs approx 300,000 on WCML), for a large portion of the local population it isn't seen as very important.

I don't think the InterCity main line to Scotland should be taken as a comparator for regional routes. Those 700 a day won't all be the same people every day, so they could represent a much larger proportion of the population. Its also possible that usage of the route is depressed by a relatively sparse service.

 

[MatthewHutton]

100K will barely build a house in 2025.

Mine has a rebuild cost of over £300k and it’s far from massive.

I really think you're overstating the local importance. The line for this section has passenger numbers of around 4-700/day (Vs approx 300,000 on WCML), for a large portion of the local population it isn't seen as very important.

Gosh. That is tiny tiny.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2025 ==

I don't think the InterCity main line to Scotland should be taken as a comparator for regional routes. Those 700 a day won't all be the same people every day, so they could represent a much larger proportion of the population. Its also possible that usage of the route is depressed by a relatively sparse service

If it’s at least 2-hourly it’s frequent enough that service enhancement would lead to a linear increase in passenger numbers. And probably honestly it largely works as two branch lines.