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

[37069]

What does it say on the sectional?

Network Rail calls it "Whitehaven Tunnel" but locally you would tend to hear it called "Bransty Tunnel" or "Corkickle Tunnel".

 

[Lytham Local]

Took this today - nature is beginning to take over!

I'm sure that other threads have asked, but will 195s be cleared to run on the Cumbrian Coast once it eventually reopens fully?

 

[skyhigh]

I'm sure that other threads have asked, but will 195s be cleared to run on the Cumbrian Coast once it eventually reopens fully?

If they're not currently cleared then they won't be during this work.

 

[37069]

If they're not currently cleared then they won't be during this work.

195s ran over the M&C in April 2024 (as ECS) when the Furness line was blocked after the Grange derailment.

The question is whether they'd be cleared in passenger use over the M&C.

In June 2020, a pair of 195s ran on test from Barrow to Maryport as a proving run to check clearances at platforms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe the issue is a narrow cutting at the top end, not platforms?

 

[waverley47]

I believe the issue is a narrow cutting at the top end, not platforms?

I've never actually been able to get a clear answer on where the gauging issues on the M&C are, so thank you for that. I've heard it variously attributed to platform coping, and the narrow bridge at Dalston, and the disused overbridge in Wigton, but the issue for a long time appeared to be anything with droplights. It's nice to get an answer.

Is it an issue with the six foot, or is it the structures?

 

[37069]

North of Maryport, I was always under the impression the narrow clearances were the bridge at Bullgill and Aspatria tunnel. The droplight restrictions have always been over the Maryport-Carlisle section.

Occasionally "out of gauge" things have been let through on the basis of the opposite line being blocked for the duration.

I think 150s were cleared south of Maryport, but never ran in service. 175s and 185s were cleared Barrow-Millom. I can't remember the northern limit of 158 clearance, but I don't think they ever ran north of Barrow in service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Occasionally "out of gauge" things have been let through on the basis of the opposite line being blocked for the duration.

I think that's what was done to get the 195s through while the other end was closed due to that derailment a while back. In the end there are probably 2 choices - either single the affected sections (as they did for Hastings) or make sure the new units fit. I'd probably expect the latter to be honest, particularly given that the Barrow end is very suitable for bi-modes due to the long electrified section, and having only one type of stock operate the whole thing is a cost-saving simplification.

 

[AndrewE]

I think that's what was done to get the 195s through while the other end was closed due to that derailment a while back. In the end there are probably 2 choices - either single the affected sections (as they did for Hastings) or make sure the new units fit. I'd probably expect the latter to be honest, particularly given that the Barrow end is very suitable for bi-modes due to the long electrified section, and having only one type of stock operate the whole thing is a cost-saving simplification.

Do you mean you would expect "the former?" Surely it would be better to not have to have non-standard stock or to restrict the width of the trains that run elsewhere, but better to single the difficult bits on a lightly-used line?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you mean you would expect "the former?" Surely it would be better to not have to have non-standard stock or to restrict the width of the trains that run elsewhere, but better to single the difficult bits on a lightly-used line?

No, I mean I suspect they will make sure that it's part of the spec for their new trains to be cleared for their entire network rather than having to make expensive and timetable-limiting modifications to bits of it. It's not a Marston Vale like issue, it's a clearance issue that relates I think to throw at the ends of non-tapered 24m bodies (the CAF units are very rare in UK terms in being square at the ends), nor is it anywhere near as extreme as the issue at Hastings that resulted in those very specific, very narrow units until someone decided singling it was simpler.

 

[AndrewE]

No, I mean I suspect they will make sure that it's part of the spec for their new trains to be cleared for their entire network rather than having to make expensive and timetable-limiting modifications to bits of it. It's not a Marston Vale like issue, it's a clearance issue that relates I think to throw at the ends of non-tapered 24m bodies (the CAF units are very rare in UK terms in being square at the ends), nor is it anywhere near as extreme as the issue at Hastings that resulted in those very specific, very narrow units until someone decided singling it was simpler.

I thought it was a body-width thing, with the near-certainty of taking off any head out of a window at a couple of bridges. Hence I had imagined that narrow stock would be needed, a la Hastings line.

I'm glad you think that they wouldn't make "expensive and timetable-limiting modifications to bits" of the network now, hopefully singling lines to save money is off the table for good, maybe the lesson of Crewe to Alsager has been learnt!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hence I had imagined that narrow stock would be needed, a la Hastings line.

It's tighter than most lines, but 153s and 156s fit and they aren't unduly narrow.

 

[themiller]

They’ve run end-to-end on the down line but not the up line. The northernmost limit for the up line would be Whitehaven Bransty station. I don’t think that they’ve come south from Carlisle. However, they’ve only run north to Corkickle in passenger service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Under modern technology available, how can the lining of the tunnel be reinstated to a secure state?

 

[Acathater]

Under modern technology available, how can the lining of the tunnel be reinstated to a secure state?

I don't think the lining is the problem, seems more to be the voids and caverns under the trackbed.
If there is a lining problem then I guess they have a choice of either drilling and grouting, or else spraycreting - but either may reduce clearances even further. I guess filling the tunnel with concrete and redrilling it is a theoretical option, but hardly affordable

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I guess filling the tunnel with concrete and redrilling it is a theoretical option, but hardly affordable

They took that course of action at Farnworth.

