Closure of Bransty Tunnel (near Whitehaven) expected until further notice

[yorksrob]

It probably isn't. It'll be hugely expensive and for very small benefit. I suspect it'll make the formerly bi-annual rebuild of the Conwy Valley (not been necessary since those rocks were dumped there to protect it) look cheap.

Compared to many road schemes I'm sure it won't be that much. Well worth it to keep the railway service running.

 

[Gloster]

At the end of January the Whitehaven MP said in his column in the local papers that an announcement on the work required to open Bransty Tunnel would come in the coming weeks. Since then I can find nothing. (In case anyone is going to have a go at the MP, the original column was of a much higher standard, more realistic and properly considered than the usual waffle that MPs put out.)

 

[Ridgeblog]

Did they maybe get stuck on who they will allocate the whole project and be put in charge of due to lack of interest and/or funding?

 

[JModulo]

At the end of January the Whitehaven MP said in his column in the local papers that an announcement on the work required to open Bransty Tunnel would come in the coming weeks. Since then I can find nothing. (In case anyone is going to have a go at the MP, the original column was of a much higher standard, more realistic and properly considered than the usual waffle that MPs put out.)

Was that per chance from the same MP who pledged to have it open last year, and then again this year (unlikely).

 

[Carlisle]

Did they maybe get stuck on who they will allocate the whole project and be put in charge of due to lack of interest and/or funding?

Id heard something similar in that a firm was appointed & then withdrew for whatever reason.

 

[Straus]

Probably too many liabilities to sort out, and a very difficult to price job

 

[Pinus contorta]

I read somewhere in one of the magazine last month said that the EA want the iron ore brown sludge sorting out so the railways hands are tied if there was a plan in place but doesn't fit the specification or timescale of the EA.

 

[thenorthern]

Was that per chance from the same MP who pledged to have it open last year, and then again this year (unlikely).

He must be annoyed as Whitehaven since 2017 has been a marginal seat. Every day the tunnel is closed he loses more votes.

 

[Straus]

I don't think the MP has much sway here to be honest, they're obviously important in discussions but I don't think they'll alter the direction of travel at all

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I can't remember which magazine I read it in, but I recall reading Network Rail do have a design for a permanent fix now but it hasn't been started yet.

That's Rail issue 1058, I think - I read it a couple of days ago.

 

[ChilliSauce]

That's Rail issue 1058, I think - I read it a couple of days ago.

What is annoying is the failure of Northern to run the same level of service between Barrow and Corkicle that existed prior to the tunnel closure.

This failure does nothing for retention of passenger numbers between say Millom and Barrow.

At this rate by the time the tunnel is fixed there will be no great passengers numbers left to use it or other sections of the Cumbrian coast line as most will of found other means of transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is annoying is the failure of Northern to run the same level of service between Barrow and Corkicle that existed prior to the tunnel closure.

This failure does nothing for retention of passenger numbers between say Millom and Barrow.

At this rate by the time the tunnel is fixed there will be no great passengers numbers left to use it or other sections of the Cumbrian coast line as most will of found other means of transport.

I doubt it will make much difference to the one man and his dog and bicycle in the middle to be honest.

I suspect the reason is that they require more units/crews to operate it this way.

 

[yorksrob]

I doubt it will make much difference to the one man and his dog and bicycle in the middle to be honest.

I suspect the reason is that they require more units/crews to operate it this way.

It was always well used when I've been on it (admittedly this was before the tunnel problems. Not sure what effect this is all having).

 

[Pinus contorta]

I doubt it will make much difference to the one man and his dog and bicycle in the middle to be honest.

I suspect the reason is that they require more units/crews to operate it this way.

On at least one or two occasions last month the timetabled service went to Corkickle in service but came back to Barrow ECS. In order to maintain some semblance of a service instead of binning the whole lot. So it must be one guard works out and another back.

The Transport Trust are filling in with RRBs on some occasions when this happens.

Think they are duty bound to get folks home if the last train is binned. So that's possibly why this has happened.

 

[ScottGallagher]

What is annoying is the failure of Northern to run the same level of service between Barrow and Corkicle that existed prior to the tunnel closure.

This failure does nothing for retention of passenger numbers between say Millom and Barrow.

At this rate by the time the tunnel is fixed there will be no great passengers numbers left to use it or other sections of the Cumbrian coast line as most will of found other means of transport.

