Penrith to Keswick

[Altnabreac]

Interesting that the BCR is out by less than I expected.

As for development along the corridor, development at the Keswick end would be tricky. At Threlkeld / Troutbeck it'd be reasonably straightforward and at the Penrith end fairly easy, although obviously that depends on the amount of development. Are you thinking hundreds / thousands / tens of thousands of new houses?

Based on my experience developing new station schemes you'd be looking at around 1000 houses for a new station and 5000 for a short new line.

That is a minimum to help the business case, not enough to fully fund a scheme.

 

[Bald Rick]

Based on my experience developing new station schemes you'd be looking at around 1000 houses for a new station and 5000 for a short new line.

That is a minimum to help the business case, not enough to fully fund a scheme.

I'd agree with that, although it doesn't all have to be houses. If there was some industrial development that attracted lots of jobs, you could trade roughly 1 job per house.

Also the new development would have to be along the new line, and not at the end already rail connected.

 

[sheeldz]

As far as I can tell from the consultation materials from the power station sponsor, the only rail infrastructure improvements will be limited to an upgrade at Corkickle where there will be an second platform, St Bees where the passing loop will be extended, a link into the power station site (possibly along the trackbed of the old line to Egremont [my conjecture]), and a new station for the power station itself.
I don't know why they'd need to reopen the CKP railway for the power station!

Just to add to this, there is also a new "temporary" station planned at the Mirehouse site where the larger of the new housing and a link to the Westlakes Science Park.

 

[cyclebytrain]

Also the new development would have to be along the new line, and not at the end already rail connected.

That's the fundamental problem as I see it, the profitable place to do any development is at the Penrith end rather than the Keswick end (i.e. Outside the park rather than inside).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd agree with that, although it doesn't all have to be houses. If there was some industrial development that attracted lots of jobs, you could trade roughly 1 job per house.

Also the new development would have to be along the new line, and not at the end already rail connected.

Why would it have to be at that end of the line?

Thinking through a bit more, I can see two possible reasons for wanting development: To provide more people who might use the line, and to get some money towards building it (by making contributing to it part of the planning conditions for building the development). I'm not sure which of those reasons you're thinking of, but either way I'm struggling to see what difference being at the non-rail-connected end would make?

 

[cyclebytrain]

My interpretation was that building new houses and/or industry at the unconnected end of the line would create users as would building houses at one end and industry at the other end, whereas building both at the end where there's already a railway wouldn't create any users.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My interpretation was that building new houses and/or industry at the unconnected end of the line would create users as would building houses at one end and industry at the other end, whereas building both at the end where there's already a railway wouldn't create any users.

That would only be true if *no one* who moved into the (hypothetical) new houses at Penrith ever wanted to travel to Keswick! That seems somewhat implausible.

Indeed, I would think you could put a case for saying that, building houses at Penrith might generate *more* rail users than building those houses in Keswick, because the new people moving into Penrith would have more possible destinations reachable directly by rail, and so are likely to use the train for more journeys. Of course the catch is that many of those extra rail journeys would be on existing lines rather than the new line.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why would it have to be at that end of the line?

Thinking through a bit more, I can see two possible reasons for wanting development: To provide more people who might use the line, and to get some money towards building it (by making contributing to it part of the planning conditions for building the development). I'm not sure which of those reasons you're thinking of, but either way I'm struggling to see what difference being at the non-rail-connected end would make?

Because if it's at the rail connected end (Penrith in this case) people can already get there by train...

 

[edwin_m]

Any housing or other development that's far enough from Penrith to be a worthwhile rail journey would be in the National Park, who would not permit it. So I think that source of passengers is ruled out.

Reading what has been put here (I have no other knowledge of the scheme) it seems to me they should be looking at a WHR-style heritage operation, whether standard or narrow gauge, rather than an extension of the national network.

 

[BigCj34]

Their intention is to build it themselves from private funding, not that the CKP would shun Network Rail funding if it arose. However they also want it to be a line that's practical for tourists and commuters, so they'd presumably be aiming to have daily services even through the winter.

 

[Altnabreac]

That would only be true if *no one* who moved into the (hypothetical) new houses at Penrith ever wanted to travel to Keswick! That seems somewhat implausible.