 

[Acathater]

They took that course of action at Farnworth.

On that busy line on a major route into Manchester it was probably cost effective - or at least justifiable.
It won't be on a thinly used line in a remote part of the country

 

[AndrewE]

They took that course of action at Farnworth.

...on a main line between Manchester and the WCML/Preston. This is a different kettle of fish. We should be grateful they look to be repairing and reinstating it at all.. Maybe it will be funded by the derelict mines body, in which case, I say Go for it!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

ShotCrete

 

[yorksrob]

...on a main line between Manchester and the WCML/Preston. This is a different kettle of fish. We should be grateful they look to be repairing and reinstating it at all.. Maybe it will be funded by the derelict mines body, in which case, I say Go for it!

Not really. We shouldn't take it as a given that central Government has the right to let local and regional infrastructure crumble.

You're just inviting them to shut what they like.

 

[zwk500]

Not really. We shouldn't take it as a given that central Government has the right to let local and regional infrastructure crumble.

You're just inviting them to shut what they like.

Government must balance the duty to regions to provide them with sufficient infrastructure for their socio-economic development with their duty to the country as a whole not to plug the mineshaft with banknotes.

In the same way it isn't reasonable to let government shut what they like without regard for local impacts, it's also equally as unreasonable to demand the government pays to provide whatever infrastructure locals want, regardless of cost to the country.

 

[InOban]

Money spent reopening Bransty tunnel is money which can't be spent elsewhere to much greater benefit, possibly even locally.
In this case, however, the mine drainage has to be sorted because it is polluting the harbour.

 

[yorksrob]

Government must balance the duty to regions to provide them with sufficient infrastructure for their socio-economic development with their duty to the country as a whole not to plug the mineshaft with banknotes.

In the same way it isn't reasonable to let government shut what they like without regard for local impacts, it's also equally as unreasonable to demand the government pays to provide whatever infrastructure locals want, regardless of cost to the country.

But its reasonable to say that the infrastructure we're left with is there for a reason, therefore it's unreasonable to close it on the basis of a repair job.

 

[35B]

But its reasonable to say that the infrastructure we're left with is there for a reason, therefore it's unreasonable to close it on the basis of a repair job.

Your use of "reasonable" is carrying a hell of a lot of weight, as is the word "repair".

The infrastructure was left there for a reason, which is of reduced importance. The significance of that reason is also closely linked to the cost of those repairs, and the value that the infrastructure provides.

Taking an extreme example of this equation, I give you the Solway Viaduct, closed back in 1921. It was built for a reason, used for a time, but became redundant because the need for the route it provided fell away while the cost of maintaining it became disproportionate. While I the circumstances of Bransty Tunnel are different, and much of the cost will be required regardless of whether it reopens due to the pollution, the same equation still applies.

 

[yoyothehobo]

But its reasonable to say that the infrastructure we're left with is there for a reason, therefore it's unreasonable to close it on the basis of a repair job.

Just depends on the cost, the railway is going to have to make some very tough choices in the coming years.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Taking an extreme example of this equation, I give you the Solway Viaduct, closed back in 1921. It was built for a reason, used for a time, but became redundant because the need for the route it provided fell away while the cost of maintaining it became disproportionate

Solway Viaduct was always in danger of being affected by the natural matter of floating ice sheets

 

[stuartn]

They’ve run end-to-end on the down line but not the up line.

Traditionally, since Whitehaven (Bransty) station was singled (when Platforms 3 and 4 were closed) the through platform has been regarded as the Up and Down main. From Carlisle to Whitehaven (in that direction) is regarded as down, and from Whitehaven to Barrow (in that direction) as Up, due to the original companies who built the line.
So the ECS 195's after the Grange incident came down from Barrow to Whitehaven then up from Whitehaven to Carlisle.

Maybe it will be funded by the derelict mines body,

The £60 million funding is from Central Government, but no one has explained what will happen if the project cost over-runs.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Traditionally, since Whitehaven (Bransty) station was singled (when Platforms 3 and 4 were closed) the through platform has been regarded as the Up and Down main. From Carlisle to Whitehaven (in that direction) is regarded as down, and from Whitehaven to Barrow (in that direction) as Up, due to the original companies who built the line.
So the ECS 195's after the Grange incident came down from Barrow to Whitehaven then up from Whitehaven to Carlisle.


The £60 million funding is from Central Government, but no one has explained what will happen if the project cost over-runs.

Excavate the magic money pit beneath the tunnel....

 

[35B]

Solway Viaduct was always in danger of being affected by the natural matter of floating ice sheets

Indeed - one of several reasons why I referred to it as an extreme example. But I also did so because the traffic that justified building the line* no longer justified keeping it going by the 1920s.

* - It's possibly debateable whether the traffic ever did justify construction, but that takes us into a different can of worms

 

[mcmad]

But its reasonable to say that the infrastructure we're left with is there for a reason, therefore it's unreasonable to close it on the basis of a repair job.

It is reasonable to say that it was left for a reason at that time, but that time was several decades ago so it would also be reasonable to reassess the need, particularly against a significant repair cost.