Back in the 90s a lot of the trains only went as far as Millom whether they started from Barrow or Lancaster (pacers or 153's) and the timetable was nearly half what it meant to be now. You now have a 9.26 from Millom.to Barrow which continues to Lancaster then nothing until nearly midday!

 

[StoneRoad]

It was always well used when I've been on it (admittedly this was before the tunnel problems. Not sure what effect this is all having).

The few trips I've made since the tunnel closure have been about the same loadings as prior.
How busy depends on the time of day - and, as you know, some traffic is heavily directional at certain times ...

 

[yorksrob]

The few trips I've made since the tunnel closure have been about the same loadings as prior.
How busy depends on the time of day - and, as you know, some traffic is heavily directional at certain times ...

Sounds promising, in terms of demand holding up.

Thinking of the coast geographically, I find it hard to imagine any meaningful justification for permanent severance.

 

[Straus]

Sounds promising, in terms of demand holding up.

Thinking of the coast geographically, I find it hard to imagine any meaningful justification for permanent severance.

Prohibitive cost and very very little income

 

[StoneRoad]

FYI

Rail 1058 [15April2026] has piece on page 17 ---

Network Rail claim to have a solution designed, but are now waiting for a permit from the Environment Agency because of the "iron Ochre" from historic mine workings ...

The estimated £49 million cost can only increase the longer it takes to do the work !

 

[37069]

My hope is that someone (the EA ideally) is actually interested in finding out where this iron ochre is actually coming from (so that it can be dealt with permanently), rather than just managed for now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Prohibitive cost and very very little income

Also probably operationally easier to run the top bit using 15x from the Newcastle side and the bottom bit using 195s from Barrow if it was permanent.

However indications at the moment do seem to be that it will get fixed, it will just take a while as it is major work.

 

[yorksrob]

FYI

Rail 1058 [15April2026] has piece on page 17 ---

Network Rail claim to have a solution designed, but are now waiting for a permit from the Environment Agency because of the "iron Ochre" from historic mine workings ...

The estimated £49 million cost can only increase the longer it takes to do the work !

This would be a case where central Government needs to lean on the EA to get a permit provided ASAP.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2026 ==

Also probably operationally easier to run the top bit using 15x from the Newcastle side and the bottom bit using 195s from Barrow if it was permanent.

Chopping railways for operational convenience would set a very poor precedent.

 

[185143]

This would be a case where central Government needs to lean on the EA to get a permit provided ASAP.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2026 ==



Chopping railways for operational convenience would set a very poor precedent.

Understatement of the millennium!

 

[EYFanatic]

Strange question to ask, but given its been closed for a long time, when/if it reopens, will crews have to relearn?

 

[35B]

This would be a case where central Government needs to lean on the EA to get a permit provided ASAP.

I suspect the legislation puts the power in the hands of the EA, and they have a number of legal obligations to check before they can grant the permit - the days of "because the minister said so" are waning.

 

[westcoaster]

Strange question to ask, but given its been closed for a long time, when/if it reopens, will crews have to relearn?

It depends on a multitude of factors.
Do crews taxi across to the other side, to operate at the other end. And if so how often is this done once a week, once every two weeks.

 

[The exile]

I suspect the legislation puts the power in the hands of the EA, and they have a number of legal obligations to check before they can grant the permit - the days of "because the minister said so" are waning.

Indeed - we should be thankful that no one in our government can rule by presidential decree (at least not officially).

 

[185143]

It depends on a multitude of factors.
Do crews taxi across to the other side, to operate at the other end. And if so how often is this done once a week, once every two weeks.

Surely once it's been the specific period, which I believe is generally 6 months, crew will have to re-sign the route.

Even if they've had taxis to the other side, that won't cover them for the tunnel.

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect the legislation puts the power in the hands of the EA, and they have a number of legal obligations to check before they can grant the permit - the days of "because the minister said so" are waning.

One would have thought that it would be for the EA to sort out its leaky water problem, rather than holding up the travelling public.

 

[35B]

One would have thought that it would be for the EA to sort out its leaky water problem, rather than holding up the travelling public.

The EA have a number of legal duties, none of which concern the ability of the travelling public to go about their business. And, bluntly, where this tunnel is concerned, I suspect those duties are of greater public interest than the disrupted journeys.