Indeed, I would think you could put a case for saying that, building houses at Penrith might generate *more* rail users than building those houses in Keswick, because the new people moving into Penrith would have more possible destinations reachable directly by rail, and so are likely to use the train for more journeys. Of course the catch is that many of those extra rail journeys would be on existing lines rather than the new line.

But if you're a housing developer in Penrith you won't want to pay for a new line that doesn't benefit your purchasers.

Keswick is not going to generrate that sort of demand.

You could probably sell 5,000 houses at Threlkeld. I'd love to be at the National Park meeting where it was proposed

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Their intention is to build it themselves from private funding, not that the CKP would shun Network Rail funding if it arose. However they also want it to be a line that's practical for tourists and commuters, so they'd presumably be aiming to have daily services even through the winter.

I think talking to NR (and DfT) might be a reasonable idea otherwise the best they can home for is a shuttle terminating at Penrith. In it's own bay. Paths on this section between Carnforth to Carlisle are going to get even scarcer, unless CKP can source a tilting 125mph DMU...

 

[Mark62]

Cumbria County Council have little interest in supporting public transport. They have decimated rural bus services by withdrawing public subsidy for socially necessary services. Many areas are now completely isolated. Only a few weeks ago they continued their appalling and savage cuts by withdrawing subsides on the Carlise to Brampton bus service.
Last summer I was in Alston. This place has gone from having a train service to Haltwhistle and frequent buses to many places to having no rail and virtually no buses whatsoever.
I believe they have refused to support any research into the opening of the Keswick line. They have openly showed their contempt for the rail service to Keswick to be reopened.
This means that without county council support that there is virtually no chance of the line opening again.

 

[JohnB57]

Cumbria County Council have little interest in supporting public transport. They have decimated rural bus services by withdrawing public subsidy for socially necessary services. Many areas are now completely isolated. Only a few weeks ago they continued their appalling and savage cuts by withdrawing subsides on the Carlise to Brampton bus service.
Last summer I was in Alston. This place has gone from having a train service to Haltwhistle and frequent buses to many places to having no rail and virtually no buses whatsoever.
I believe they have refused to support any research into the opening of the Keswick line. They have openly showed their contempt for the rail service to Keswick to be reopened.
This means that without county council support that there is virtually no chance of the line opening again.

I get quite indignant about posts like this as three of my immediate family work within our local council and have to cope on a daily basis with cuts to the services they provide.

If you strip out the histrionics in the above post, what you get to is that Cumbria County Council, in common with virtually every other council throughout the country, has no money. They could be as supportive as you want of schemes such as the Keswick line, but they haven't enough money to demonstrate that support by contributing to research, or even to provide the most basic of expert advice. So, of course, they don't.

"Contempt" is a silly word to use, but you may perceive that that's their attitude if you don't seem to them - your local councillor or whoever - to grasp the reality of the problems they face. They will simply treat it as a waste of their time, which it probably is, I'm afraid. They can't find a few thousand to subsidise basic bus services or to repair well used roads, so a multi-million pound speculative rail re-build scheme is pure fantasy.

You seem to believe that "The Council" is some charitable beneficiary with its own independent means and source of income that you have a right to a share in. It isn't. It's just the organisation funded through local taxation that provides essential services within the defined area. What they spend money on is controlled partly by statute and partly by the councillors voted in democratically, by people like you.

The real world of 2016 is a tough place. Welcome to it.

 

[BigCj34]

There are towns such as Millom which are completely cut off on a Sunday, as the bus service has been withdrawn (it was reported to cost £25 per passenger), although a Sunday rail service is going to be reinstated in 2017. Broughton-in-Furness has maybe 2 buses a day, you'd be better off walking to Foxfield if you need to use public transport.

In Cumbria County Council's eyes, Penrith to Keswick is well served by the bus anyway, so funding a feasibility study for a line that has good transport links isn't high priority. I'd rather see libraries and public toilets stay open to be honest.

 

[yorksrob]

I get quite indignant about posts like this as three of my immediate family work within our local council and have to cope on a daily basis with cuts to the services they provide.

If you strip out the histrionics in the above post, what you get to is that Cumbria County Council, in common with virtually every other council throughout the country, has no money. They could be as supportive as you want of schemes such as the Keswick line, but they haven't enough money to demonstrate that support by contributing to research, or even to provide the most basic of expert advice. So, of course, they don't.

