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

[GRALISTAIR]

Well I am none the wiser!

 

[The Planner]

Its been put out of use until May 2027 officially, though nothing to stop it opening earlier if some sort of rapid solution is found.

 

[StoneRoad]

I was in Whitehaven last week [to see the Nao Santa Maria replica]
and noticed that the marina water was tolerably clear - but not as good as it was prior to Nov 2022, nor when the "Siltbuster" was running.
Due to the drought the beck is in low flow conditions and so it is not bringing down huge amounts of the dirty water.

 

[Acathater]

I was in Whitehaven last week [to see the Nao Santa Maria replica]
and noticed that the marina water was tolerably clear - but not as good as it was prior to Nov 2022, nor when the "Siltbuster" was running.
Due to the drought the beck is in low flow conditions and so it is not bringing down huge amounts of the dirty water.

So now should be the perfect time to get access and plug it with pumped concrete...

 

[Straus]

So now should be the perfect time to get access and plug it with pumped concrete...

And then it goes where?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2026 ==

Its been put out of use until May 2027 officially, though nothing to stop it opening earlier if some sort of rapid solution is found.

Id put good money on it not being open by May

 

[The Planner]

Id put good money on it not being open by May

Not the only one. The restriction can easily be extended.

 

[StoneRoad]

And then it goes where?
<snip>

One of the serious suggestions was to pump the tunnel drainage & the contaminated water "out to sea" and without treatment.
Which I thought was bizarre, as the Marina were not allowed to use the tides to flush out the mucky stuff from the harbour.

 

[Acathater]

And then it goes where?

Wherever it went before without being noticed

 

[yorksrob]

We could do with the Environment agency and NR coming out with a clear roadmap of how the reopening will be progressed. It all seems a bit wishy washy at the moment.

 

[yoyothehobo]

We could do with the Environment agency and NR coming out with a clear roadmap of how the reopening will be progressed. It all seems a bit wishy washy at the moment.

my guess would be starting with a search for the magic money tree

 

[yorksrob]

my guess would be starting with a search for the magic money tree

If the roadmap is known, pressure can be applied to locate the said tree. It would also help to know if there is any thing else holding it up at the moment.

 

[brad465]

We could do with the Environment agency and NR coming out with a clear roadmap of how the reopening will be progressed. It all seems a bit wishy washy at the moment.

Surely someone must have made an FOI request to either or both agencies at this point looking for this?

 

[yorksrob]

Surely someone must have made an FOI request to either or both agencies at this point looking for this?

Yes. One would have thought the local press might have a go.

 

[eldomtom2]

If the roadmap is known, pressure can be applied to locate the said tree. It would also help to know if there is any thing else holding it up at the moment.

Very well said. Discussions about whether repairs are worth doing can only be conducted once estimates of cost and time required are available.

 

[The Planner]

It will be the argument of who pays.

 

[Straus]

Over 13 months since closure and everything seems to have gone quite quiet.

I'm sure it was a flippant comment, but I did hear someone (who should be in the know) say they'd written off the northern part of the line...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Over 13 months since closure and everything seems to have gone quite quiet.

I'm sure it was a flippant comment, but I did hear someone (who should be in the know) say they'd written off the northern part of the line...

The northern part of the line is relatively busy. It's the middle bit that serves little purpose in passenger terms.

 

[Minnietheminx]

Over 13 months since closure and everything seems to have gone quite quiet.

I'm sure it was a flippant comment, but I did hear someone (who should be in the know) say they'd written off the northern part of the line...

That's all very well, but the northern part of the line is where the passengers are. Aside from Sellafield commuters and tourists, there's not a great deal of passenger traffic between Corkickle and Millom, but unless you want to have separate services either side of a break, it's kind of useful to have a through service available.

Besides, writing off Bransty tunnel doesn't remove the non-transport liabilities. There's the water issue (I doubt the harbour commission will let that go, even if the Environment Agency does) and there's the maintenance of the tunnel itself. Somehow I doubt Whitehaven would be happy if the tunnel beneath the town - or more importantly, the main roads through the town centre - was allowed to fall into disrepair.

Repairing the track bed may be expensive, but at least there's some revenue from doing it. Closing the line under Whitehaven is all cost with no revenue.

 

[HSTEd]

The northern part of the line is relatively busy. It's the middle bit that serves little purpose in passenger terms.

There doesn't seem to be much traffic towards the south from north of Sellafield, most traffic at St Bees etc is towards the North, and if that bit is out because of the tunnel....

On a peripheral note, does anyone know why the route via Egremont (through a town and some sizeable villages) closed whilst the route via Nethertown (through the middle of nowhere!) stayed open? Was it another case of closing infrastructure by "line" rather than assembling the most useful track available?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2026 ==

That's all very well, but the northern part of the line is where the passengers are. Aside from Sellafield commuters and tourists, there's not a great deal of passenger traffic between Corkickle and Millom, but unless you want to have separate services either side of a break, it's kind of useful to have a through service available.

Well we are 13 months in to separate services either side of the break, so it doesn't seem to be entirely unworkable.
You could operate Sellafield (later Millom) to Barrow and Whitehaven to Carlisle as separate branches.

