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

[vic-rijrode]

...because the traffic that justified building the line* no longer justified keeping it going by the 1920s...

The only regular traffic over the Solway Viaduct towards the end was Scotsmen walking over on a Sunday to the local pubs in Bowness-on-Solway as the pubs back in their homeland were closed.

Sadly this did not justify retention of the structure or line.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

On the contrary, passenger growth on the Cumbrian coast line has only grown since the days when local lines were routinely closed, so the main reason the line has remained, has increased in importance.

Yes, Sellafield may see less nuclear traffic, however for as long as the United Kingdom retains a nuclear industry, Sellafield will remain involved in it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 09:23 ==

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

The industry and Government will undoubtedly be trying to force us in wrong directions. NR have said as much.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 09:47 ==

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.

Going back to my previous point, the line would have been served by a few sparse DMU's. It now has a regular service, including on Sundays.

 

[35B]

On the contrary, passenger growth on the Cumbrian coast line has only grown since the days when local lines were routinely closed, so the main reason the line has remained, has increased in importance.

Yes, Sellafield may see less nuclear traffic, however for as long as the United Kingdom retains a nuclear industry, Sellafield will remain involved in it.

That is your consistent assertion for the requirement for the line to remain open. It is also a qualitative answer to the question of the value of doing these repairs, based on a point of principle that no railway should be closed.

My observation is that this qualitative answer is not enough, and (like @zwk500) I consider that it is also necessary to consider both the cost and benefit of doing that work rather than relying solely on what happened before I (at least) was born. And when it comes to that, one unfortunate reality for those like me who also wish the line to remain open is that Sellafield has managed perfectly well without access from the north for some time now, demonstrating that the through line is not essential.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My observation is that this qualitative answer is not enough, and (like @zwk500) I consider that it is also necessary to consider both the cost and benefit of doing that work rather than relying solely on what happened before I (at least) was born. And when it comes to that, one unfortunate reality for those like me who also wish the line to remain open is that Sellafield has managed perfectly well without access from the north for some time now, demonstrating that the through line is not essential.

I think the fact that the main cost isn't putting the track back in, but rather the work that will need doing whether the tunnel is open or closed, will mean the railway is saved in this case. I do agree that there are limits, though, and if it was simply a tunnel collapse without any other factors it might well close.

 

[35B]

I think the fact that the main cost isn't putting the track back in, but rather the work that will need doing whether the tunnel is open or closed, will mean the railway is saved in this case. I do agree that there are limits, though, and if it was simply a tunnel collapse without any other factors it might well close.

That's also my suspicion.

 

[stuartn]

I don't believe that we have seen a breakdown of the £60 million cost, to know how much is filling in the void under the tracks, and how much is the polluted water. Indeed there is a continued lack of clarity as to where the polluted water is actually originating from. Ultimately that water will still flow from wherever it is originating from, so has to be diverted long term. That diversion could be achieved without the tunnel being re-opened. If it is not diverted then we will be back in the same scenario in a few years time of water undermining the track (polluted or clean water).
It is striking how a significant part of the commuter traffic to Sellafield has melted away in spite of the special Rail Replacement Buses all the way to Sellafield which are being provided.

Traffic which is now going by road (private car or the Stagecoach works buses). With what will become a nearly 3 year closure that traffic is not going to return to the railway. But even before closure the peak commuter traffic was down, partly due to changing shift patterns, and partly down to long term unreliability arising from the latent disputes leading to far too many short notice cancellations.

Personally I have changed how I do journeys, using Corkickle far more than I used to or need to, specifically to count in the statistics for bus use, in case the shuttle bus service is deemed to be underused, and ultimately cancelled.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the fact that the main cost isn't putting the track back in, but rather the work that will need doing whether the tunnel is open or closed, will mean the railway is saved in this case. I do agree that there are limits, though, and if it was simply a tunnel collapse without any other factors it might well close.

Surely an ordinary tunnel collapse would be easier to rectify in the first place !

People on this forum do really seem to want to take us back to the days when railway management had carte blanche to rin down services as they saw fit then claim "ooh sorry, it will cost too much to repair - what a pity"..

See Ribblehead, Uckfield etc...

 

[3RDGEN]

Ultimately that water will still flow from wherever it is originating from, so has to be diverted long term. That diversion could be achieved without the tunnel being re-opened. If it is not diverted then we will be back in the same scenario in a few years time of water undermining the track (polluted or clean water).

No breakdown of the costs but from reporting of the work it's mentioned the water is going to be treated before it gets to the harbour area so it sounds like they know they can't stop the flow hence will capture it, treat it and then allow the water into the harbour.