The tragedy is that even when there was money about, the only people who could have improved public transport in England (the Government in London) had no interest in improving public transport. Blair famously had no interest in railways. It's interesting that the devolved Governments started reopening them almost as soon as they were devolved.

 

[edwin_m]

The tragedy is that even when there was money about, the only people who could have improved public transport in England (the Government in London) had no interest in improving public transport. Blair famously had no interest in railways. It's interesting that the devolved Governments started reopening them almost as soon as they were devolved.

Prescott had an interest but didn't achieve much. However the Coalition seemed to be so much in favour of railways that they approved far more electrification schemes than the industry could deliver in the time available.

 

[Lankyline]

Whilst the county council shows no enthusiasm for the reopening, a number of district councils and the national park authority have shown support for the reopening including blocking development plans that have destroyed the trackbed, I think it was a company called Flusco ?
Again, before we get into a debate on council spending, this is a private initiative, not reliant on govt money, but money from commercial sector and individuals.
As for demand, does anyone have up to date tourism figures, ie no of car journeys, visitor numbers etc for the Keswick area, as this is obviously a major factor in the scheme of things

 

[yorksrob]

Prescott had an interest but didn't achieve much. However the Coalition seemed to be so much in favour of railways that they approved far more electrification schemes than the industry could deliver in the time available.

True, but we are still way behind with reopening's, which, as far as I'm concerned should be a priority as they represent new transport opportunities. Arguably if they'd allocated some of the electrification money to reopening's, they could have used a different set of contractors and expertise, rather than overburdening the electrification experts.

 

[IanD]

I get quite indignant about posts like this as three of my immediate family work within our local council and have to cope on a daily basis with cuts to the services they provide.

If you strip out the histrionics in the above post, what you get to is that Cumbria County Council, in common with virtually every other council throughout the country, has no money. They could be as supportive as you want of schemes such as the Keswick line, but they haven't enough money to demonstrate that support by contributing to research, or even to provide the most basic of expert advice. So, of course, they don't.

If their lack of support had been recent then I'd agree but they have been unsupportive from the moment this project was mooted - which was at a time when they had more money.

They weren't amongst the objectors to planning applications that encroached on the line (such as Flusco mentioned below) - that would have been a cheap way to show support for the project.

Whilst the county council shows no enthusiasm for the reopening, a number of district councils and the national park authority have shown support for the reopening including blocking development plans that have destroyed the trackbed, I think it was a company called Flusco ?
Again, before we get into a debate on council spending, this is a private initiative, not reliant on govt money, but money from commercial sector and individuals.

I was under the impression that part of the Flusco development did encroach the trackbed.

 

[HowardGWR]

You seem to believe that "The Council" is some charitable beneficiary with its own independent means and source of income that you have a right to a share in. It isn't. It's just the organisation funded through local taxation that provides essential services within the defined area. What they spend money on is controlled partly by statute and partly by the councillors voted in democratically, by people like you.

The real world of 2016 is a tough place. Welcome to it.

Just as a point of information, County Councils are mainly funded from general taxation. 20 years ago, the local contribution, through council tax, was about 15 - 20%, but Gordon Brown, during his long tenure, got that up to about a third. Some may view the action as a regressive tax measure, especially from a Labour Chancellor, since council tax is not dependent on income, but the value of one's property.

I am merely pointing out that, on another thread, the issue of public transport being a national commitment is being debated. If there were such a commitment to a basic service, then there would be central money to pay for it. But there isn't.

I am surprised that the Cumbrian services are that poor though. I would have thought that, as so often here, Altnabreac has made the points clearly.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

True, but we are still way behind with reopening's, which, as far as I'm concerned should be a priority as they represent new transport opportunities. Arguably if they'd allocated some of the electrification money to reopening's, they could have used a different set of contractors and expertise, rather than overburdening the electrification experts.

The problem with re-openings in England and Wales is there's often not the capacity to make full (or indeed much) use of re-opened lines. The Penrith to Keswick proposal for example could really use some of the precious capacity on the WCML to make proper sense, otherwise it becomes a slightly pointless rural backwater service with a Class 153 merrily pottering about at 30mph and being of interest mainly to Michael Portillo types.

The Dumfries to Stranraer proposal would use precious capacity on the WCML and GSW route too, thinking about it.