Besides, writing off Bransty tunnel doesn't remove the non-transport liabilities. There's the water issue (I doubt the harbour commission will let that go, even if the Environment Agency does) and there's the maintenance of the tunnel itself. Somehow I doubt Whitehaven would be happy if the tunnel beneath the town - or more importantly, the main roads through the town centre - was allowed to fall into disrepair.

Repairing the track bed may be expensive, but at least there's some revenue from doing it. Closing the line under Whitehaven is all cost with no revenue.

I imagine that if they filled the tunnel with foam concrete, it would be very difficult for anyone to prove huge future liabilities against the railway.

And thats assuming the tunnel is actually in danger of collapse as it is, rather than merely being unusable for heavy trains.

 

[yorksrob]

The northern part of the line is relatively busy. It's the middle bit that serves little purpose in passenger terms.

Even that's not true.

There are plenty of passengers using Millom, Bootle, Sellafield etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even that's not true.

There are plenty of passengers using Millom, Bootle, Sellafield etc.

I wouldn't class Millom as the middle bit. Indeed I can see, if the tunnel is not repaired, this becoming the northern terminus of the southern section once Sellafield is done with transporting flasks and has a lower commuter demand.

 

[The Planner]

Over 13 months since closure and everything seems to have gone quite quiet.

I'm sure it was a flippant comment, but I did hear someone (who should be in the know) say they'd written off the northern part of the line...

Thats incorrect. Wildly.

 

[King Lazy]

I notice the sectional appendix has been updated to show the tunnel out of use until May 2027.

I don’t think in this bodes well. I’ve never seen a portion of a line temporarily closed in the sectional appendix like that unless it is some sparsely used freight line.

I think what has happened is a huge shame. The line used to have 4-hour gaps in the timetable under BR between Millom and Whitehaven. Before the tunnel issue it had a roughly service from roughly 0600-2100. And of course got its Sunday service back for the first time since the 70s.

The current situation south of the tunnel is considerably stripped back from that.

And as the country’s finances get worse I can see this happening elsewhere where money has to be spent.

 

[The Planner]

I notice the sectional appendix has been updated to show the tunnel out of use until May 2027.

I don’t think in this bodes well. I’ve never seen a portion of a line temporarily closed in the sectional appendix like that unless it is some sparsely used freight line.

I think what has happened is a huge shame. The line used to have 4-hour gaps in the timetable under BR between Millom and Whitehaven. Before the tunnel issue it had a roughly service from roughly 0600-2100. And of course got its Sunday service back for the first time since the 70s.

The current situation south of the tunnel is considerably stripped back from that.

And as the country’s finances get worse I can see this happening elsewhere where money has to be spent.

No, all that does is satisfy a regulatory requirement and puts a date on it. Nothing stops it reopening before that if the problem is fixed.

 

[3RDGEN]

Repairing the track bed may be expensive, but at least there's some revenue from doing it. Closing the line under Whitehaven is all cost with no revenue.

Closing Whitehaven - Sellafield/Millom would save maintenance/renewals of route and cut traincrew costs, although you would have to introduce some form of bus transport. Shame the coalmine near Whitehaven was blocked as the cost of the tunnel repairs could of been shared with them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Closing Whitehaven - Sellafield/Millom would save maintenance/renewals of route and cut traincrew costs, although you would have to introduce some form of bus transport.

There already is a parallel bus service which I expect is already nicking numbers from the railway due to the £3 (soon £2) fare and passes. Some locals seem to prefer it as it goes closer to where they are going:

X7 - Ravenglass - Millom or Whitehaven

Stagecoach Cumbria and Lancashire

bustimes.org

Only 4 a day and nothing on a Sunday, but it could be upgraded for a fraction of the cost of the railway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2026 ==

Closing Whitehaven - Sellafield/Millom would save maintenance/renewals of route and cut traincrew costs

It would also simplify the operation somewhat.

A logical pattern would probably be something like extending the Newcastle-Carlisle service to Whitehaven hourly, and the south end being Manchester Airport-Barrow hourly with two-hourly extensions to Millom (with the Windermere hours just starting from Lancaster but otherwise being the same), all Class 195 worked from Barrow depot.

 

[Killingworth]

An occasional Cumbrian Coast heritage special train doesn't attract the same levels of interest seen for the Settle and Carlisle line!

 

[ScottGallagher]

Are there anymore maintenance nasties waiting in the wings between Millom and Corkickle to warrant total closure? If not id have thought the least politically damaging solution is just to continue with the status quo albeit with a more sparse parliamentary service continuing from Millom or Sellafield to Corkickle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are there anymore maintenance nasties waiting in the wings between Millom and Corkickle to warrant total closure? If not id have thought the least politically damaging solution is just to continue with the status quo albeit with a more sparse parliamentary service continuing from Millom or Sellafield to Corkickle.

I'd imagine coastal erosion is a risk, just like it is on the Cambrian (change one letter, get largely the same issues minus the tunnel ).

 

[Starmill]

Network Rail are still on the hook for their portion of the cost of the works, nothing has changed in that regard. It will still be restored to previous layout.

The problem is the rather large number of other stakeholders, including the local authority, coal remediation authority, harbour and other landlords nearby. Some of them will agree and others won't but until it's signed off we don't know. Liability if the problem with the harbour is recurrent is another risk factor as well as the cost of the works.