"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmy0z5lpkej5o" - "Network Rail said it had "firm proposals" and £60m government funding to open Bransty tunnel on the Cumbrian Coast Line and treat discoloured water flowing from it into Whitehaven's Queen's Dock. Local MP Josh MacAlister said plans included a permanent water filter and work to fill the old mine workings under the track.......

Network Rail said a solution had been found after "many months of detailed design and complex modelling" with the Mining Remediation Authority and the Environment Agency. It had "firm proposals and funding for a dual solution to get both the railway reopened and tunnel water treated before it enters the harbour", North West and Central director Christian Irwin said."

So once complete there will be an ongoing cost of running the treatment plant on top of the £60million works.

 

[yorksrob]

So once complete there will be an ongoing cost of running the treatment plant on top of the £60million works.

Is that not something they'd have to deal with anyway, railway or no railway ?

 

[zwk500]

Surely an ordinary tunnel collapse would be easier to rectify in the first place !

Depends what caused it and why. If the tunnel is going to continue collapsing, then it will be very difficult to rectify. See Penmanshiel (RIP to the 2 works, Gordon Turnbull and Peter Fowler, who are still in there).

People on this forum do really seem to want to take us back to the days when railway management had carte blanche to rin down services as they saw fit then claim "ooh sorry, it will cost too much to repair - what a pity"..

See Ribblehead, Uckfield etc...

Not to burst your bubble, but in the example of Ribblehead it was (local) railway management that was instrumental in keeping the line at all, and BR applied to Parliament (so presumably reasonably senior management approved) for funding to keep Uckfield open via Hamsey.

In this specific example, the value of Bransty tunnel is in providing connectivity from Barrow to north of Whitehaven along the coast. There will be a limit to the money worth spending on maintaining that connectivity by rail.
If the tunnel was impossible to repair, the likely outcome would be to continue to operate from Barrow to Corkickle, likely extending the existing services that terminate at Barrow.

 

[yorksrob]

So once complete there will be an ongoing cost of running the treatment plant on top of the £60million works.

Is that not something they'd have to deal with anyway,

Depends what caused it and why. If the tunnel is going to continue collapsing, then it will be very difficult to rectify. See Penmanshiel (RIP to the 2 works, Gordon Turnbull and Peter Fowler, who are still in there).

Not to burst your bubble, but in the example of Ribblehead it was (local) railway management that was instrumental in keeping the line at all, and BR applied to Parliament (so presumably reasonably senior management approved) for funding to keep Uckfield open via Hamsey.

No bubble here - it's well documented that BR "overestimated" the cost of refurbishing Ribblehead viaduct when they were trying to close the line, similarly the supposed irreperability of the viaduct in Uckfield was a contributary factor in the closure.

I'm not sure how realistic the proposal reopening via Hamsey would have been, but given the outlook at the time for new track, one wonders.

 

[zwk500]

No bubble here ... similarly the supposed irreperability of the viaduct in Uckfield was a contributary factor in the closure.

The viaduct was on the section they tried to retain, so clear wasn't felt to be impossible.

I'm not sure how realistic the proposal reopening via Hamsey would have been, but given the outlook at the time for new track, one wonders.

Well it was realistic enough to petition parliament for it. Your ire should not be directed at "the railway", but at "the politicians", at least in this instance. And politicians are ultimately doing what they think will keep them in their seats at the next election, which means they think what they are doing is at the very least acceptable to enough of their constituents.

 

[yorksrob]

The viaduct was on the section they tried to retain, so clear wasn't felt to be impossible.

Well it was realistic enough to petition parliament for it. Your ire should not be directed at "the railway", but at "the politicians", at least in this instance. And politicians are ultimately doing what they think will keep them in their seats at the next election, which means they think what they are doing is at the very least acceptable to enough of their constituents.

Why would they try to retain the viaduct if they were petitioning to reinstate Hamsey ? The two were parallel.

There was a single track shuttle between Barcombe Mills and Lewes in the final days, which suggests that if they were that interested in retaining the line, they might have singled it over that section.

 

[35B]

Surely an ordinary tunnel collapse would be easier to rectify in the first place !

People on this forum do really seem to want to take us back to the days when railway management had carte blanche to rin down services as they saw fit then claim "ooh sorry, it will cost too much to repair - what a pity"..

See Ribblehead, Uckfield etc...

No, I don't want carte blanche. But I do consider that there needs to be accountability for expenditure, and that needs to include considering value for money.

So once complete there will be an ongoing cost of running the treatment plant on top of the £60million works.

Is that not something they'd have to deal with anyway, railway or no railway ?

And that's part of the calculation - if the liability remains, then that affects the calculation of value for money.