Re-openings are all terribly exciting, but from an industry perspective, in many cases, they're firmly putting the cart in front of the horse. You need to bring in additional capacity - re-doubling routes, removing ancient signalling, closing level crossings and adding electrification, which is often the only realistic way of adding through services to somewhere meaningful.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem with re-openings in England and Wales is there's often not the capacity to make full (or indeed much) use of re-opened lines. The Penrith to Keswick proposal for example could really use some of the precious capacity on the WCML to make proper sense, otherwise it becomes a slightly pointless rural backwater service with a Class 153 merrily pottering about at 30mph and being of interest mainly to Michael Portillo types.

The Dumfries to Stranraer proposal would use precious capacity on the WCML and GSW route too, thinking about it.

Re-openings are all terribly exciting, but from an industry perspective, in many cases, they're firmly putting the cart in front of the horse. You need to bring in additional capacity - re-doubling routes, removing ancient signalling, closing level crossings and adding electrification, which is often the only realistic way of adding through services to somewhere meaningful.

Well, I can see the point with some of that, particularly re-doubling. But I do wonder whether the industry is to an extent, behind society in it's thinking. For example, from a passenger point of view, whilst you will get some improvements in speed and capacity from resignalling and electrification, it's not going to capture the public imagination, or represent the step-change in travel opportunities that reopening's would.

I made the point a few years ago about London - Plymouth. Waterloo to Exeter is already recognised as a vital local transport link and back up to the main WoE InterCity route into Paddington, which is driving the understandable calls for re-doubling. Yet the current single track route provides both of these functions, albeit not ideally, but to a large extent already. Surely the priority should be to bring some of that local connectivity and the back-up function to the section of the corridor which doesn't have any alternative route and where vast swathes of the county are currently cut off from effective public transport, by reopening to Plymouth via Okehampton. The benefits to passengers, the operational flexibility of the railway and wider society are of a magnitude greater than re-doubling or electrification for example.

 

[Mordac]

Just as a point of information, County Councils are mainly funded from general taxation. 20 years ago, the local contribution, through council tax, was about 15 - 20%, but Gordon Brown, during his long tenure, got that up to about a third. Some may view the action as a regressive tax measure, especially from a Labour Chancellor, since council tax is not dependent on income, but the value of one's property.

I am merely pointing out that, on another thread, the issue of public transport being a national commitment is being debated. If there were such a commitment to a basic service, then there would be central money to pay for it. But there isn't.

I am surprised that the Cumbrian services are that poor though. I would have thought that, as so often here, Altnabreac has made the points clearly.

The local contribution has increased a lot further in the Coalition and Conservative governments as well. This is both due to Academization removing schools from LA budgets, and Business Rate retention where 50% of business rates are kept locally rather than being redistributed. If you look at the official statistics here, it's up to 46% of local funds and 54% grant income for the 2014-15 fiscal year.

 

[edwin_m]

Well, I can see the point with some of that, particularly re-doubling. But I do wonder whether the industry is to an extent, behind society in it's thinking. For example, from a passenger point of view, whilst you will get some improvements in speed and capacity from resignalling and electrification, it's not going to capture the public imagination, or represent the step-change in travel opportunities that reopening's would.

I made the point a few years ago about London - Plymouth. Waterloo to Exeter is already recognised as a vital local transport link and back up to the main WoE InterCity route into Paddington, which is driving the understandable calls for re-doubling. Yet the current single track route provides both of these functions, albeit not ideally, but to a large extent already. Surely the priority should be to bring some of that local connectivity and the back-up function to the section of the corridor which doesn't have any alternative route and where vast swathes of the county are currently cut off from effective public transport, by reopening to Plymouth via Okehampton. The benefits to passengers, the operational flexibility of the railway and wider society are of a magnitude greater than re-doubling or electrification for example.

It's to resolve this sort of conundrum that we have business cases. The BCR, crude though it sometimes is and qualified by non-monetised benefits, provides a means of prioritising spending where it will deliver most benefit.