 

[yorksrob]

No, I don't want carte blanche. But I do consider that there needs to be accountability for expenditure, and that needs to include considering value for money.


And that's part of the calculation - if the liability remains, then that affects the calculation of value for money.

Every time Government smells a saving, it will go too far.

You might not want carte blanche, but that's what you'll get.

 

[ScottGallagher]

How much on average does providing a short coach shuttle like this actually cost per month or now per annum?

 

[3RDGEN]

Is that not something they'd have to deal with anyway,

No, the UK Taxpayer will have to deal with it on top of £60 million for the initial tunnel repairs and water diversion issue, that takes money off other far more deserving projects. Perhaps the answer is to put a £1 "toll" on top of ever ticket sold that uses the tunnel, similar for freight services?

 

[yorksrob]

No, the UK Taxpayer will have to deal with it on top of £60 million for the initial tunnel repairs and water diversion issue, that takes money off other far more deserving projects. Perhaps the answer is to put a £1 "toll" on top of ever ticket sold that uses the tunnel, similar for freight services?

You seem to have an agenda against repairing this tunnel.

Perhaps you can disclose which other infrastructure projects you feel are more deserving than reinstating the Cumbrian coast line ?

 

[stuartn]

How much on average does providing a short coach shuttle like this actually cost per month or now per annum?

Reportedly £2.000 per day. There is one full time coach on an 18 hour day (0500 to 2330), a second stand by coach (which also does a single peak morning extra run to Sellafield)- both hired from KT's of Kendal. Also a third heritage bus (from Workington Transport Heritage Trust for the 0700 extra return service to Corkickle and back). The KT's drivers then have to go to and from home before and after shift. Also the cost of two rail co-ordinators (one at Whitehaven and one at Corkickle).
So the afternoon shift driver who ends his day on the 2148 Millom to Workington then has to drive his own car back to Kendal afterwards.
Thus about £14,000 a week, £50,000 a month, £600,000 a year. + the coordinators costs.

 

[35B]

Every time Government smells a saving, it will go too far.

You might not want carte blanche, but that's what you'll get.

The household model of government budgeting is much derided, but it conveys a truth - there are finite resources, and choices need to be made. Denying that does not alter that reality, and it actively undermines the ability to make a credible case for retaining things that we would both want to see retained.

 

[Towers]

Ar

Reportedly £2.000 per day. There is one full time coach on an 18 hour day (0500 to 2330), a second stand by coach (which also does a single peak morning extra run to Sellafield)- both hired from KT's of Kendal. Also a third heritage bus (from Workington Transport Heritage Trust for the 0700 extra return service to Corkickle and back). The KT's drivers then have to go to and from home before and after shift. Also the cost of two rail co-ordinators (one at Whitehaven and one at Corkickle).
So the afternoon shift driver who ends his day on the 2148 Millom to Workington then has to drive his own car back to Kendal afterwards.
Thus about £14,000 a week, £50,000 a month, £600,000 a year. + the coordinators costs.

Are the heritage trust bods being paid also, I presume so? How are they getting away with a ‘heritage’ vehicle on planned rail replacement duties?! Great news that they’re involved, just curious!

 

[yorksrob]

The household model of government budgeting is much derided, but it conveys a truth - there are finite resources, and choices need to be made. Denying that does not alter that reality, and it actively undermines the ability to make a credible case for retaining things that we would both want to see retained.

Our moth-eaten railway network has already been slashed to the bone.

Anything that gives governments a mandate to close what remains of our network will only blow up in our faces. Don't give those who would further ruin the passenger railway any credence.

 

[stuartn]

Are the heritage trust bods being paid also, I presume so? How are they getting away with a ‘heritage’ vehicle on planned rail replacement duties?! Great news that they’re involved, just curious!

Yes they are being paid. They have an O disc for 6 vehicles last time I looked, several are on permanent 24/7 standby for Northern Rail- to be used anywhere in the North of England from Newcastle to Manchester. Supposedly they can be sent out at 30 minutes notice. It is very valuable income to maintain the wider fleet, and also helps pay for the annual May Day weekend Whitehaven Bus Rally and also provide the local free Boxing Day buses to St Bees and on the Workington Town Service. The vehicles being used are more accessible than the KT's coaches, and are fully PSVAIR compliant, having audible and visual announcements and all the rest of the requirements. When the line was fully open it was not unusual to get a Heritage Trust vehicle out replacing the 1909 Carlisle to Preston (last of the night south of Whitehaven) when it was cancelled at short notice, due to a shortage of crew. An epic run on a service bus, due into Preston well after 0100 if it had to set down at every station on the Furness line. In practice it probably never had to run beyond Barrow.

 

[3RDGEN]

You seem to have an agenda against repairing this tunnel.