And if your priority is to restore effective public transport in rural areas, I suggest it would be far more cost-effective in many cases to subsidise a decent bus service, with good connections and through ticketing at the nearest railhead. In fact if we had a proper integrated transport network then bus service improvements would be the first response to an identified need for a better service, as they are deliverable quickly and at low cost. If the actual patronage of the bus suggested that a rail link would be worthwhile, taking account of patronage growth and other benefits from quicker and more comfortable journeys, then that would be powerful justification to commit to the rail link.

 

[Rail Ranger]

A sizeable chunk of the population would use a train but would not use a bus. This was shown when many of the bus services put on in the wake of Beeching closures carried only a fraction (20-30%) of those who had previously used the rail service. One factor which doesn't help the case for Keswick is its very low population (only 4,821 at the 2011 Census).

 

[HowardGWR]

The local contribution has increased a lot further in the Coalition and Conservative governments as well. This is both due to Academization removing schools from LA budgets, and Business Rate retention where 50% of business rates are kept locally rather than being redistributed. If you look at the official statistics here, it's up to 46% of local funds and 54% grant income for the 2014-15 fiscal year.

Good points, I had forgotten recent developments (I'm out of all that nowadays).

 

[edwin_m]

A sizeable chunk of the population would use a train but would not use a bus. This was shown when many of the bus services put on in the wake of Beeching closures carried only a fraction (20-30%) of those who had previously used the rail service.

There are a number of reasons for that, many of which would go away if we treated trains and buses as a single network with connecting timetables, through tickets, Delay Repay etc.

 

[HowardGWR]

A sizeable chunk of the population would use a train but would not use a bus. This was shown when many of the bus services put on in the wake of Beeching closures carried only a fraction (20-30%) of those who had previously used the rail service. One factor which doesn't help the case for Keswick is its very low population (only 4,821 at the 2011 Census).

Agreed. The case for the sort of doublings and reopenings mentioned by YorksRob is far more impressive and the fact I live in the area he cites must be seen as pure coincidence and unbiased.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have spent some time up in this part of the world this week. I learned a few things.

1) Keswick seems to be doing very well. Most B&Bs, hotels etc seemed to be full or nearly so. The pubs and restaurants were busy. I acknowledge that it is the summer holidays, but Keswick didn't seem to be a town in need of regeneration; certainly not compared to many other towns in the north.

2) I checked a couple of the underbridges In Keswick. The steel superstructure has had it - hardly surprising given half a century of no maintenance. The masonry supports need some work but could probably be reused. They would need detailed examination of course. This indicates that the line is in the state you would expect, and will need some major work to rebuild.

3) the bus service on the corridor is excellent. Hourly bus up the A66 to Penrith. Bang on time, took about 40 minutes. £6.50. Reasonably well used - about half full for the 0855 departure from Keswick (which connects well with a Euston train). About half the punters were for Central Penrith, mostly pensioners. The rest of us went to the station. The bus diverted off the A66 for 3-4 stops and waited time at two of them. The journey could easily be done in 30 minutes non-stop, possibly less.

4) the bus service to Ambleside / Windermere / Kendal is also excellent. Brand new buses with wifi (which didn't work on my iPad) and USB chargers (which no one used), buses more than half full with a half hourly service, and a good number travelling Oxenholme - Windermere - Keswick. I met plenty of walkers on the fells whom were using the bus to get around. So there is clearly not a stigma about bus use in this part of the world.

So, whilst there would clearly be a market for a reopened line, even if it took everyone off the buses (which is unlikely) and then encouraged treble the number of people from other modes or growth, the market would struggle to fill an hourly 3 car DMU.

A more useful, and certainly better value improvement to public transport in the area would be to improve the bus service. Make it half hourly, and a genuine express non-stop from Penrith station to Keswick with a 25-30 minute journey time. In additional running costs, it would be about a quarter of that for providing an hourly train service. A better bus service would also be more convenient for most passengers than a reopened branch line. The interchange between train and bus at Penrith is as easy as train to train, and at Keswick the bus stop(s) is/are much more convenient for most of the town than the station could be. A half hourly bus frequency could offer decent connections at Penrith, that rail would struggle to do with an hourly branch service given the nature of the service on the WCML.

Whilst I would love more railway in this country, they need to have a purpose, and a key selling point that alternatives can't deliver. Given the lack of regeneration potential, the very good alternatives (with potential to be made better for relatively little cash), and the likely high cost of reinstatement, I'm afraid this line has a low chance of happening. Private investors just won't be interested.