Perhaps you can disclose which other infrastructure projects you feel are more deserving than reinstating the Cumbrian coast line ?

The third track works at the north end of York station for one, believe they were quoted around a similar price before being stopped at a very late stage. £60 million would be a decent part contribution to the next stage of works on the Dawlish coastal route which again have been "paused", work that protects the only rail link to Plymouth and Cornwall. Both of those would benefit far more passengers than Bransty Tunnel works.

Perhaps you would like to disclose why you think keeping Whitehaven - Sellafield / Millom is deserving of £60million?

 

[yoyothehobo]

The third track works at the north end of York station for one, believe they were quoted around a similar price before being stopped at a very late stage. £60 million would be a decent part contribution to the next stage of works on the Dawlish coastal route which again have been "paused", work that protects the only rail link to Plymouth and Cornwall. Both of those would benefit far more passengers than Bransty Tunnel works.

Perhaps you would like to disclose why you think keeping Whitehaven - Sellafield / Millom is deserving of £60million?

My big fear is that 60 million is only for one part of the cumbrian coast. There are multiple other high risk areas.

Money in the future will need to be spent on the Folkestone Warren issue, york third line would benefit a lot more people than this.

There are at least 60 earthworks and drainage sites alone across the network where throwing £1,000,000 at them would greatly increase network resiliency and performance.

Browney curve alone cost £33 million to fix for the ECML.

We would all love the railway to have infinite budget, but we all have to also live in the real world and make hard choices with the funding given to the railway. Most other countries would likely permanently close the railway (Japan certainly would).

 

[yorksrob]

The third track works at the north end of York station for one, believe they were quoted around a similar price before being stopped at a very late stage. £60 million would be a decent part contribution to the next stage of works on the Dawlish coastal route which again have been "paused", work that protects the only rail link to Plymouth and Cornwall. Both of those would benefit far more passengers than Bransty Tunnel works.

Perhaps you would like to disclose why you think keeping Whitehaven - Sellafield / Millom is deserving of £60million?

The third track North of York is a nice to have, but realistically services already go North of York and carry thousands of passengers. Do you really think permanently disrupting the one train service through one of the more remote, deprived areas of the country is worth the sacrifice ?

If you do, your priorities are wrong.

The route to Cornwall is also deserving, admittedly but it's fixing a similar issue - ensuring the transport link remains to the remoter areas of the country.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Saturday at 09:18 ==

My big fear is that 60 million is only for one part of the cumbrian coast. There are multiple other high risk areas.

Money in the future will need to be spent on the Folkestone Warren issue, york third line would benefit a lot more people than this.

There are at least 60 earthworks and drainage sites alone across the network where throwing £1,000,000 at them would greatly increase network resiliency and performance.

Browney curve alone cost £33 million to fix for the ECML.

We would all love the railway to have infinite budget, but we all have to also live in the real world and make hard choices with the funding given to the railway. Most other countries would likely permanently close the railway (Japan certainly would).

Japan is busy closing lines with no passengers. That is not the case with Cumbria.

 

[EYFanatic]

Japan is busy closing lines with no passengers. That is not the case with Cumbria.

The difference between here and Japan is that lines can often be purchased from the "big" companies by local businesses and local councils and operated on a shoestring budget because the locals need the service

 

[Killingworth]

Once severed the price of reinstatement of the Cumbrian coast route would rise. It's a potentially important strategic connection. Two stubs would be increasingly threatened.

I've only travelled from Lancaster via Barrow to Carlisle once but can appreciate how much it must cost to maintain that exposed section with relatively little traffic to pay for it. The market for heritage round trips to Carlisle via Settle & Carlisle and Cumbrian Coast might add a very little. West Cumbria is an under appreciated tourism destination generally.

However weighing apples against pears by comparing the 3rd track north of York rather underlines a point. Once tracks are lost it's very hard to get them put back even when the land they were on is still in railway ownership. Too often the land has been sold off or obstructed by later development. Fortunately the wheels are in motion to achieve reinstatement here.

However I can't help noticing the monitoring devices planted on many embankments around the country. Network Rail has many potential points of failure to consider on its Victorian era infrastructure. Each one will have an eventual funding liability claiming priority!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Another coastal rail link from Scarborough to Whitby fell by the wayside in past days.

 

[35B]

The third track North of York is a nice to have, but realistically services already go North of York and carry thousands of passengers. Do you really think permanently disrupting the one train service through one of the more remote, deprived areas of the country is worth the sacrifice ?

If you do, your priorities are wrong.

Why? More specifically, what is the calculation that makes the journeys of a relatively few in one place so much more valuable than those of many more elsewhere?